My Problem With Biblical Literalism [Archive]

crashhelmet

03-22-2011, 03:31 AM

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The issue here is when Paul wrote this verse, he used the term "arsenokoite." It literally means "Man Bed" or something like that. Some translations of the Bible, like the NIV that I quoted from, have translated it as "homosexual offenders." But it's up for debate as others say it's male prostitution, and others say it's premarital sex of any kind.

However, the next verse (1COR 6:11) goes on to say:
"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Which means that regardless of your sins, you can still goto heaven if you're a Christian. If you're gay, you can still goto heaven if you're a Christian.

Romans 1:26-27 mentions Homosexuality as well, but if you read the verses before and after, it's talking about people that choose not to believe and choose to sin. It says that God will leave these people to live that lifestyle.

Romans1:32 says:
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The death mentioned here is the same death that's referred to in John 3:16, meaning that when they die they won't have "Everlasting Life."

***Addition....
I wanted to go back and add here that these two verses in the New Testament merely list homosexual intercourse as a sin, no different than the others listed with it. They do not carry with them the "punishable by death" stipulations that Leviticus did.

Ghel

03-23-2011, 02:05 PM

Radiocerk, anybody who argues that Leviticus still applies is being stupid anyway. Christ came to fulfill the law and gave plenty of examples and instructions about what essentially superseded the laws. Such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Leviticus was about how the Israelites would be able to survive. Yeah, it's harsh, but it was a harsh time and a new nation. Taken in that context, you can understand it, but Christ gave different instructions. That's what Christians are supposed to use.
Yes, but Jesus also said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5:18-19] As always, the Bible is a Big Book of Multiple Choice - you can find a passage to support almost any viewpoint. After lack of external support, internal inconsistency is the biggest problem with Biblical literalism.

Kheldarson

03-24-2011, 04:18 AM

Greenday

03-24-2011, 07:11 AM

My feelings on the Bible are this: some stories are true to provide a timeline of the religion. Other stories are fabricated to fill in empty times and to help also provides morals. When it was written, it was written based on how people felt at the time and at the time, stuff like adultry and homosexuality were WRONG. Now, most of us realize they aren't wrong and we know not to take the fabricated stories so seriously. There are just some people that cannot understand this and take things too far.

Despite almost never going to church save once or twice a year, our minister was awesome. First time I heard her, she was talking about how "We all know that these stories aren't all real." I actually don't mind listening to her sermons. They aren't long. They aren't boring. They aren't meant for us to fear God or hell. She just picks a story and tries to relate it to today's times and how we can be better people for it. She gives me a quite refreshing look on Christianity.

The Methodist Church, the chilled back branch of Christianity.

Ghel

03-24-2011, 11:51 AM

My feelings on the Bible are this: some stories are true to provide a timeline of the religion. Other stories are fabricated to fill in empty times and to help also provides morals.
How do you tell which are which? What criteria do you use? Do you just trust your minister to tell you the difference? How does she know?

Despite almost never going to church save once or twice a year, our minister was awesome. First time I heard her, she was talking about how "We all know that these stories aren't all real." <snip> She just picks a story and tries to relate it to today's times and how we can be better people for it.
If that's the case for the Bible, why not do the same with the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, or the sutras?

Greenday

03-24-2011, 12:00 PM

How do you tell which are which? What criteria do you use? Do you just trust your minister to tell you the difference? How does she know?

If it's something that's generally impossible to happen or just awfully ridiculous, it's probably made up.

If that's the case for the Bible, why not do the same with the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, or the sutras?

Because then it'd be a book club, not a Christian church.

Ghel

03-24-2011, 01:18 PM

If it's something that's generally impossible to happen or just awfully ridiculous, it's probably made up.
Like every miracle that Jesus is said to have performed. Like Jesus' purported resurrection.

Because then it'd be a book club, not a Christian church.
What I was trying to get at is that people draw inspiration from many sources. If many of the stories in the Bible aren't true (and I don't see any reason to think that any of them are true), then why hold it in higher esteem than any other book of myths and fables?

Kheldarson

03-24-2011, 03:56 PM

Ghel, it's obvious that no matter what anyone says, you're going to find fault with it. This is because you're starting at an entirely different world view.

My logic starts with a basis of faith. My faith tells me and informs me that Jesus was truly the Son of God, that he died and rose again, that he died for our sins.

Following from that base, my logic further informs me that because he was the Son of God and came as our Savior, he was able to do things that most people cannot. Such as miracles. Such as curing the sick, raising the dead, healing the blind, the lame, the leper. It further follows that since he rose and ascended into heaven, and has a vested interest in us, it further follows that he can intercede on our behalf.

Logic also tells me that things written from the earliest of times are passed down by oral tradition and should be slightly suspect. Doesn't mean they didn't necessarily happen the way it was written, but it doesn't follow that they couldn't have happened that way either. That's faith.

I realize you're going to sit and tear this apart, and that's fine. I'm going to be ignoring your posts from now on, because you're refusing to even accept the possibility of a different starting point. Which is a shame because you keep pointing out the reasons why you should allow it in discussion. Yes, people draw inspiration from many sources. But sometimes a person's faith, their own convictions, determine which they hold as a greater source. I choose to believe in Christ and the teachings in the Bible. Gravekeeper has chosen the path of the Buddha. You've chosen the way of Science. Nothing wrong with any of that. But what is wrong is that in a discussion forum, you've chosen to completely ignore varying starting bases.

radiocerk

03-24-2011, 05:59 PM

But believe in which teachings of the Bible?

I think it is unfair to disregard anyone just because you know they don't agree with you. I generally disagree with Christians (mostly because of that whole telling me I'm going to hell thing), but I will listen to their arguments. You never know, someday they might have a good point.

Ghel

03-24-2011, 10:50 PM

...you're refusing to even accept the possibility of a different starting point.
Why should a different starting point matter when trying to determine the truth? Different fields of study come from vastly different starting points, but their results converge on the same model of the universe.

Religion is the odd man out. Granted, some religions are closer to reality than others, but Christianity, in particular, makes bald assertions about the nature of the universe without anything more to back it up than appeals to authority. When we try to compare Christianity's assertions to what we know from more reliable methods of gaining knowledge, Christianity tends to fail.

My logic starts with a basis of faith.
Ah, but logic that begins with false premises comes to false conclusions. If you cannot show your premises to be true, you cannot show that your conclusions are true.

Ghel, it's obvious that no matter what anyone says, you're going to find fault with it.
I consider that an unfair characterization, but totally irrelevant in any case. This isn't about me. This is about the accuracy of the Bible. How do you know the Bible is accurate about anything? If you have faith, why do you need the Bible? My earlier question also remains: assuming you don't believe the Bible to be 100% accurate, how do you determine which portions are correct and which portions are incorrect? How do you tell whether a passage is true, mostly correct, slightly exaggerated, or false?

If we want to determine how accurate the Bible is, we need to subject it to the same scrutiny as any other document from antiquity. The Bible fails at any number of points, but the most important one to Christianity is that there is not even one contemporary first-hand account of any of the events of Jesus' life. We can't even know for sure if the character of Jesus was based on a real person because, if there was any evidence of such a person, the Church has destroyed it.

Greenday

03-25-2011, 05:29 AM

How do you know the Bible is accurate about anything? If you have faith, why do you need the Bible? My earlier question also remains: assuming you don't believe the Bible to be 100% accurate, how do you determine which portions are correct and which portions are incorrect? How do you tell whether a passage is true, mostly correct, slightly exaggerated, or false?

For 99% of it, does it really matter? If the point of the stories, whether true or false, are to teach the same morals, why does it matter?

Hyena Dandy

03-25-2011, 06:03 AM

This is true, Ghel, and again, I don't support Bible literalism myself. Neither does the Catholic Church. Especially since it's recognized that each book of the Bible was written for a particular audience at a particular time. Matthew writes for the Hebrews, Luke for the Greeks. Are they going to address the same things? Write in the same words? No. That's why context is so important when studying the Bible.

Exactly.

There is a problem which I hear a lot from Evangelicals which bothers me.

"That is what the Bible says and that is what I believe, end of story."

That sounds like a praiseworthy stance, but the problem is no. You don't know what the Bible says.

For one, unless you are a truly impressive polyglot, you do not know what the bible says. You know what your translation of the Bible says. And a lot of those are translations of other translations of what the Bible says.

And even if, somehow, you did speak Hebrew, Greek, and every other language the Bible is in, how could you possibly say without a doubt what the Bible SAYS, you still are not living the life of a Greek, or a Hebrew, or a Roman. You are not an early Christian, so the Bible wasn't written to you. It was written to the Romans, the Greeks, the Hebrews, the Israelites, et al.

It sounds praiseworthy, but it is actually ridiculously prideful.

radiocerk

03-25-2011, 06:06 AM

But which morals are you trying to pull from the book? Many of the lessons of the Bible, especially the Old Testament are violent and genocidal, and several lessons of the New Testament are misogynistic and hateful.

Are you suggesting we throw out everything that is negative and focus on the "positive lessons"? And if so, positive from who's point of view? The Religious Right and modern feminists would have differing opinions on what would constitute positive.

Gravekeeper

03-25-2011, 06:42 AM

My logic starts with a basis of faith. My faith tells me and informs me that Jesus was truly the Son of God, that he died and rose again, that he died for our sins.

Following from that base, my logic further informs me that because he was the Son of God and came as our Savior, he was able to do things that most people cannot.

Logic and faith are two very different beasts that require some tricky training to keep in the cage together. What you speak of is not truly logic. It is faith, sorry. Logic is reason and inference. Drawing correct conclusions from fact. Deduction, if you will. You're speaking of faith. Logic would require the insertion of science and natural law, whether you wished it to be there or not. Whereas Ghel does have a tendency to drift too far in one direction, your statements drift too far in the other.

Logic also tells me that things written from the earliest of times are passed down by oral tradition and should be slightly suspect. Doesn't mean they didn't necessarily happen the way it was written, but it doesn't follow that they couldn't have happened that way either. That's faith.

Exactly. Because logic often times states they couldn't have happened that way. Thus is the problem.

Gravekeeper has chosen the path of the Buddha. You've chosen the way of Science.

<Buddha sentai pose>. Also, Buddha and science are not mutually exclusive and most schools of Buddhism will accept the rule of science should it overturn the rule of Buddha ( There's a bit of a standing "You got something better? Show me the proof and I'll accept it" rule ). Judeo-Christian religions, not so much to be honest.

Greenday

03-25-2011, 06:58 AM

But which morals are you trying to pull from the book? Many of the lessons of the Bible, especially the Old Testament are violent and genocidal, and several lessons of the New Testament are misogynistic and hateful.

The ones that can actually apply to our time and which have morals/lessons that we know are good.

Are you suggesting we throw out everything that is negative and focus on the "positive lessons"? And if so, positive from who's point of view? The Religious Right and modern feminists would have differing opinions on what would constitute positive.

I'm suggesting that we just focus on relevant stories. Stories about helping others, standing up for your beliefs, doing the right thing when no one else will. Not lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc. Things that are commonly good to everyone (who isn't some moron extremist).

radiocerk

03-25-2011, 03:41 PM

So, why not just write a new book, without the outdated stuff? Why cling to this particular collection of Bronze Age myths?

Greenday

03-25-2011, 03:57 PM

So, why not just write a new book, without the outdated stuff? Why cling to this particular collection of Bronze Age myths?

Because they work.

Crazedclerkthe2nd

03-25-2011, 04:40 PM

So, why not just write a new book, without the outdated stuff? Why cling to this particular collection of Bronze Age myths?

Also most Christians would consider such acts blasphemous. There's a scripture (I believe in the Book of Revelation) that states something like: "No man shall ever add to or remove words from the holy book of the Lord."

"writing a new book" as you put it, would, in the minds of many Christians, go against this teaching.

There are many alternative Bible translations out there that do attempt to "update" Christian beliefs for a modern world, but few of these are widely accepted. An example of one that has gained acceptance is the Message, which is far more descriptive than the standard KJV or NIV.

The ones that are not as well accepted do things like make God gender neutral, provide for acceptance of homosexuality and such.

My conflict has always been this:

The Bible states that Man is imperfect and fallible. The words of the Bible were given by God to the men who wrote them, BUT the English bibles are translations of the original scripts. Translated by men, who we know are imperfect and fallible. Therefore how can I 100% trust the current English translations to be the undiluted, accurate word of God as He intended it to be read?

Talon

03-25-2011, 04:58 PM

Following from that base, my logic further informs me that because he was the Son of God and came as our Savior, he was able to do things that most people cannot. Such as miracles. Such as curing the sick, raising the dead, healing the blind, the lame, the leper. It further follows that since he rose and ascended into heaven, and has a vested interest in us, it further follows that he can intercede on our behalf.

Do you claim to find this super-hero-worship productive?

That's exactly what you've made Christ into: a superhero. Superheroes with supernatural powers don't exist, except in comics and fairy tales. If the world is ever to be a better place, it'll be because of the aspirations of ordinary people. Mere flawed mortal men and women, not superheroes.

Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept that Christ did exist, and the rosier writings about him are objectively true, then he was still just a man. Perhaps he was even a great man. But he was not the son of god, not born of a virgin, and not a miracle worker. He was an ordinary man who aspired to extra-ordinary things.

Andara Bledin

03-25-2011, 05:02 PM

Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept that Christ did exist, and the rosier writings about him are objectively true, then he was still just a man. Perhaps he was even a great man. But he was not the son of god, not born of a virgin, and not a miracle worker. He was an ordinary man who aspired to extra-ordinary things.
Christ said he was the son of man and pretty much stated that anyone could do the things he did. I figure the greatest difference between him and the rest of us is that while we believe based on faith, and have our own skepticisms, he knew and thus, just did what we all could if we had enough faith in ourselves.

^-.-^

Ghel

03-25-2011, 09:44 PM

For 99% of it, does it really matter? If the point of the stories, whether true or false, are to teach the same morals, why does it matter?
It matters because the Bible is what the vast majority of Christians point to in support of their claims about Jesus and/or God. If the Bible is wrong about some things, how do you know it isn't wrong about all things? If the Bible is wrong about things we can verify, such as the size, shape, and age of the Earth, then why should we trust it about things we can't, such as the existence of God?

The ones that can actually apply to our time and which have morals/lessons that we know are good.
So you're saying that you know what's good before hand, and thus can judge (using your own brain) which lessons are good. So, again, I have to ask what makes the Bible so special? Why is it any better than a book of Aesop's fables?

There's a bit of a standing "You got something better? Show me the proof and I'll accept it" rule
Hey, that meshes quite well with my philosophy, too.

Also most Christians would consider such acts blasphemous. There's a scripture (I believe in the Book of Revelation) that states something like: "No man shall ever add to or remove words from the holy book of the Lord."
:roll: You must not know your Bible history very well. The Catholic Church has been the biggest editor of the Bible over the course of its history. In 382 CE, the Church gathered up the available manuscripts and picked among them the current cannon. If that's not enough of removing words from the holy book for you, there's also known instances of scribes adding, removing, or modifying words in texts they were transcribing.

The Bible states that Man is imperfect and fallible. The words of the Bible were given by God to the men who wrote them, BUT the English bibles are translations of the original scripts. Translated by men, who we know are imperfect and fallible. Therefore how can I 100% trust the current English translations to be the undiluted, accurate word of God as He intended it to be read?
To be more specific, English Bibles are translations of translations of translations (and there may be a few more iterations in there for some books) of oral tradition told and retold, sometimes over generations before they were written down. That you are doubt the alleged heavenly origins of the Bible is a good sign.

Andara Bledin

03-25-2011, 11:02 PM

:roll: You must not know your Bible history very well. The Catholic Church has been the biggest editor of the Bible over the course of its history.
What "most Christians" may or may not believe (with Catholics making up notably less than half of all Christians, possibly as little as 25%) has no bearing on how well he knows his Bible history.

^-.-^

Crazedclerkthe2nd

03-26-2011, 03:41 AM

What "most Christians" may or may not believe (with Catholics making up notably less than half of all Christians, possibly as little as 25%) has no bearing on how well he knows his Bible history.

^-.-^

Very true.

I did some research and dug up the scripture I was referring to:

Revelation 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

It looks like this particular warning is only in reference to adding or removing words from this particular book of the Bible, BUT I do know many people at my Church who believe the Bible is never to be added to or taken away from.

Gravekeeper

03-26-2011, 04:03 AM

Very true.

I did some research and dug up the scripture I was referring to:

It looks like this particular warning is only in reference to adding or removing words from this particular book of the Bible, BUT I do know many people at my Church who believe the Bible is never to be added to or taken away from.

Revelation 22:18-19 to be specific, and yes its just referencing Revelations. Which is the biggest crack trip in the Bible to begin with, as it was written by some dude having "visions" in a time before we had appropriate medication. Or perhaps he was self medicating to begin with.

Adding it to the New Testament was actually really controversal even at the time. It got glued on as a grand finale so the New Testament would have an awesome ending I guess. ;p

Greenday

03-26-2011, 05:22 AM

It matters because the Bible is what the vast majority of Christians point to in support of their claims about Jesus and/or God. If the Bible is wrong about some things, how do you know it isn't wrong about all things? If the Bible is wrong about things we can verify, such as the size, shape, and age of the Earth, then why should we trust it about things we can't, such as the existence of God?

Being wrong about one thing isn't automatic proof that it's wrong about everything else.

So you're saying that you know what's good before hand, and thus can judge (using your own brain) which lessons are good. So, again, I have to ask what makes the Bible so special? Why is it any better than a book of Aesop's fables?

It's the universal text used by Christians. That's what makes it special. You can't use different stories to unify one religion. That's like saying that it'd make sense to use different textbooks for a specific class nationwide that teach extremely different facts makes sense.

Gravekeeper

03-26-2011, 08:02 AM

Being wrong about one thing isn't automatic proof that it's wrong about everything else.

No, but it is proof it is infalliable and thus cannot be the absolute truth. It makes it subject to reason and logic. Which is where it falls apart from a literal ( and divine ) stand point. The Bible is, like many similar works, a moral teaching tool of stories written by simple human beings based on other morality tales already passed down through generations of oral tradition. Many of which are still relevant, but also many of which are totally irrelevant in the modern world and should not be cited as any sort of fact or truth.

It's the universal text used by Christians. That's what makes it special. You can't use different stories to unify one religion. That's like saying that it'd make sense to use different textbooks for a specific class nationwide that teach extremely different facts makes sense.

The fascinating part about this, is that the Bible itself is not what you could call 100% Christian seeing as many of its tales are lifted from other sources to begin with. Even the story of Jesus's birth is pretty much a whole sale copy of previous stories that date back hundreds of years prior.

Christianity needed to sell itself in a highly competative market back then remember.

Greenday

03-26-2011, 09:16 AM

Gravekeeper

03-26-2011, 10:57 AM

I'm not saying to take the Bible literally word for word. When I entered this conversation, it was being questioned why the Bible is any good at all or whether there is even any truth to it. My point was that there's nothing wrong about the Bible if you don't take every story to be fact. That the majority of the stories can be used to help give people good moral guidance.

There are certainly good lessons in it and they can serve a good purpose. Though I would not look to it as any sort of historical truth. I was more thinking out loud, sorry. The only things I remember from the Bible as I was taught as a child, are the stories that taught morality and they were taught to me as stories. Not as stuff that really happened or stuff I should follow literally.

My first Bible had pictures ( booyah~ ). Sadly no "Jesus riding a Raptor" though. That would have kicked ass. -.-

Greenday

03-26-2011, 11:03 AM

My first Bible had pictures ( booyah~ ). Sadly no "Jesus riding a Raptor" though. That would have kicked ass. -.-

My children's version of the Bible is on my bookshelf back home. No raptors in it either :(

RecoveringKinkoid

03-26-2011, 03:51 PM

It matters because the Bible is what the vast majority of Christians point to in support of their claims about Jesus and/or God.

So why does that matter to you?

You're not a Christian, and that's fine. However, I'm curious to know why, in your opinion, that matters at all?

Rapscallion

03-26-2011, 06:22 PM

I can't speak for Ghel.

For my part, and though I've backed off from it in recent years, I find it very disturbing that people are trying to put forward religious dogma as fact when it can be shown to be ... rather flawed.

Phelps and his gang are pretty much a single-issue set of lunatics, but they're following stuff that's actually in the christian bible.

I don't know how far it's gone, but there are religious elements trying to sieze control of school boards in Texas and thereby being able to dictate what is taught to children in school to further their own agenda. Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history) is one link I found. Another here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html). I've not really kept up with developments there, but when a religious side tries to take over how children are educated (and the ones involved aren't just political, but also religious) then you've got to accept that people with opposing viewpoints are going to want their say as well.

To me, the majority of religious messages are nicely wrapped, but the core involves the whole, "Do what the religious leader tells you or you're going to suffer later, though we can't prove it." It's fear-based mass control. From what I recall, the majority of religions tell the faithful to spread the word and bring others under the same umbrella.

I'd far prefer for people to be able to question the claims put forward to them, to be able to say that the claims are either valid or invalid, and that they either accept the religious claims after they've been proved right, or that they're able to reject them.

Rapscallion

RecoveringKinkoid

03-26-2011, 07:38 PM

Well, being an Episcopalian from an extremely liberal church, we don't follow that mindset. We're very "live and let live. If what we believe is for you, welcome. If not, please find a place you can call home with our blessing."

I feel absolutely no obligation or urge to convert anyone to my way of thinking. So I'm always baffled when other people try and convert me to theirs (theirs being, usually, that I am wrong.) Bottom line is, I really don't care what other people believe, so why do they care what I believe?

If Phelps and his little band of (what, is it even as many as a hundred?) are Christian, as they claim, then they should be following the New Testament and what Jesus said. Which is essentially "be excellent to each other." They evidently missed that part. Nothing they are doing has anything to do with Christianity.

As for various sects trying to take over public works and government, that has less to do with what they believe and more to do with their being allowed to force their own personal agenda onto something that isn't theirs to control. It hardly matters what that agenda may be. What matters is that our laws need to be immune from that kind of attack.

Ghel

03-27-2011, 03:08 PM

So why does that matter to you?

You're not a Christian, and that's fine. However, I'm curious to know why, in your opinion, that matters at all?

Partially, it's what Raps said. Also, at a more fundamental level, I'm interested in knowing the truth about the world I live in. I want to know if the things people tell me really are true, I want to learn a consistent way of figuring out whether the things I'm told are true, and I want to help other people figure out what's true so that they don't get suckered in by lies (whether repeated innocently or knowingly).

See, I have a conversion story, too. (Followed by a deconversion story.) Like several others mentioned on this thread, I had an illustrated children's Bible growing up. When I wasn't reading it, it shared a shelf with Grimm's fairy tales and other books of fairy tales and folk tales. Until I was 12, that's how I viewed it. Then one day, I realized that these stories were (supposed to be) real. I had a paradigm shift. For about 3 years, I was a hardcore believer. Already a geek, I started studying the Bible. I wanted to make sense of what I was reading. But the more I read it, the less sense it made. For a while, I accepted the apologetics that were given to me by my family and church. Then something happened in my personal life that made me realize that God wasn't the all-knowing, all-powerful, prayer-answering being that I was raised to believe he was. I started to question my faith. After about 5 more years of study of the Bible and critiques of the Bible, I finally came to call myself an atheist.

So you see, I feel I was lied to all of my childhood. Some of my family members still lie to me. For example my aunt frequently says things like, "God still loves you, even though you don't know him." I try to be nice about it, especially because her husband's a minister, but trite sayings like that aren't going to convince me. The only thing that will convince me a god exists, at this point, is solid, verifiable evidence. And I wish that other people were skeptical enough to require that kind of evidence, too.

RecoveringKinkoid

03-27-2011, 03:34 PM

Ghel, I'd be interested in knowing what denomination you were in before your conversion, if you don't mind my asking.

Some Christian denominations are perfectly okay with the contradictions and flat out weird things found in the bible because they have a very different view of what the Bible is. Some are not okay with that and have a real hard time not doing exactly what you just described, which frankly, I totally understand.

Ghel

03-27-2011, 04:40 PM

Ghel, I'd be interested in knowing what denomination you were in before your conversion, if you don't mind my asking.

I don't mind at all. I was raised Catholic, but it's not quite that simple. My dad's family was very traditional Catholic. Whenever we visited my paternal grandmother, we went to her church, where mass was still partially in Latin. My mom's family is more liberal - a variety of protestant denominations. The aunt and uncle I referred to above are Lutheran. So there was quite a bit of influence from my mom regarding my religious upbringing.

Both sides of my family tried to explain away contradictions or inconsistencies as "mysteries." I wasn't supposed to understand God's intentions. But that wasn't very satisfying for me. I felt that if I could just research enough, or pray enough, that I would find the answers I wanted. I never did.

HYHYBT

03-28-2011, 01:23 AM

Some of my family members still lie to me. For example my aunt frequently says things like, "God still loves you, even though you don't know him." I try to be nice about it, especially because her husband's a minister, but trite sayings like that aren't going to convince me. The only thing that will convince me a god exists, at this point, is solid, verifiable evidence. And I wish that other people were skeptical enough to require that kind of evidence, too.Unless your aunt knows what she says to be false, then she's NOT lying to you.

Why should other people require the same sort of evidence you do?
But that wasn't very satisfying for me. I felt that if I could just research enough, or pray enough, that I would find the answers I wanted. I never did.That it wasn't satisfying to you does not make it false, nor does it mean it shouldn't satisfy anyone else.

Hyena Dandy

03-28-2011, 05:49 AM

Its not lying. Lying is a conscious act of disinformation. Unless she DOESN'T believe that, and wants to mess with your head, she is not lying. She could be wrong. I do not believe she is. Its not LYING to say something you do not know to be false, and in fact believe to be true. If I believed that the capital of Nevada was Las Vegas, and I told you "The capital of Nevada is Las Vegas," I would not be lying to you. Now if I knew that the capital was Carson City, and I told you the capital was Las Vegas, I would be lying.

And why do you wish other people were skeptical enough to require it? What should it matter to them?

But that wasn't very satisfying for me. I felt that if I could just research enough, or pray enough, that I would find the answers I wanted. I never did.

And maybe she did. Maybe she wanted different answers, or asked different questions. Why should it upset you that people believe something that's not true?

Rapscallion

03-28-2011, 08:37 AM

And why do you wish other people were skeptical enough to require it? What should it matter to them?

And maybe she did. Maybe she wanted different answers, or asked different questions. Why should it upset you that people believe something that's not true?

Once again I cannot speak for Ghel.

Why should it matter to other people? Why should it be upsetting that they believe that which is false to be true?

911.

The crusades.

The inquisition.

The Holocaust.

There are many, many more examples.

Sure, in most cases the background is that there were political motivations involved, but the people who did the deeds in question - whether it be religiously based or racial superiority etc - they're the ones who believed what was said and that's why they did some pretty nasty shit.

There are many lower level examples of nasty shit going on. The evangelists who exhort donations from their congregation, mediums who cold read clients to get them to part with cash, and people such as Uri Geller who use standard illusions to make them appear to be extremely powerful. They take money from people. What else is money other than a measure of a person's time given up to allow an exchange of that time for their benefit?

They're taking other peoples' lives. Partly it's because these people are uninformed and haven't been allowed to think for themselves. Partly it's because they're stupid and not able to think for themselves. There have been people who have had hoaxes explained to them and then they're more than happy to continued believing it at all costs. If that's the case, then fine - as long as it hurts nobody else than I'd accept it. If they've not had the chance, then they're having parts of their lives stolen from them.

Rapscallion

Ghel

03-28-2011, 02:11 PM

Unless your aunt knows what she says to be false, then she's NOT lying to you.
As I mentioned two posts ago, lies can either be repeated innocently or knowingly. But a falsehood repeated innocently is still a falsehood. As Abraham Lincoln once chided the editor of a Springfield, Illinois newspaper, "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him."

Why should other people require the same sort of evidence you do?
That it wasn't satisfying to you does not make it false, nor does it mean it shouldn't satisfy anyone else.
I don't like to see people suffer. As Raps described, some of the greatest suffering in history has been perpetrated because of belief in false doctrines.

That it wasn't satisfying to you does not make it false, nor does it mean it shouldn't satisfy anyone else.
The reasons Christians give me for their belief usually fall into one of three categories: arguments from authority (including the Bible), first cause arguments, or arguments from personal experience. None of those should satisfy anyone.

And why do you wish other people were skeptical enough to require it? What should it matter to them?
People tend to be skeptical in most aspects of their lives. For some reason I can't fathom, they make an exception for their religion. I want to encourage people to eliminate that exception.

And maybe she did. Maybe she wanted different answers, or asked different questions. Why should it upset you that people believe something that's not true?
Perhaps my family did ask different questions - questions that presupposed the answer "goddidit." It's possible that they never asked the questions that led them to doubt their faith, like I did. But what answers they desired shouldn't make a difference. If they're honestly looking for the truth, they would follow where the evidence leads. They wouldn't ignore evidence that conflicted with their preconceived worldview. And it does bother me. I worry that, if my family gets taken in by one type of false beliefs, they might get taken in by others. I've heard of scams where the perp set himself up as one of the in-group, praying with the victims, attending church services, and the victims don't recognize the scam until the perp disappears with their money. I don't want to see that happen to anyone.

Granted, I will be more lenient with family or other people I have to deal with in real life. But in a debate (and I shouldn't have to remind anybody that fratching is a debate board), I expect others to hold to the same standards of evidence that I do. And I expect others to hold me to the same.

Andara Bledin

03-28-2011, 05:18 PM

As I mentioned two posts ago, lies can either be repeated innocently or knowingly. But a falsehood repeated innocently is still a falsehood.
You keep claiming that you don't know, but then you keep making absolute statements as though you had all the facts at hand.

But you don't actually know that what she said was a falsehood. You believe very strongly that it is. She believes, just as strongly, that it isn't. Your position, ultimately, has no more support than her own.

I don't like to see people suffer. As Raps described, some of the greatest suffering in history has been perpetrated because of belief in false doctrines.
In this, religion is merely a scapegoat, a tool. If there was no religion, the atrocities wouldn't stop - it's all just tribalism of varying flavors, and we have plenty of that without religion. To think that religion is the root cause is naive.

People tend to be skeptical in most aspects of their lives. For some reason I can't fathom, they make an exception for their religion. I want to encourage people to eliminate that exception.
I prefer to encourage people to be less judgmental and kinder.

The idea that being a raging skeptic is appropriate for all people is, again, naive.

^-.-^

radiocerk

03-28-2011, 05:41 PM

But in today's society, the two biggest "tribalisms" are nationality and religion. No one gets that worked up over nationality. I've never argued that anyone shouldn't have religion, only that they should be rational about it. And I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Yes, it does mean your faith has to be able to change, to fit the circumstances. There are places in life where religion fits, but there are a lot more that require thought, evidence, reality.

Rapscallion

03-28-2011, 07:27 PM

In this, religion is merely a scapegoat, a tool. If there was no religion, the atrocities wouldn't stop - it's all just tribalism of varying flavors, and we have plenty of that without religion. To think that religion is the root cause is naive.

It's not a scapegoat - it's a tool. The arseholes using it to commit acts of terror or genocide are mostly likely aware that it's probably not true. The ones who do most of the grunt work are usually those who believe every word.

The problem is that it's a tool that humans are regrettably susceptible to.

Rapscallion

Ghel

03-28-2011, 07:29 PM

You keep claiming that you don't know, but then you keep making absolute statements as though you had all the facts at hand.

But you don't actually know that what she said was a falsehood. You believe very strongly that it is. She believes, just as strongly, that it isn't. Your position, ultimately, has no more support than her own.
To quote Isaac Asimov, "...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." To put that in terms related to where this thread started, the view that the Bible is the work of humans without any supernatural influence is much better supported than the view that the Bible is the inspired word of an all-knowing, all-powerful, good God.

In this, religion is merely a scapegoat, a tool. If there was no religion, the atrocities wouldn't stop - it's all just tribalism of varying flavors, and we have plenty of that without religion. To think that religion is the root cause is naive.
Where in that quote did I say I was I talking just about religion? I was talking about any unfounded belief. I was talking just as much about the belief that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the Earth is hollow, or that one "race" is intrinsically superior to another, as I was about religion.

Andara Bledin

03-28-2011, 08:07 PM

The problem is that it's a tool that humans are regrettably susceptible to.
It's still not the fault of the tool, it's a fault in the people.

If religion were gone tomorrow, they'd just turn to one of any number of other banners, such as politics, or they'd make up new ones to lead the willing to do their bidding. And there has never been any shortage of those.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

03-28-2011, 08:19 PM

It's still not the fault of the tool, it's a fault in the people.

If religion were gone tomorrow, they'd just turn to one of any number of other banners, such as politics, or they'd make up new ones to lead the willing to do their bidding. And there has never been any shortage of those.

^-.-^

They already do. However, I think it worth dismantling those tools that are flawed and false. They'll still be used until they're removed.

The counter to all the atrocities commited in the name of religion is all the 'good'. I don't accept that it's necessary to ascribe acts of charity to some invisible friend.

Rapscallion

Hyena Dandy

03-28-2011, 11:08 PM

Rapscallion

03-28-2011, 11:14 PM

Then why do we ascribe the atrocities committed in the name of religion to religion rather than people being people, if we're going to say that the people who do charity, art, whatever in the name of their religion to just people being good?

I say if we blame things like the Crusades and 9/11 on Religion, we have to do the same for religious charities and the like.

That's pretty much what I said above, though somewhat more eloquently. I do some things that would generally be regarded as philanthropical or charitable, but I don't have any belief that my motives are down to an invisible, supernatural being.

Rapscallion

Hyena Dandy

03-28-2011, 11:28 PM

I was confused. I was under the impression that what you were saying was that people doing bad things for religion are evidence religion as bad, while good things would happen anyway, doing away with religion would stop the bad ones.

I was confused. Of course I would not say YOU are motivated by religion in all your charitable actions. I would not say that every good thing you do is motivated by God's hand in your life. That would be insulting, inaccurate, and just plain bad theology.

I was just saying that you can't wave off good actions done for people's religious beliefs, and yet blame religion for the bad ones. Though I evidently misunderstood you, and that was what you were saying. I apologize.

Rapscallion

03-28-2011, 11:34 PM

I blame the institution of religion for wars and atrocities, not the claimed deities.

I attritbute some of what we would call 'good' as being a result of religious teachings. I see no reason we couldn't and wouldn't do those things without religion.

Any clearer?

Rapscallion

Hyena Dandy

03-28-2011, 11:38 PM

A little, though I'm still a bit fuzzy. I want to make sure we're on the same page because I hate to have a debate with someone when I'm not a hundred percent sure.

I see no reason that charities wouldn't happen without religion, but I also see no reason that wars and atrocities wouldn't happen anyway.

I can't say that religion has made the world better or worse, because I have not seen a world without it. I can say its made MY life better, and that I would be a much less content, happy person if I were not religious. And I can say that because previously I wasn't.

Rapscallion

03-29-2011, 12:06 AM

I see no reason that charities wouldn't happen without religion,

They do.

but I also see no reason that wars and atrocities wouldn't happen anyway.

I'd like to see one less method in the world for convincing uninformed, deluded, or stupid people to die for manipulators and somehow think they're doing good in the process.

Rapscallion

Hyena Dandy

03-29-2011, 12:14 AM

They do.

Indeed, I was agreeing with you. I was also saying that some charities do happen because of the religious beliefs of those who run them. That the good they do cannot be discounted simply because someone else might do it anyway.

I'd like to see one less method in the world for convincing uninformed, deluded, or stupid people to die for manipulators and somehow think they're doing good in the process.

Again, but what about the good that religious organizations do?

If you take away the tool to convince people to do bad things, you're also taking away a good tool to convince them to do good things.

Andara Bledin

03-29-2011, 12:16 AM

If you do away with a method, then you lose all the good with the bad. All of the good that people do that they lay at the feet of religion would go away to the same degree as the bad.

You can't handwave and say that all the good will still be done but the bad won't.

^-.-^

BlaqueKatt

03-29-2011, 03:06 AM

If you do away with a method, then you lose all the good with the bad. All of the good that people do that they lay at the feet of religion would go away to the same degree as the bad.

if the bad outweighs the good, as it certainly does in some groups, is that necessarily a bad thing?

And I'm sorry but no amount of good the Catholic church can ever do, will EVER make up for KNOWINLY enabling (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j3TNNLigAb3qQeVpLaBxiu1MQzAA?docId=e43e04558 be646299c55ad8bb8990e7f) pedophiles to continue to have access (http://bishopaccountability.org/) to more victims.

I know of no other group that does this, and the excuse they all give for not allowing the perpetrator to be brought to justice and instead move them out of the jurisdiction, sometimes promoting them to a higher position in order to do so, is "it would hurt the church".

So does a few thousand children being raped and molested, with the criminals being hidden under the robes of religion justify allowing these groups to continue to exist, just because they "do some good"?

What if the KKK "did some good", or NAMBLA, what if Westboro baptist opened up a homeless shelter? I hate to say it but at least Westoboro Baptist has come out against the Catholic church fr it's sex abuse scandals, very few other churches have publicly denounced it, I've heard of zero Catholic churches saying the abusers should be punished alongside those that hid them. Which isn't surprising as the Catholic church helped Nazis escape justice as well-but "they do some good" so I guess it's ok, we should just look away because of that.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire

AdminAssistant

03-29-2011, 03:25 AM

It's pretty sad to think that the only reason people do good is so they get a "Get Out of Hell" card. I would like to think that philanthropy and charity would continue without religion, and would actually be more effective since it wouldn't be concerned with proselytization or following silly moral doctrines (like not using condoms to stop the spread of STDs and AIDs and forbidding poor families from using birth control, so that they don't have children that they can't even feed.)

Hyena Dandy

03-29-2011, 03:30 AM

I take offense to the idea that the religious are only charitable to get out of hell.

I'm charitable because I think its the right thing to do. Part of this comes from my religious beliefs, but its not from "Don't want to end up in hell."

Why do people think that everything a religious person does is to get out of hell? There are many atheists who have proved that atheists can be good hearted, and compassionate people, despite not having a religion. So why can't we be charitable and good hearted despite having one?

Andara Bledin

03-29-2011, 03:30 AM

Which isn't surprising as the Catholic church helped Nazis escape justice as well-but "they do some good" so I guess it's ok, we should just look away because of that.
This is fine if the world were black and white, but it's an excessively and absurdly simplistic view. I'd like to believe we're all more mature than this.

The Catholic Church, though not necessarily the faith itself, has serious issues. Those issues should no more be overlooked than any other atrocious behavior.

However, that doesn't require that we pitch the baby with the bathwater.

^-.-^

Crazedclerkthe2nd

03-29-2011, 04:17 AM

Hyena Dandy

03-29-2011, 04:21 AM

I have only been a Christian since 2007, but for all my life before then I was a hard working generous individual who tried hard to be a good person. You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy doing good.

Yes, but my point was that there's no reason to assume Christians would NOT enjoy doing good

Rapscallion

03-29-2011, 07:45 AM

There's also no reason to allow the guilt trip that is religion to be the reason for doing good. Why base something that benefits others on a false foundation?

Rapscallion

Ghel

03-29-2011, 12:07 PM

I'm charitable because I think its the right thing to do. Part of this comes from my religious beliefs, but its not from "Don't want to end up in hell."
If you do good due to empathy, instead of your religion's threat of negative consequences if you don't (or positive consequences if you do), then any statements you may make that the good done in the name of your religion is because of your religion would be hypocritical.

Empathy is a human condition. All humans experience it (other than some sociopaths). Religion is not needed to inspire empathy.

Andara Bledin

03-29-2011, 05:11 PM

There's also no reason to allow the guilt trip that is religion to be the reason for doing good. Why base something that benefits others on a false foundation?
I don't. But a lot of people do. A lot of people look for something to tell them how to live because it's easier than thinking. Among the possible options, religions isn't the demon a lot of people try to make it out to be.

Some people, such as many of us in this thread, prefer to write our own rulebooks, but for a lot of others, that's like re-inventing the wheel when they can just take the cliffs notes from whatever faith they follow and go from there.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

03-29-2011, 06:38 PM

Among the possible options, religions isn't the demon a lot of people try to make it out to be.

I think one problem specifically, and perhaps the associated mood right now in history, is because of the rise of the "Christian Nation" shit in the US combined with the ongoing fear mongering of Islam in the US. Like it or not, Christianity in the US is being associated with ignorance, stupidity and racism. While Islam conversely is being blamed for every single evil in the world.

Sad as it is, I don't think Christ when I think Christianity these days, I think of all the shit going on in the US and how staggering idiotic it is looking at it from the outside in. It's honestly kind of surreal. If Jesus actually did come back now, he'd be resoundingly rejected in the US by those claiming to be his most faithful and labelled as a elitist socialist liberal. I just find it stunning that so many people claim to do what they do in the name of Jesus, yet blantantly have absolutely no fucking idea what it was Jesus taught.

It's really aggravating, and I think that frustration is really building up in recent years because of how stunningly blatant some of it is in the US these days. People are getting sick of hearing all this stuff done in the name of organized religion. The US started polarizing really badly after 9/11, Bush spent 8 years *encouraging* it, now its completely fractured to the point where politics has become sports and religion has become politics. People root for the home team regardless of who they are or what they do and now one side seriously believes Jesus is their mascot.

It takes a level of cognitive dissonance I just can't comprehend.

Andara Bledin

03-29-2011, 07:42 PM

RecoveringKinkoid

03-30-2011, 02:02 AM

And those of you telling me how not to think are just as bad.

^-.-^

Thank you. I could not agree more with this sentiment.

I hear atheists complaining all the time about "other people's beliefs getting shoved down my throat."

I have had people from other denominations do that to me. It sucks.

However, more often, I've had atheists doing it to me. It sucks, too. Do they do it more overall? Can't say. I know they do it to me personally more. :shrug:

And Gravekeeper...while we are on different sides of the fence on this one...I couldn't agree more with your last post, either. I once heard "if Christ saw the shit going on in His name, he'd never stop throwing up. "

Yeah. Jesus wept. :(

Hyena Dandy

03-30-2011, 02:23 AM

However, more often, I've had atheists doing it to me. It sucks, too. Do they do it more overall? Can't say. I know they do it to me personally more. :shrug:

I get accused of being intolerant and all sorts of things for being Christian. I have never told anyone they're going to hell. I have never told anyone what they're doing or believe is wrong. I'm told I'm wrong. I'm told I'm closed-minded. I'm told my faith is evil. I've never said that to anyone else.

radiocerk

03-30-2011, 04:15 AM

A lot of atheists kinda go overboard on the Christian types, primarily, I think, as a form of revenge. For years, I have been told that what I think and believe is wrong, that I am going to Hell, that they're just trying to help me, that God loves me, blah blah blah. And the temptation is strong to return that message in kind to my persecutors. I've lived with having an "unpopular religious outlook" for a long while and I have grown past that gut-instinct.

A lot of the most vocal and belligerent atheists are probably relatively new to it. Much like the Christian who thinks they are saving me from eternal torment in a lake of fire (meh), the atheist is trying to help you break the chains of delusion your religion foists upon you (or something like that).

Trying to convert anyone, on either side is annoying behavior, and no one should do it, no matter what you think the benefits to your audience will be.

Andara Bledin

03-30-2011, 08:04 AM

Trying to convert anyone, on either side is annoying behavior, and no one should do it, no matter what you think the benefits to your audience will be.
Precisely.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

03-30-2011, 10:28 AM

As I mentioned earlier, I'm more laid back over it. However, from this perspective I see plenty of having religion 'shoved down my throat'.

On my drive to a chum's house, I regularly see roadside adverts telling me I should accpet jesus as my saviour. I see such on buildings (usually churches, but not always) as I walk through town. I don't have a TV, but what I have seen spats of at other peoples' houses is that there's usually some religious group or other trying to get noticed.

A while back a humanist advert went on buses saying, "There's probably no god, so get on with enjoying your lives."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/21/dawkins_athiest_bus/

Couldn't move for commentary on the radio for outraged of allah/jehovah etc wanting to say their piece about it, yet when religious groups do the same there's not an eyelid batted.

It's not one-sided. It's actually a pretty new thing for atheists to be this outspoken en masse from what I understand.

Rapscallion

Boozy

03-30-2011, 11:01 AM

I think a poll would find that nearly every adult has been approached by a religious proponent on the street and asked to accept Jesus as their saviour (or Krishna, Allah, etc).

I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who have been approached by atheists asking them to renounce their faith.

Especially outside of the internet. The vast majority of internet forums are not strongly moderated and encourage the free sharing of ideas and debate. It's an acceptable platform for discussions about religion. Having a religious opponent or proponent attempt to change your mind in a chat room that you can leave at any time is different than being barraged by visual and verbal propaganda in your every day life.

There is a difference between being berated to attend church by your family at every single Sunday dinner, or being led in prayer before a staff meeting at work, and freely joining an online discussion.

Ghel

03-30-2011, 11:42 AM

One thing that is difficult to do is to separate the religion from the church.

Once any organization grows beyond a certain point, it falls prey to corruption and an inability for those at the top to view those at the bottom as people as opposed to numbers on a spreadsheet.
It's interesting to see corruption in an organization that claims to make its members moral. If the organization can't make its leaders moral, how can we expect it to make its followers moral? Additionally, if this claim is false in a particular religion, how can it expect us to accept its other claims as true?

It's actually a pretty new thing for atheists to be this outspoken en masse from what I understand.
That's because it's only been recently that an atheist could be outspoken without having to fear detrimental consequences to their careers or even lives. In some areas, where this is still the case, atheists must stay "in the closet" in order to remain safe.

There is a difference between being berated to attend church by your family at every single Sunday dinner, or being led in prayer before a staff meeting at work, and freely joining an online discussion.
Thank you. This is what I always think of when somebody on fratching accuses me of trying to "convert" them to atheism.

Rapscallion

03-30-2011, 12:17 PM

That's because it's only been recently that an atheist could be outspoken without having to fear detrimental consequences to their careers or even lives. In some areas, where this is still the case, atheists must stay "in the closet" in order to remain safe.

I think in very recent times as well, it's been a case that the Internet and other media have given access to so much more information for all, allowing more people the chance to learn other ways and other arguments. It's generally a truism that some people are more aggressive towards those they cannot see, such as those on the Internet, and are thus more likely to challenge ideas and concepts.

Rapscallion

RecoveringKinkoid

03-30-2011, 01:21 PM

I get accused of being intolerant and all sorts of things for being Christian. I have never told anyone they're going to hell. I have never told anyone what they're doing or believe is wrong. I'm told I'm wrong. I'm told I'm closed-minded. I'm told my faith is evil. I've never said that to anyone else.

Exactly this. Never once have I even come close to doing this to anyone. Personal belief and spirituality is a very personal thing, and I would consider it a failing on my part to presume to judge another person's spirituality. However, I have fielded countless accusations about my own, generalizations, personal attacks, you name it. I have been accused of all of what HD just listed. By people doing exactly that to me.

It's annoying, but the irony is delicious. And if I feel myself getting really angry over it, I just remind myself that it's not supposed to be easy. That was never promised. ;)

Ghel

03-30-2011, 02:23 PM

While all this discussion of attempted conversions is interesting, I am much more interested in the original topic, which has not been satisfactorily answered. If one does not consider the Bible to be 100% accurate, how does one determine which passages are accurate and which passages are false? If one believes that some portions of the Bible no longer apply in a modern age, why should one believe that any portions of the Bible still apply? Since some portions of the Bible are demonstrably false, why should we trust it on the portions which cannot be proved or disproved?

More to the point, I think, why should anybody trust a collection of superstitions and folk tales written by misogynist, patriarchal goatherds 2000+ years ago?

Andara Bledin

03-30-2011, 03:20 PM

It's interesting to see corruption in an organization that claims to make its members moral.
It's inevitable. To think that they could somehow avoid being human is ridiculous. It just seems sadder because of who they are; one would think they would try harder to be otherwise. But the people who rise to power are still the same people who rise to power in every organization, so they face the same trials as regards corruption, greed, and self-interest.

^-.-^

RecoveringKinkoid

03-30-2011, 05:25 PM

I'll speak for myself. Like many denominations and individuals, I DON'T believe the Bible is a hundred percent accurate in all it's details. It was written by a bunch of humans, with all their agendas and failures and cultural foibles. The value is not in the details. It's in the message.

Using Aesop's Fables as an example...is it important that a fox tried to eat some grapes or not, or is it important that a foible of the human condition was illustrated and considered?

I consider the Bible to be mostly background, and historical and cultural context. If I am a Christian, then I should be focusing on the teachings of Jesus. So to me, one of the most important part of the Bible is Jesus's Sermon On The Mount.

He used an awful lot of stories and hypothetical anecdotes to make his points. It does not matter how true they are. Just that the point was made.

Why do I not give the Old Testament as much importance? Well, I'm going with what Jesus said, and he said it wasn't all that relevant anymore. Not to say they're aren't good lessons and food for thought there, too. But if something is at odds with the teaching "treat people the way you want to be treated", then I feel like I have The Teacher's blessing to disregard whatever it is that counters that.

Disrespect people by telling them their own spirituality is wrong vs "Treat people the way you want to be treated".....well, I got to go with "Treat people the way you want to be treated"

Walk around judging gay people vs "Treat people the way you want to be treated" Got to stick with "Treat people the way you want to be treated".

Refusing to associate with people because their lifestyle is not "acceptable" vs "Treat people the way you want to be treated"....well, you get the point I'm trying to make.

That little directive covers a LOT of ground.

HYHYBT

03-31-2011, 04:24 AM

And if I feel myself getting really angry over it, I just remind myself that it's not supposed to be easy. That was never promised. ;)I do seem to remember something like "My yoke is easy and my burden light," but still...

If one does not consider the Bible to be 100% accurate, how does one determine which passages are accurate and which passages are false?Setting aside "false" a bit... more or less the same as for anything else unverifiable. Look for consistencies and overall meaning, try to figure out what the authors intended, leave a healthy dose of not worrying too much over the more bizarre parts (Ezekiel, Revelation, that sort of thing.) One easy example: you can tell Leviticus doesn't apply to us today because it SAYS it's "the law for the Israelites." We are not Israelites; therefore it's not for us. Part of it depends on assumptions: I see no reason whatsoever to assume God does not exist, nor any reason to assume, *if* he does and made the universe we live in, that he *cannot* make exceptions to what we see as the laws of nature if and when he wants. Naturally, if you insist on the opposite then there's not enough left to bother with... but given those rather basic assumptions, it becomes much harder to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. And it makes "is this scientifically possible" mostly irrelevant in deciding whether to believe any particular story on face value. But there's NOT a simple and short answer, nor is the reason going to be the same for everybody... nor is there any reason to expect there to be, or to assume that the lack of a simple answer means the whole thing is false, should be assumed to be false, or must be taken whole or not at all.

If one believes that some portions of the Bible no longer apply in a modern age, why should one believe that any portions of the Bible still apply?Put that the other way around: why would one part's not applying *automatically* mean none of the rest does? It's a standard you wouldn't likely try applying everywhere. For example (and I know it's not a great one) you'll sometimes see lists of old laws which are still on the books, but are obsolete and would never be enforced; more than that, cannot be. If someone arrested you for not hiring someone to walk in front of your car waving a lantern and warning people to get out of the way, the judge would not be amused, but it's still on the books *somewhere.* Or take hand signals for turning and stopping. I don't think I've *ever* seen them used in real life. Modern cars not only don't need them, but also *block* those who would need to see them from doing so, and a lot of people wouldn't know what they meant (certainly not in time) if they saw them. They're obsolete, not because the rule has changed, but because times have changed and situations that call for them don't come up anymore. But again, most of what falls into the category of Biblical rules that don't apply was specifically and explicitly for a certain people, and we're not them.

Since some portions of the Bible are demonstrably false, why should we trust it on the portions which cannot be proved or disproved?It's not a matter of black-and-white, true or false in the first place, nor is the Bible a single work. Different parts have different purposes (and, for that matter, different levels of importance). Why, then, *should* they all be treated otherwise? Why, for example, would all evidence pointing to the nonexistence of a universal flood mean the book of Acts is fiction?

RecoveringKinkoid

03-31-2011, 01:18 PM

"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." 1 John 3:13

I do seem to remember something like "My yoke is easy and my burden light," but still...

A yoke is still a yoke. ;)

Ghel

03-31-2011, 02:43 PM

...I see no reason whatsoever to assume God does not exist...
Do you think, if you didn't presuppose that God exists, that you would still be able to come to the conclusion that God exists? Do you think you can take the circular part out of this circular argument?

If we cannot get past this one point, the rest of the discussion is moot.

It's not a matter of black-and-white, true or false in the first place, nor is the Bible a single work. Different parts have different purposes (and, for that matter, different levels of importance). Why, then, *should* they all be treated otherwise? Why, for example, would all evidence pointing to the nonexistence of a universal flood mean the book of Acts is fiction?
That some parts of the Bible are clearly false (including, but not limited to, Noah's flood, as you mention) casts doubt on the rest of the Bible. Why would a being worthy of being called "God" tell us such false and often destructive things?

I consider the Bible to be mostly background, and historical and cultural context. If I am a Christian, then I should be focusing on the teachings of Jesus. So to me, one of the most important part of the Bible is Jesus's Sermon On The Mount.
I could do a whole thread just on the Sermon on the Mount. It has some good advice, sure, but it also has a lot of bad advice. The good advice that it contains isn't anything better than was already known at the time. Certainly nothing that would suggest it came from a being worthy of being called God.

He used an awful lot of stories and hypothetical anecdotes to make his points. It does not matter how true they are. Just that the point was made.
Does it matter to you whether Jesus actually existed? Does it matter whether Jesus was the son of God (or was God)?

The reason I ask is because these things can't be demonstrated by the Bible alone. One would need to have extra-Biblical evidence of a God's existence in order to be able to demonstrate his existence.

...well, I got to go with "Treat people the way you want to be treated"
That's really interesting, considering that the concept of the Golden Rule predates the story of Jesus by at least 6 centuries, and did not originate with either Christianity or Judaism.

HYHYBT

04-01-2011, 12:38 AM

Do you think, if you didn't presuppose that God exists, that you would still be able to come to the conclusion that God exists? Do you think you can take the circular part out of this circular argument?There is a difference between presupposing God exists and *not* presupposing that he does not exist.

Gravekeeper

04-01-2011, 03:36 AM

That some parts of the Bible are clearly false (including, but not limited to, Noah's flood, as you mention) casts doubt on the rest of the Bible.

Ehh, minor point here. But you keep arguing as if the Bible is a singular whole. Remember its a collection of different accounts by different authors that was compiled into a singular volume. I'm not saying its gospel truth or anything, only that you can't accept nor dismiss the whole like that. Something false would cast doubt on the rest of the work by that particular author, not the body of work itself. You'd have to examine it author by author. Which is actually where things get interesting, as different authors obviously had differing views on the same events if not outright disagreed with each other.

Its obvious they had different opinions on who and even what Jesus was for example.

Hyena Dandy

04-01-2011, 05:03 AM

as different authors obviously had differing views on the same events if not outright disagreed with each other.

And in one case, a book switches from Hebrew to Aramaic halfway through. What does that mean?

No fucking clue. But its good to bring up if someone argues the Bible is all one single work.

Gravekeeper

04-01-2011, 05:56 AM

And in one case, a book switches from Hebrew to Aramaic halfway through. What does that mean?

That someone ended up face down in a ditch over an argument in the fanfic community. >.>

RecoveringKinkoid

04-01-2011, 12:33 PM

I am so going to hell for laughing as hard as I did over that.

Ghel

04-01-2011, 02:02 PM

There is a difference between presupposing God exists and *not* presupposing that he does not exist.
:confused: The double negative is hurting my brain. What does it mean to presuppose that a thing does not exist? Further, what does it mean to *not* presuppose that a thing does not exist?

The default position when someone claims that something exists is skepticism, i.e. "Prove it." That doesn't mean the listener is presupposing that the thing does not exist.

Ehh, minor point here. But you keep arguing as if the Bible is a singular whole. Remember its a collection of different accounts by different authors that was compiled into a singular volume. I'm not saying its gospel truth or anything, only that you can't accept nor dismiss the whole like that. Something false would cast doubt on the rest of the work by that particular author, not the body of work itself. You'd have to examine it author by author. Which is actually where things get interesting, as different authors obviously had differing views on the same events if not outright disagreed with each other.

Its obvious they had different opinions on who and even what Jesus was for example.
That would be a valid point, except that Christians tend to say that the Bible is (at minimum) inspired by a very knowlegable, very powerful God. If God has the ability to create the universe, why can he not create an error-free document that explains his instructions in a way that every human being that can understand them? (Or even modify the existing documents to correct such errors and update them for modern society?) I've mentioned before (though maybe not on this thread) that if there really were a being worthy of being called God, I would expect every person who read the Bible to reach the same conclusions, to interpret it the same way, to believe the same things. This is clearly not the case, which means that either the Christian God doesn't exist or he's incompetent.

However, you're right that if we're looking at the Bible as we would any other historical document, with the understanding that it was written by humans without any divine intervention, that we would expect to see errors and contradictions.

Andara Bledin

04-01-2011, 08:05 PM

I am so going to hell for laughing as hard as I did over that.
You and me both, Rk. :D

:confused: The double negative is hurting my brain. What does it mean to presuppose that a thing does not exist? Further, what does it mean to *not* presuppose that a thing does not exist?
It means precisely what it sounds like it means.

Hy is stating that there is a difference between assuming A is true and not assuming A is false.

That would be a valid point, except that Christians tend to say that the Bible is (at minimum) inspired by a very knowlegable, very powerful God.
*sigh*

It's the same answer today as it was yesterday and last week and last month, and will be the same answer the next time it gets asked: Free will.

Freedom comes with a lot of responsibility and leaves a lot of ways for people to screw up. The other alternative is a life in chains, and when it comes to that, what the fuck's the point?

However, you're right that if we're looking at the Bible as we would any other historical document, with the understanding that it was written by humans without any divine intervention, that we would expect to see errors and contradictions.
Divine intervention is irrelevant the moment you introduce humans. You can't handwave humanity into perfection just because someone at the beginning of the telephone chain wasn't the same.

^-.-^

Hyena Dandy

04-02-2011, 12:17 AM

I am so going to hell for laughing as hard as I did over that.

Yeah, make room in that handbasket for me. :P

The double negative is hurting my brain. What does it mean to presuppose that a thing does not exist? Further, what does it mean to *not* presuppose that a thing does not exist?

To presuppose that a thing does not exist means to come to the dance, as it were, assuming its true and demanding to be proven wrong.

To not presuppose that a thing does not exist means to not come thinking it DOESN'T. As opposed to coming thinking it does, or that it doesn't. To come 'neutrally' as it were.

HYHYBT

04-02-2011, 01:47 AM

How then, Ghel, would *you* describe a default position of "maybe?" Neither belief nor active disbelief (what you call "skepticism"?), but remaining open, in the absence of hard evidence either way, to the possibility that either way might be correct? A NEUTRAL default position?

Gravekeeper

04-02-2011, 04:00 AM

That would be a valid point, except that Christians tend to say that the Bible is (at minimum) inspired by a very knowlegable, very powerful God.

I'm not Christian though so I view it as a historical document written by grubby, falliable humans. >.>

This is clearly not the case, which means that either the Christian God doesn't exist or he's incompetent.

The former is more likely ( though I would say the Christian viewpoint on "God" rather than "Christian God" ). A being of that level would not be incompenent. Else we'd have never made it to this point after he accidently bumped us into Jupiter when he was getting a beer out of the fridge.

I do not believe it is possible to form a complete viewpoint using a singular religion or belief system. The very nature of humanity dicates this is impossible. No one's view of divinity or the universe is correct, but nor is anyone's completely wrong either. If something indeed exists, and on some level, humans have sensed or percieved it now or in the past, then a 1000 people would walk away with 1000 different opinions of what it is. That's simply how we work.

If indeed nothing exists, than humanity's biological predisposition towards believing something does is a rather ironic joke of evolution.

It's the same answer today as it was yesterday and last week and last month, and will be the same answer the next time it gets asked: Free will.

I can see why Ghel would see that answer as insufficient. Because it is, frankly. If you're saying that the viewpoint that the Bible is divinely inspired, but simply fucked up by people as we have free will and are dicks, that does not answer the question of why there hasn't been rumedial classes. It is illogical for a being on the level of the Christian God, with the Christian God's motivations to just go "You know what? Fuck it" and walk away from the table.

Especially after trying to lay down some ground rules for a bunch of unwashed monkeys in a time period where communications technology was limited to quill and paper ( if you were lucky ). Nevermind the fact it was a period in history when countries and cultures really didn't give a rats ass about talking with or playing nice with others either.

That would be incompetent.

FArchivist

04-02-2011, 08:58 AM

Why is consistency so much to ask from a religion?

Because consistency isn't a hallmark of any belief system, be it a religion, political ideology, or a philosophy. Belief and Consistency don't really go together.

As a historical aside, the questioning of faith and the required consistency for that faith led, in the Catholic Church (all branches), to the creation of the body of doctrine and the various several religious works that examine such questions. Like Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

There's a reason for that: I didn't.

What is meant by "editing the Bible" is when it went from one version to the next, not all of it made it. There were councils who would decide that some parts of a previous version of The Good Book shouldn't make it into the next version. Entire passages and even books would be excised; not even nearly the same thing as what you "think" editing is.

Woooo-hoo! The Biblical canon! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons) Man, what a mess that is.

How do you tell which are which? What criteria do you use? Do you just trust your minister to tell you the difference? How does she know?

That depends on the denomination of Christianity you follow. The Roman Catholic Church had several councils back in the early part of its existence to determine which were true and which were false. Doctrine created later on further explicates. It's all in the Cathechism.

If that's the case for the Bible, why not do the same with the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, or the sutras?

The Tao Te Ching doesn't have doctrinal disputes because Taoists don't go for doctrine. The Vedas and the Sutras both have gone through similar vetting in their own religious structures. The Mormons are just another branch of Christianity, with a new book added.

Why should a different starting point matter when trying to determine the truth? Different fields of study come from vastly different starting points, but their results converge on the same model of the universe.

Because Truth is not Fact and Fact is not Truth. You keep trying to apply the scientific method to religion. It doesn't work that way. You can't apply the scientific method to Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, the Greek god mythos, Sumerian religion, Existentialism, Nihilism, Communism, Liberalism, or any other religion, philosophy, ideology, or belief system.

Ah, but logic that begins with false premises comes to false conclusions. If you cannot show your premises to be true, you cannot show that your conclusions are true.

Yes, in science.
But faith does not require that a premise be factual. That's what you fail to acknowledge. Ever.
If faith did require that a premise be factual, it would cease to be a faith and would become a scientific hypothesis.

However, more often, I've had atheists doing it to me. It sucks, too. Do they do it more overall? Can't say. I know they do it to me personally more. :shrug:

Nah, the atheists don't do it more overall. It's really not the atheists (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism) doing it. It's the anti-theists (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism), their unlovely cousin. ;)

Now, while I know lots of atheists IRL (including my wife), I don't find too many anti-theists. I find tons of them online, to where they outweigh the atheists 10-to-1. It's sort of the same thing with libertarians. Few of them IRL, but online? Hooo-boy. Crawling out of the WOODWORK.

More to the point, I think, why should anybody trust a collection of superstitions and folk tales written by misogynist, patriarchal goatherds 2000+ years ago?

*dryly* Why should anyone trust a collection of political wank and philosophical speculation used as the basis for the law of the land written by misogynist, patriarchal, racist, rich land-holding slave owners written 200+ years ago?

That someone ended up face down in a ditch over an argument in the fanfic community. >.>

If you look at the Synod of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage, you might find that this is not too far from the truth.

If you're saying that the viewpoint that the Bible is divinely inspired, but simply fucked up by people as we have free will and are dicks, that does not answer the question of why there hasn't been rumedial classes. It is illogical for a being on the level of the Christian God, with the Christian God's motivations to just go "You know what? Fuck it" and walk away from the table.

Actually, no. It's not illogical if you say "After sending Jesus, I have done all the interference I can do. Anything further would be a violation of free will." It's more setting up the game, leading people through the first rounds on their own, and then saying "OK guys. Time to referee yourselves." and walking away.

Or, if you prefer, you've reached 18 and you've been kicked out of the house to make it on your own. Welcome to being an adult. The advent of the Messiah was humanity's 18th birthday.

Gravekeeper

04-02-2011, 12:55 PM

You can't apply the scientific method to Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, the Greek god mythos, Sumerian religion, Existentialism, Nihilism, Communism, Liberalism, or any other religion, philosophy, ideology, or belief system.

Actually you can ( and should ). Buddhism especially, seeing as one of the sutras *is* a scientific method. -.-

Yes, in science.
But faith does not require that a premise be factual. That's what you fail to acknowledge. Ever. If faith did require that a premise be factual, it would cease to be a faith and would become a scientific hypothesis.

Faith does not require the premise be factual, it *states* the premise *is* factual even in the face of opposing facts. Religion is in effect a kind of scientific hypothesis whether it realises it or not.

*dryly* Why should anyone trust a collection of political wank and philosophical speculation used as the basis for the law of the land written by misogynist, patriarchal, racist, rich land-holding slave owners written 200+ years ago?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Because its arguable that in this day and age you *shouldn't* be. ;p

Actually, no. It's not illogical if you say "After sending Jesus, I have done all the interference I can do. Anything further would be a violation of free will." It's more setting up the game, leading people through the first rounds on their own, and then saying "OK guys. Time to referee yourselves." and walking away.

Or, if you prefer, you've reached 18 and you've been kicked out of the house to make it on your own. Welcome to being an adult. The advent of the Messiah was humanity's 18th birthday.

For any of that to be logical, God would have had to have farked off the second Jesus died. But he didn't. Jesus came back, is slated to come back again, God is supposedly dicking around with us on a daily basis and has vowed to come back when we're 21 and kick the ever living shit out of us if we didn't do that stuff he told a hilariously small group of people to do a couple thousand years ago. Totally ignoring everyone else in the world that didn't live in the Middle East and just hoping it would go by word of mouth.

While simaltaneously telling another group no no, Jesus wasn't the last one. He was totally cool and all but Mohamed was the last one. Your analogy requires ignoring so much about religion and mythology ( both before and after Jesus ) its not even funny. =/

FArchivist

04-02-2011, 04:04 PM

Actually you can ( and should ). Buddhism especially, seeing as one of the sutras *is* a scientific method. -.-

Laboratory provability of rebirth is an extreme problem. :)

Faith does not require the premise be factual, it *states* the premise *is* factual even in the face of opposing facts. Religion is in effect a kind of scientific hypothesis whether it realises it or not.

No, there we are confusing Truth and Fact again, which are two different things. A Fact may be proven by experimentation in accordance with scientific methodology. A Truth is statement of faith. Facts may be true, but they are not truths. A subtle distinction, but a very important one if you ever want to go toe-to-toe with a philosophy major. Or a Communist.

You see the same thing in political science. Political science differentiates between methodology, which is the actual practice of politics, and philosophy, which is adherence to a political ideology of some sort. That the Constitution guarantees certain rights is Fact; that we hold these rights to be self-evident is a Truth, but not Fact.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Because its arguable that in this day and age you *shouldn't* be. ;p

Then you have just agreed that the Constitution of the USA shouldn't be. :) It was written by misogynist, patriarchal, racist, rich land-holding slave owners 200+ years ago.

MY point is that anything that we hold as 'sacred', for lack of a better word at the moment, is in the same fix the Bible is. Keep in mind that ALL of the following are equivalent:

- political ideologies
- philosophy
- religion

All three operate from faith. All three cannot be proven. The idea that we should have freedom of speech, for instance, cannot be proven in a laboratory according to scientific method. Neither can any of the 'natural rights' so beloved of Western culture since the Enlightenment.

God is supposedly dicking around with us on a daily basis and has vowed to come back when we're 21 and kick the ever living shit out of us if we didn't do that stuff he told a hilariously small group of people to do a couple thousand years ago. Totally ignoring everyone else in the world that didn't live in the Middle East and just hoping it would go by word of mouth.

1) God doesn't dick around with us on a daily basis. At least, the RCC doesn't say that. Now some Protestants, on the other hand...
2) That's why we're supposed to spread the "Good Word". Of course, it all differs on who and how we're supposed to spread it, depending on the denomination.

While simaltaneously telling another group no no, Jesus wasn't the last one. He was totally cool and all but Mohamed was the last one. Your analogy requires ignoring so much about religion and mythology ( both before and after Jesus ) its not even funny. =/

I'm speaking purely from the perspective of the RCC, which is the only thing I can speak for. Note, each sect says the other sect has got it wrong. :D Sort of like the difference between Thereveda, Mahayana, and Vajrayana sects, with more argument.

Rapscallion

04-02-2011, 05:23 PM

No, there we are confusing Truth and Fact again, which are two different things. A Fact may be proven by experimentation in accordance with scientific methodology. A Truth is statement of faith. Facts may be true, but they are not truths. A subtle distinction, but a very important one if you ever want to go toe-to-toe with a philosophy major. Or a Communist.

It's not a subtle distinction. It's a word game. "This is what that word actually means in my world, and therefore I'm right." Seen it a few times.

Capitalising the first letter of a standard word and using it as a proper noun shouldn't allow anyone to change the meaning of it. It's an attempt to try and justify an untenable position by linguistics, and it's been perpetrated for generations.

As far as I'm concerned, it cannot be a truth unless it's verified by some means. There are mathmatical proofs that two plus two equals four - I saw one and didn't understand it, but I was fourteen at the time and conceptual maths isn't really my strong point.

Define it within a religious setting if you want, but if your claims are provably incorrect and you're calling them 'Truths' then you're setting yourself up for a fall.

You see the same thing in political science. Political science differentiates between methodology, which is the actual practice of politics, and philosophy, which is adherence to a political ideology of some sort. That the Constitution guarantees certain rights is Fact; that we hold these rights to be self-evident is a Truth, but not Fact.

Your point would be...? I'm not a citizen of the US, so I don't have the same viewpoint as yourself. What I do have is a consideration that this is an attempt to cash in on the popularity of said document amongst your audience here.

Of course, I happen to disagree with elements of the US constitution, but that's probably irrelevant.

MY point is that anything that we hold as 'sacred', for lack of a better word at the moment, is in the same fix the Bible is. Keep in mind that ALL of the following are equivalent:

- political ideologies
- philosophy
- religion

All three operate from faith. All three cannot be proven. The idea that we should have freedom of speech, for instance, cannot be proven in a laboratory according to scientific method. Neither can any of the 'natural rights' so beloved of Western culture since the Enlightenment.

They don't need to be tested in a lab. They're tested in countries. On populations. By populations in democracies.

1) God doesn't dick around with us on a daily basis.

Because he doesn't exist?

Rapscallion

Kheldarson

04-02-2011, 06:13 PM

Raps, all he's saying is that in the Roman Catholic Church, we have some ideas which we call Truths. These are doctrinal ideas based on faith that form the premise for the rest of doctrine. Like God's existence. The idea that Jesus is both Son of God and Son of Man. That God has a plan for us. The Trinity. Etc. Truth (with a capital T) in the RCC is a near-synonym for Mystery as in something we believe by faith.

According to Peter Kreeft, a theologian and apologist of the Church, Truths fall into the category of acts of reason based on faith. We can still understand them through reason, through breaking down what it means, defining ideas, but the premise lies in faith.

And to the last...I guess we'll find out when we die, right?

Rapscallion

04-02-2011, 06:27 PM

What I'm saying is that it's still name games. I went to the toilet and produced something I'll call gold. Other people might realise what it actually is is fecal matter, but calling it gold gives it so much more credence, right?

It's not 'Truth' if it's false.

Oh look, I just urinated pixie juice and diluted diamonds!

Rapscallion

Kheldarson

04-02-2011, 06:43 PM

Just because you call it false doesn't make it any less true to myself or other adherents to the Catholic faith.

Again, I understand we're coming from different premises here. And that the ultimate proof won't be ours until after we're dead. But it's not a name game. It's a difference of opinions. My opinion is that there is a kind, loving God who's been trying to guide us on a path of goodness and morality. Yours is that there isn't one. In my opinion, there are some things that have been told to us by God so, by definition of God, are true. Since you don't believe in that same God, you, of course, don't believe it to be true. And that's okay. Just as long as we both realize all we're doing is giving each other definitions of our stances.

And what are you going to do with your newfound source of wealth, Raps? ;)

Lachrymose

04-02-2011, 06:53 PM

Something is either true or it isn't.

If you (general) believe something to be true, but it isn't, it doesn't magically make it true (and vice versa).

Kheldarson

04-02-2011, 06:59 PM

Rapscallion

04-02-2011, 07:30 PM

I fully understand that you believe in god. However, that doesn't mean that god exists.

Rapscallion

RecoveringKinkoid

04-02-2011, 08:27 PM

And we fully understand you don't believe he does. That does not mean he doesn't. ;)

The same logic can be applied to either side of the debate.

Which is why these sorts of debates are fruitless. Nobody's going to convince anyone of anything.

My original point in all this was while non believers complain about believers shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat, as a believer I've been subject to same from unbelievers.

Which baffles me. Because if you don't believe in anything, why should anyone care that I believe in something?

I mean, if I said i believe the sun is actually Apollo driving the sun across the sky and I had to take a day off to sacrifice doves to Aphrodite, would anyone care that I thought that, really? Heck, if I said "I'm Jewish and I can't drive after sundown on Friday night" nobody would even blink, and Judaism is an actual widely practice religion. However, I say "I'm Christian" and all of a sudden, the fact that I believe in the Christian God is some sort of issue that people who profess to believe in nothing care about.

Honestly, I don't get it. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to help me get it, either.

Andara Bledin

04-02-2011, 09:10 PM

Which baffles me. Because if you don't believe in anything, why should anyone care that I believe in something?

Honestly, I don't get it. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to help me get it, either.
I don't get it either, but according to some of those people on this board, it's somehow their duty to lead the rest of us to the light of truth.

Sounds awfully hypocritical to me.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

04-02-2011, 09:13 PM

To repeat myself, I've backed away from being confrontational over the years. Not sure if I lost interest, found it a lost cause, or saw something shiny, but these days I reserve it for debate boards like this or when confronted by someone religious trying to push their agenda. I don't particularly approve of it, nor do I go out of my way to disapprove. It's human nature to try and persuade others of your point of view. As the atheist movement (not exactly much of an organisation) grows and matures, I think it'll settle down .

The whole issue of atheists pushing back is pretty new - I think the first target for those who want to combat religious evangelists are going to be those who evangelise. There aren't any door-to-door jews proclaiming their faith and exhorting others to join them, at least not that I've experienced. Never seen any muslims do that either, though in the current age they'd be taking their lives in their hands. A few of the Hare Krishna did, but they've died down to a few orange-robed dudes dancing through the streets once in a while, tinkling tiny cymbals if memory serves. Not sure how many people they've converted that way, mind. Maybe a few people still out of their minds on last night's ecstacy, perhaps.

See, the problem is that the only religious group to go out and try to convert others heavily in the western world are identified as christian, and that's almost certainly why you get the bile from the militant atheists. I'm not condoning their actions, only explaining why I think you get this impression.

I've seen a number of religious arguments on Youtube, and the intelligent atheists on there will happily debate with all comers. Primarily it's the christians, but I remember seeing atheists debating with other faiths.

Why should I care?

As I said before, there have been a huge number of vile things done by those who truly believe. I don't think most of those at the top of such organisations have anything but political gain in mind when arranging atrocities, but the acts are generally carried out by true believers who swallow it whole. The suicide bomber in the market place thinks that within seconds he'll be surrounded by seventy-two virgins. The widow commiting suttee believed she would wash away her husband's sins for his time in the afterlife.

I've been in many impressive churches as a tourist. The religious building in Karlstein Castle was closed at the time of my visit, but it was impressive. There was some exquisite architecture in the church in Prague Castle. I can highly recommend it. I've been up the Tower of Pisa where the bell ringers risked their lives all weathers to bring the faithful to prayer in the Field of Miracles. I've looked from there over the dome of the church or cathedral whatever it is (memory not what it used to be) there and marvelled at the intricate workmanship that went into designing it. I've posted pictures of my trip to the Isle of Man where I saw some enchanting gothic churches. I saw a mate get married in a charming country church some years ago in St Ives.

How much better would humanity have been if the efforts that had gone into such been put into genuine improvements? Sure, they're a unifying force for less-advanced times, but that just makes them a manner of controlling the masses. How far back did the catholic church push scientific advancement when it denied that the earth rotated around the sun? Galileo ended up under house arrest. I'm not certain where it says in the bible that the earth is the centre of the universe, but his views were considered heresy.

How much better could we be if we weren't held back by superstition?

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

04-02-2011, 09:16 PM

How much better could we be if we weren't held back by superstition?
We wouldn't. We'd still be the same people we are, fearing the same things we do now, only for different reasons.

Religion is not the cause, merely a method.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

04-02-2011, 09:22 PM

Not sure what you're saying here. If we managed to reason away religion as a whole? All forms? Just one or two prevalent ones? We'd make our own?

I'd be quite happy for religion in all forms just vanish painlessly. If something comes along to replace it, we can deal with that in due course.

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

04-02-2011, 09:28 PM

You'd be dealing with it until the ends of time. People will still be people and they will still fill the dark corners with boogiemen.

Everybody would be better off if those who were anti-theist would stop banging their heads against that wall and just get on with being decent people and proving that they aren't just another flavor of religious bigot.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

04-02-2011, 09:33 PM

You'd be dealing with it until the ends of time. People will still be people and they will still fill the dark corners with boogiemen.

If I don't make the effort, I don't support independent thought and true free will.

Religion is not the cause, merely a method.

That interests me. I assume you're religious from your other posts, so shouldn't religion be viewed as the 'Truth' or the only way things should be, rather than a 'method'?

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

04-02-2011, 09:42 PM

That interests me. I assume you're religious from your other posts, so shouldn't religion be viewed as the 'Truth' or the only way things should be, rather than a 'method'?
You assume wrong.

As I've stated repeatedly, my religion is the "Truth" for me. Sure, it may also work out great for thousands of other people, or it may work for nobody else. Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass what another person believes as long as they don't try to use it as an excuse to abuse or bully others.

Just as there are dozens of roads into Los Angeles, there are many paths a person may take to find what they need as regards religion. Some find that they don't want anything more than what they can hold in their hands, others feel more fulfilled with the belief in a deity or supreme being, some follow a belief in a pantheon of some sort, and there are those who believe in something beyond what we know, but not necessarily any single being.

I don't contend that any of those paths are wrong. Every individual is different and different people have different needs.

My boyfriend of the last 11 years is an athiest. I'm very deeply Christian. We get along great because we both respect that the other has made their own, personal choice, and we're both comfortable enough with our beliefs that we don't feel the need to force the other to believe the same.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

04-02-2011, 09:55 PM

Incorrect. I assumed correctly in that you were religious.

I was asking for some clarification in your approach.

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

04-02-2011, 10:02 PM

My mistake, then.

However, I don't know why you would have to assume anything since I've stated that I'm both religious and Christian in at least every other thread on the topic.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

04-02-2011, 11:03 PM

Couldn't be arsed reading that far away from the thread, actually. Had to rely on my aged and fuzzy memory :p

Rapscallion

FArchivist

04-03-2011, 12:24 AM

It's not a subtle distinction. It's a word game. "This is what that word actually means in my world, and therefore I'm right." Seen it a few times.

Despite what people like to think, the study of semantics is never a 'word game'. Language is often imprecise and English is the most imprecise language of them all; the definitions of "truth" and "fact" that I am using are the ones used in discussion of philosophy and belief systems in academia. Whether you agree with those definitions is irrelevant; context is extremely important.

Capitalising the first letter of a standard word and using it as a proper noun shouldn't allow anyone to change the meaning of it. It's an attempt to try and justify an untenable position by linguistics, and it's been perpetrated for generations.

And it's successful. I point to legal terminology as a very long-standing example of this. What a word means in the law is not necessarily what it means in the vernacular.

As far as I'm concerned, it cannot be a truth unless it's verified by some means. There are mathmatical proofs that two plus two equals four - I saw one and didn't understand it, but I was fourteen at the time and conceptual maths isn't really my strong point.

Then your point would be that all belief systems are false, since no belief systems are able to be verified by some means. This doesn't just mean religion; it also includes all philosophical viewpoints and political ideologies. Thus, Existentialism and a belief in the natural rights of man are also false.

Your point would be...? I'm not a citizen of the US, so I don't have the same viewpoint as yourself. What I do have is a consideration that this is an attempt to cash in on the popularity of said document amongst your audience here.

The majority of this forum is American and thus I use an example that would be relevant to the majority. But my point is that if we're going to dismiss the product of a belief systems because of its origins with people whose morals we don't approve of, then we need to apply it equally to the products of ALL belief systems. The people who came up with "freedom of speech" or "one man, one vote" weren't moral saints either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

They don't need to be tested in a lab. They're tested in countries. On populations. By populations in democracies.

That's not verification of anything by ANY scientific methodology. Popularity by the mob does not a truth make. And it's also inconclusive; rights are not necessary for the operation of a successful country, as history has shown us.

Because he doesn't exist?

Are you asking from a universal POV or from my personal religious POV?

I fully understand that you believe in god. However, that doesn't mean that god exists.

That would essentially be correct. There is no disagreement with that statement. Catholic theologians have acknowledged that for years.

I'd be quite happy for religion in all forms just vanish painlessly. If something comes along to replace it, we can deal with that in due course.

If religion had never existed at all to begin with, then right now we'd be arguing about the role of the 2000-year-old Communist Party and how they'd done some good things and some bad things and the Trotskyist Heresy and so on.

I think that's the difference between you and I; you focus on religion specifically. I see ALL belief systems as equivalent. If religion is guilty, so is all of ideology. So is all of philosophy. Catholic, Stoic, or French Revolutionary; they're all belief systems.

Kheldarson

04-03-2011, 12:49 AM

How much better would humanity have been if the efforts that had gone into such been put into genuine improvements? Sure, they're a unifying force for less-advanced times, but that just makes them a manner of controlling the masses. How far back did the catholic church push scientific advancement when it denied that the earth rotated around the sun? Galileo ended up under house arrest. I'm not certain where it says in the bible that the earth is the centre of the universe, but his views were considered heresy.

How much better could we be if we weren't held back by superstition?

Rapscallion

Actually, Galileo was more under house arrest for continuing to disseminate his information rather than the information itself. Same thing as what happened to Martin Luther actually. See, main issue with the Church as always been the fact she's a bureaucracy and bureaucracies are notorious for being hard to change. But in Galileo's case, the Church already knew a change had to happen. Why?

Because the calendar was all f'ed up. And Galileo's new information was going to force the change.

And the Church was still trying to process that at all levels.

The issue became the over-reaction of various members of the Church (banning his books) but Galileo kept publishing (after being told not to) and just like a parent would after being disobeyed, Galileo got punished. But the Church kept working with his information to eventually change the calendar to the now used Gregorian calendar.

As for where it says in the Bible, that's just from description. It was assumed because every writer said "As the sun rises over the earth" or "The sun travels across the sky" or what have you from our perspective...it was assumed that that must be how things work. You know. Human nature saying we're the center of things.

AdminAssistant

04-03-2011, 12:58 AM

And how much other great work would Galileo have done had he not been under house arrest?

Kheldarson

04-03-2011, 01:14 AM

Considering he was doing his work at home anyway? Why didn't he keep working as is? They just prevented him from publishing, really. He was allowed to come and go as he pleased really from what I've read from the time.

HYHYBT

04-03-2011, 01:34 AM

Those who say religion is provably false: go ahead and prove it, then. Nobody ever has in the history of the world. I've read many claims to have done so, but the *best* of them only get so far as a lack of proof for the other side, which is not the same thing. Faith is NOT believing in what has been proven to be false, but it certainly can include believing what has not been proven to be true. Treating the two as the same is a very old and worn out slight-of-hand trick, nothing more, and people ought to be ashamed of themselves for still trying to use it.

Gravekeeper

04-03-2011, 04:40 AM

Laboratory provability of rebirth is an extreme problem. :)

Yes, but its ironically one of the extremely few spiritual angles that *does* have research done into the matter and enough evidence in its favour to make even Carl Sagan pause. Its also one of the few spiritual angles that is researchable using existing methods.

Resurrection, water walking and instant wine on the other hand not so much.

No, there we are confusing Truth and Fact again, which are two different things.

What Raps said.

Then you have just agreed that the Constitution of the USA shouldn't be. :) It was written by misogynist, patriarchal, racist, rich land-holding slave owners 200+ years ago.

Again, not sure what your point is. I knew what you were talking about, but I'm Canadian. Thusly I do not actually agree with your Constitution and find parts of it suspect. Yet you adhere to it, well, religiously.

MY point is that anything that we hold as 'sacred', for lack of a better word at the moment, is in the same fix the Bible is. Keep in mind that ALL of the following are equivalent:

- political ideologies
- philosophy
- religion

But 2 of the 3 must rely on reason to explain themselves and are open to debate, the third does not.

1) God doesn't dick around with us on a daily basis. At least, the RCC doesn't say that. Now some Protestants, on the other hand...
2) That's why we're supposed to spread the "Good Word". Of course, it all differs on who and how we're supposed to spread it, depending on the denomination.

1) The RCC may be the only one who doesn't then.
2) That's stupid, frankly. As it means your God is still relying on "Eh, I'll tell this one bunch of goat farmers and just hope they get it right for a few thousand years and overcome all cultural and language barriers to tell the rest of the world. Fuck everyone else though, I can't be bothered to swing by and give them any hints."

Which would bring us back to the particular God you speak of being incompetant and honestly kind of a dick. >.>

I'm speaking purely from the perspective of the RCC, which is the only thing I can speak for. Note, each sect says the other sect has got it wrong. Sort of like the difference between Thereveda, Mahayana, and Vajrayana sects, with more argument.

The different sects of Buddhism do not disagree in that fashion. The three major schools don't disagree on what Buddha taught, they basically disagree on which method Buddha taught is the fastest one to achieve Enlightenment. They do not ignore or discredit the other methods, only focus more on the method they believe is the most effecient. Thereveda for instance is very much the "seclude yourself on a mountain top and focus purely on expanding your own wisdom". While Mahayana is more "Get out there and practice compassion and unconditional love for all beings".

My opinion is that there is a kind, loving God who's been trying to guide us on a path of goodness and morality. Yours is that there isn't one. In my opinion, there are some things that have been told to us by God so, by definition of God, are true. Since you don't believe in that same God, you, of course, don't believe it to be true. And that's okay.

The problem is Rap's "opinion" is supported by fact. Yours is not. You may view this as okay, but don't be surprised when it bugs people ;p heh.

So...I believe that caramel is kind of nasty. This is a true statement. But my mom enjoys caramel and thinks it's one of the best things in the world. This is also a true statement. Is one of us lying then? That's the same argument being given here. Only replace caramel with God.

Try "I believe caramel exists and is kind of nasty, but my mom has never seen caramel in her life because its not actually there for her to see when I point at it in the store". -.-

And we fully understand you don't believe he does. That does not mean he doesn't.

I'm beginning to understand why Ghel blows a gasket every time we have one of these dicussions. The burden of proof is not the same on both sides of this debate. Simple as that. You can't just hand way it like that. That's not how it works. ><

Which baffles me. Because if you don't believe in anything, why should anyone care that I believe in something?

I personally don't care what other people believe, its when their beliefs are causing suffering to others or to society as a whole that I get pissy. The problem, and fact of the matter, is that belief causing suffering is biggest amongst the Abrahamic religions. Hence this dicussions get, well, like this. >.>

Other than that, believe whatever you want. Just don't hurt anyone, don't try to cram it down anyone's throat and don't flagantly urinate in the face of science. That's really all I ask from people. -.-

I'd be quite happy for religion in all forms just vanish painlessly. If something comes along to replace it, we can deal with that in due course.

The ironic problem of course being that if the day came when science finally unlocked the mechanisms by which the universe operates in regards to the mind and "soul", it would immediately be dismissed by most major religions as heresy.

Those who say religion is provably false: go ahead and prove it, then. Nobody ever has in the history of the world.

I would surmise that is more because the devoutly religious would never, ever listen to such proof to begin with. But if you really want to delve into this, science has proven religion false countless times. Hence many religions and belief systems have fallen out of use over the course of history in part because they are, at this point, too absurd to be accepted by the average person with a modern education.

Its unfortunate that some aspects of Christianity ( and Islam ) are heading down this road nowadays. Mainly due to the insistence of imposing their beliefs on others.

I've read many claims to have done so, but the *best* of them only get so far as a lack of proof for the other side, which is not the same thing.

Welcome to the scientific method? When your proof amounts to "It's magic!" then damn straight it doesn't hold up.

Faith is NOT believing in what has been proven to be false, but it certainly can include believing what has not been proven to be true. Treating the two as the same is a very old and worn out slight-of-hand trick, nothing more, and people ought to be ashamed of themselves for still trying to use it.

That was bullshit, sorry. If faith stopped believing in that which has been proven false, we wouldn't have this mess to begin with. The biggest problem religion has in the modern world is the refusal of many of its members to adapt their religion to the modern world. It's this refusal to evolve that causes so many problems.

Again, the burden of proof is sitting squarely on the shoulders of only one side of the debate. Instead of rambling that its not false because it hasn't been proven true, try looking for ways it may be true using the knowledge we already have. Methods by which what you believe in might actually function in our universe.

Kheldarson

04-03-2011, 06:24 AM

Why should the burden of proof be just on those of us who believe? We don't take issue with your non-belief. Personally I've stated on here, particularly in this thread, I view it as a personal opinion of mine and respect others decisions to have different opinions. The burden of proof should be on those who take issue.

But even then, we have a problem. See, you insist that the only things that should be allowed are those things that we have here on this world. I believe in there being something more than this world, something beyond this world. Since you'd only be arguing from this world's viewpoint and not the other, your argument would be incomplete for me. If I argue from my viewpoint, I'd be including things that you don't view as admissible. Hm...I think I'm also summarizing the arguments between Martin Luther and the Church.

When one group insists that things the other definitively believes in should be disallowed in an argument or debate, neither group will be well satisfied with the answers.

Gravekeeper

04-03-2011, 06:47 AM

Why should the burden of proof be just on those of us who believe? We don't take issue with your non-belief. Personally I've stated on here, particularly in this thread, I view it as a personal opinion of mine and respect others decisions to have different opinions. The burden of proof should be on those who take issue.

Not sure if you're talking to me or not, but to answer your question: That's because thats how logic works. If you claim something that does not have any evidence, the burden of proof is on you. Not on the people going "Hey, you don't have any evidence". That's simple logic. Its perfectly fine to believe in what you want, but do not submit it to others as truth then complain when they call you on it.

But even then, we have a problem. See, you insist that the only things that should be allowed are those things that we have here on this world <snip>

I'm not sure who you're talking too, as you didn't quote anyone?

Kheldarson

04-03-2011, 07:03 AM

I don't quote when I'm addressing the person directly above me. But as for the second part you quoted, Gravekeeper, that was continuing my own thought. We was a general usage.

And I've only claimed that I have a truth. And that you have a truth. And we'll discover THE TRUTH when we're dead. So who has the burden?

I don't force my opinion. I answer questions. You want an answer to something that is based in faith about a being that, by understanding, is difficult to define in human terms as He's larger than human definition. I already know by simply reading other threads in this forum that that's a pissing contest. There's no proof either side can issue to dissuade the other. So why continue to bring it up? It is possible to discuss religious topics without debating the existence of God.

Gravekeeper

04-03-2011, 07:39 AM

I don't quote when I'm addressing the person directly above me. But as for the second part you quoted, Gravekeeper, that was continuing my own thought. We was a general usage.

Sorry, but it sounded like you were talking to someone else entirely, seeing as I'm not an Atheist. =p I'm just being logical about this.

And I've only claimed that I have a truth. And that you have a truth. And we'll discover THE TRUTH when we're dead. So who has the burden?

Depends entirely on what the truths are and what you are doing with them. If you have your truth and keep it to yourself, you have no burden to anyone but yourself. If you bring your truth out into the open to show & tell with others, the burden is on you. If you bring your truth out in the face of knowledge and scientific fact, the burden is again on you.

I don't force my opinion. I answer questions. You want an answer to something that is based in faith about a being that, by understanding, is difficult to define in human terms as He's larger than human definition.

I don't want an answer, I'm pointing out the flaws in the argument. He means nothing to me, as He in this sense is yours alone and a construct of your faith. Also, a higher being however can be defined in human terms and can even be theorized scientifically. Alien intelligence? Some form of evolved conciousness? An omega point singularity? Quantum simulation?

The problem is religion tends to reject a scientific explaination outright. I'm a firm believer that we're probably not going to find out what The Truth(tm) is as you so call it, without both sides of this coming together to seek it. Or we die. But that sort of screws up being able to write a research paper about it. >.>

I already know by simply reading other threads in this forum that that's a pissing contest. There's no proof either side can issue to dissuade the other. So why continue to bring it up? It is possible to discuss religious topics without debating the existence of God.

I personally dislike both blind faith and militant atheism. However, it is difficult to elude either one in the Religion forum. As they will inevitable come up. Especially when the topic is Biblican Literalism. Though I do agree I would perfer to get back to the Bible itself. Problem is blind faith in the Bible begs logical interference. Its hard to talk about without drifting back into this Theism vs Atheism stuff yet again.

Rapscallion

04-03-2011, 07:48 AM

Why should the burden of proof be just on those of us who believe?

My experience of the average atheist is that they aren't claiming that something is, they take the view that someone claiming that something is when it's unproveable and unfounded by evidence as being inaccurate.

Theists are the ones who need to back up their claims. They're the ones who say that something is, despite there being no evidence.

Try reading up about the basis of the Flying Spaghetti Monster movement. It works on the very same principles you claim.

We don't take issue with your non-belief. Personally I've stated on here, particularly in this thread, I view it as a personal opinion of mine and respect others decisions to have different opinions.

I don't take issue with you believing what you do unless you either try and impress your views on me or make claims on a debate forum.

But even then, we have a problem. See, you insist that the only things that should be allowed are those things that we have here on this world.

Prove that there's more to it, prove that your belief is correct. I'd actually be happier knowing that there's an angel sat on my shoulder nudging my foot on the brake pedal when a child runs across the road when I'm driving to work. I'd love to know that when I do something good for someone, that the universe rewards me in direct response to that. I'd like to have far more than my life expentancy of existence. I really do want that to be the case, so feel free to prove it.

I'd love to be a D&D cleric. I'd revel in my one-ness with the divine if I were able to close wounds and revive injured people with a touch of my hands. I'd consider myself fortunate beyond other mortals were I able to feed thousands of people with a prayer. I'd want to be able to cure cancer with a few mumbled words and maybe a sacrifice of a piece of tofu. Regrettably, that has never happened. The christian god is claimed to be able to provide these miracles. How hard would it be for such an omnipotent being to put letters of fire in the sky saying, "I exist, so get worshipping."?

When one group insists that things the other definitively believes in should be disallowed in an argument or debate, neither group will be well satisfied with the answers.

As above, feel free to provide proof. I would quite happily allow it in debate and I would believe along with you if proof could be brought. All I see so far is pretty much, "I get warm fuzzies from believing this, so I do."

And I've only claimed that I have a truth. And that you have a truth. And we'll discover THE TRUTH when we're dead. So who has the burden?

The one claiming there's more than we can prove or experience.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php

I suggest you read and think about that. It's what non-believers come up against regularly from evangelists. I really wish I'd written it.

You want an answer to something that is based in faith about a being that, by understanding, is difficult to define in human terms as He's larger than human definition. I already know by simply reading other threads in this forum that that's a pissing contest.

Well, in simplified terms it's simply a case of one side saying something is one way without providing evidence or anything tangible, and when inconsistencies are pointed out by the other side end up saying that they're going to continue anyway because it makes them feel good. Maybe I'm biased, but that's what it boils down to.

There's no proof either side can issue to dissuade the other. So why continue to bring it up? It is possible to discuss religious topics without debating the existence of God.

Um, the existence of god is fundamental to religious topics when there is a faith involved that is based around his existence. I think it's pretty important.

Rapscallion

Gravekeeper

04-03-2011, 08:01 AM

I'd love to be a D&D cleric. I'd revel in my one-ness with the divine if I were able to close wounds and revive injured people with a touch of my hands.

Oh man, I'd give myself maybe a week of doing that until the whining reached a point where I shift my daily spells to little more than Firestorm and Gate. >.>

Rapscallion

04-03-2011, 08:07 AM

Despite what people like to think, the study of semantics is never a 'word game'. Language is often imprecise and English is the most imprecise language of them all; the definitions of "truth" and "fact" that I am using are the ones used in discussion of philosophy and belief systems in academia. Whether you agree with those definitions is irrelevant; context is extremely important.

The context for me is that someone is trying to hang inaccurate claims on very important and powerful words.

And it's successful.

Regrettably, don't I know it.

Then your point would be that all belief systems are false, since no belief systems are able to be verified by some means. This doesn't just mean religion; it also includes all philosophical viewpoints and political ideologies. Thus, Existentialism and a belief in the natural rights of man are also false.

I'm not fully boned up on existentialism, so I'll have to get back to you about that. Rights of man - quite frankly, in a Darwinistic world, rights mean sod all. Survival of the nastiest.

Rights are what you can afford once you've made yourself secure. We're biologically programmed to be a social animal, and with that comes the sense of belonging to a tribe. As a social construct, rights of the individual are not unreasonable.

The majority of this forum is American and thus I use an example that would be relevant to the majority. But my point is that if we're going to dismiss the product of a belief systems because of its origins with people whose morals we don't approve of, then we need to apply it equally to the products of ALL belief systems. The people who came up with "freedom of speech" or "one man, one vote" weren't moral saints either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't quite see the relevance of other systems, including politics, in this debate about religion.

That's not verification of anything by ANY scientific methodology. Popularity by the mob does not a truth make. And it's also inconclusive; rights are not necessary for the operation of a successful country, as history has shown us.

Indeed they are not. However, history having shown us is one form of social science. From what you said yourself, it's been proven that other systems also work. As I said above, survival of the nastiest.

That would essentially be correct. There is no disagreement with that statement. Catholic theologians have acknowledged that for years.

This is also true, but then they went on and tried to work on the basis that he does exist.

If religion had never existed at all to begin with, then right now we'd be arguing about the role of the 2000-year-old Communist Party and how they'd done some good things and some bad things and the Trotskyist Heresy and so on.

I think the cold war is proof that there's more than one political system out there - capitalism versus communism versus socialism versus...

I think that's the difference between you and I; you focus on religion specifically. I see ALL belief systems as equivalent. If religion is guilty, so is all of ideology. So is all of philosophy. Catholic, Stoic, or French Revolutionary; they're all belief systems.

Survival of the nastiest.

Actually, Galileo was more under house arrest for continuing to disseminate his information rather than the information itself.

Fluffy handcuffs are still handcuffs.

Same thing as what happened to Martin Luther actually. See, main issue with the Church as always been the fact she's a bureaucracy and bureaucracies are notorious for being hard to change.

That might be the main issue for you.

The issue became the over-reaction of various members of the Church (banning his books) but Galileo kept publishing (after being told not to) and just like a parent would after being disobeyed, Galileo got punished. But the Church kept working with his information to eventually change the calendar to the now used Gregorian calendar.

What I got out of the Galileo story is that the church didn't like being told they were wrong. It took three hundred and fifty years (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileo-was-right.html) for them to admit it. I'd count that as over ten generations. That's not, "Oops, we were wrong." That's, "Sod you, we're right in the face of all evidence, and so are those we teach in the same vein."

Rapscallion

Hyena Dandy

04-03-2011, 11:39 AM

Try reading up about the basis of the Flying Spaghetti Monster movement. It works on the very same principles you claim.

No, it doesn't. The FSM works on the principle that there's no proof, so it must be true. What every theist in this thread so far has worked on is the principle that it can't be proven, so we'll believe it, but you don't have to.

The reason the only proof you've gotten is "It gives me warm fuzzies, so I'll believe it" is because that is the only claim we've MADE. That it makes us happy, so there's nothing wrong with us believing it. We don't CARE if you believe or don't believe, what we care is that you allow US to believe.

Rapscallion

04-03-2011, 11:49 AM

No, it doesn't. The FSM works on the principle that there's no proof, so it must be true. What every theist in this thread so far has worked on is the principle that it can't be proven, so we'll believe it, but you don't have to.

I'm trying to see the difference between:

"There's no proof, so it must be true"

and

"It can't be proven, so we'll believe it"

I can't. Why would you believe something you know to be other than true?

Rapscallion

Gravekeeper

04-03-2011, 12:12 PM

No, it doesn't. The FSM works on the principle that there's no proof, so it must be true.

Ehh, sort of. It goes back to Russell's Teapot. Which isn't "There's no proof, so it must be true" but rather mocking "You can't prove its NOT true, so it can be true". Referring to the tendency of the overtly religious to illogically shift the burden of proof back on science, when it belongs on the shoulders of the religion. Which requires ignoring reason and Occam's Razor.

It doesn't matter if science cannot prove it *not* true, the burden of proof is on religion, and Occam's Razor demands the simpliest explaination ( No God ) is the correct one over the complex explaination ( There is a supreme high deity thats done all this crazy shit ).

What every theist in this thread so far has worked on is the principle that it can't be proven, so we'll believe it, but you don't have to.

Again, you bring it out for show and tell, you open it up for debate. However, the crux of this issue is not what you believe in general, but specific belief in the Bible, which is a document that is easily proven false in many of its sections. The Bible, as a physical, tangible thing can be examined and can be proven or disproven to a major degree. It is not something intangible.

The reason the only proof you've gotten is "It gives me warm fuzzies, so I'll believe it" is because that is the only claim we've MADE. That it makes us happy, so there's nothing wrong with us believing it. We don't CARE if you believe or don't believe, what we care is that you allow US to believe.

Don't make me call another Bullshit Card ;p

No one is restricting your choice of beliefs. You may believe whatever the hell you want. No one on an internet forum of all places has any control or power over what you do or do not believe nor any way of forcing you to believe or not believe in something. But if you enter into discussion with your beliefs, you open those beliefs to debate and criticism by doing so. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. So either accept the this, or put your money where your mouth is and stop taking part in the discussion. It has no power over you or your beliefs. But you're not allowed to yell rules from the sidelines then whine when the players disagree.

Andara Bledin

04-03-2011, 05:54 PM

My experience of the average atheist is that they aren't claiming that something is, they take the view that someone claiming that something is when it's unproveable and unfounded by evidence as being inaccurate.
The average one, yes, just like the average Christian does their own thing and leaves the rest of the world alone. Well, actually, most of the atheists I've actually met haven't actually gone that far, merely that they don't have a reason to believe there is a god, any god, and left it at that; they don't seem to feel this need to call out theists as being credulous like some of the rest of them.

And it's that vocal minority among atheists, the anti-theists, who are the other side of the coin to the fundamentalists. Both sides are as unyielding, as dogmatic as the other, and just as obnoxious and detrimental to the world around them.

And, I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but regular Christians get harassed and berated by evangelical types nearly as often as non-Christians. I've had a few get in my face that I've wanted to slap silly, myself.

Um, the existence of god is fundamental to religious topics when there is a faith involved that is based around his existence. I think it's pretty important.
Actually, you can have a quite involved discussion about even the Judeo-Christian religions without ever once acceding or denying the position of whether or not there is actually a God. The entire religion isn't about Him - a lot of it is about us.

The Bible, as a physical, tangible thing can be examined and can be proven or disproven to a major degree. It is not something intangible.
Sure, you can prove that there are flaws in the Bible.

The next step would be to discover why those flaws are there.

It seems to be very sloppy science to find them, point to them and say, "That's it, the whole thing is rubbish," and wander off.

Were they there at the beginning? Were they introduced by others either through mistakes in transcription or translation? Were they added by people who wanted to push an agenda?

^-.-^

AdminAssistant

04-03-2011, 06:09 PM

The next step would be to discover why those flaws are there.

It seems to be very sloppy science to find them, point to them and say, "That's it, the whole thing is rubbish," and wander off.

Were they there at the beginning? Were they introduced by others either through mistakes in transcription or translation? Were they added by people who wanted to push an agenda?

Actually, I wouldn't call that science. It sounds more like historical source criticism, which is certainly academic. However, it is speculative to a degree not allowed by the scientific method.

The Bible is a rather fascinating historical document, spanning centuries, and much can be revealed about different societies and eras in history through its adaptations, changes, translations, etc. But as an accurate source for the Ultimate Truth in the Universe? Meh. Not for me.

The real problem I have, which is the same problem that many have, is that there are individuals trying to write laws and change American/Western societies based on what it contains. That would be like taking Aristotle's Poetics and demanding that all plays and musicals be written to conform to his opinions and not allowing works that go against it.

The only difference being that there's actually a stronger source of authorship with The Poetics.

Andara Bledin

04-03-2011, 06:27 PM

The real problem I have, which is the same problem that many have, is that there are individuals trying to write laws and change American/Western societies based on what it contains.
Count me among that many. The fundies who want to re-write history and reshape society on the back of a flawed document should scare the crap out of any rational individual.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

04-03-2011, 06:43 PM

Sure, you can prove that there are flaws in the Bible.

The next step would be to discover why those flaws are there.

It seems to be very sloppy science to find them, point to them and say, "That's it, the whole thing is rubbish," and wander off.

Were they there at the beginning? Were they introduced by others either through mistakes in transcription or translation? Were they added by people who wanted to push an agenda?

You're speaking of different things than I am. I'm not referring to translation errors or tweaks for political agendas. I'm referring to blatant bullshit like the flood, creation fables, miracles, disagreeing perspectives on the same events from different authors, etc etc. Though the translation errors and tweaks are quite annoying too.

I mean their are non-canon gospels where Jesus fights dragons, creates life in the same fashion as God and murders other children that tattled on him. Though the dragons part would be pretty awesome if they had left it in.

Also if you go back a page or too you'll see I said no such thing about saying the whole thing is rubbish and wandering off. Quite the opposite. =p

radiocerk

04-03-2011, 10:06 PM

I tend to have a problem with the political types who attempt to use Biblical literalism as a jumping board for legislation. I don't care if your book says homosexuality is wrong, not everyone believes that, and your beliefs are not any more valid than mine. Same goes for abortion, genocide, women's rights, patriarchy, etc. But the fundamentalists think that the job they were given by "God" is to rework the world, and especially the US, in their image for God's glory, or something. These people need a new book that's free of the bloodthirsty offensive stuff and just includes the warm fuzzies.

KabeRinnaul

04-03-2011, 10:57 PM

You're speaking of different things than I am. I'm not referring to translation errors or tweaks for political agendas. I'm referring to blatant bullshit like the flood, creation fables, miracles, disagreeing perspectives on the same events from different authors, etc etc. Though the translation errors and tweaks are quite annoying too.

I actually find things like the flood and creation myths interesting. As written, they're plain nonsense as far as history and science go. But at the same time, the stories in the Bible were originally an oral tradition and even the oldest portions of the Old Testament weren't written down until at least 1000 BC (more likely closer to 600-500 BC). The Bible shares a number of stories (the flood being a notable one) with Sumerian mythology, and both likely derived from the same source (either a shared pre-Sumerian culture or just plagiarism on the part of the Hebrews - though the latter is a large part either way).

The flood in particular hints at an actual historical event described in oral tradition, and likely blown way out of proportion by the time I was actually recorded. The original event was likely a valley flooding and driving out a tribe of hunter-gatherers or early farmers. After being an oral tradition for so long, events were distorted and it became the world-spanning disaster recorded in Genesis.

The story of Eden is likely a similar account of a tribe being forced to move away from a fertile land in the face of natural disaster. The description of Eden as being at the head of four rivers (the Tigris and Euphrates, and two that haven't really been identified, the Pishon and Gihon - though the Pishon is quite possibly the Karun) has lead to a number of theories about it's location. One suggests that at one point, the northern end of the Persian Gulf was actually dry land and that the sea eventually rose over it, because there is evidence that two rivers met the Tigris and Euphrates there and flowed into the sea as one, which matches the description given in Genesis, though in this case the Pishon wouldn't be Karun but a river that has since dried up, as would be the Gihon.

So while the Bible as a historical document is iffy (especially for anything prior to about 700 BC) and as a scientific one basically pointless, it's still interesting as a piece of an ancient culture (moral messages notwithstanding).

Kheldarson

04-03-2011, 11:16 PM

Actually, of the Torah, Genesis and Exodus should be taken as just stories. Good messages, but handed down by oral tradition so highly suspect as true history. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy can be held to closer literalism as in they are literally listings of the laws, practices, and punishments of the society. Again, when they go into the history of the time, take as suspect, but the laws hadn't changed that much by the time of David. So the laws are okay to take literally.

Don't take that as being should be followed literally; I agree that the laws of that time no longer apply to us. But they are what was followed at the time.

Gravekeeper

04-03-2011, 11:53 PM

Actually, of the Torah, Genesis and Exodus should be taken as just stories. Good messages, but handed down by oral tradition so highly suspect as true history.

Kabe is correct actually, many of the myths are Sumer in origin. The flood one especially. It's been mentioned once or twice before in these threads. Even the story of Jesus's birth liberally borrows from previous myths.

Ironically, the Quran is a much more accurate to its original message and a more cohesive work as its straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Islam considers the Bible, specifically the Gospels, to be too corrupted by human farkwittery. Islam has 4 books supposedly given directly to prophets by God. The Quran is one. The one that Jesus recieved was the Injil, and it was its teachings that he preached. But its original message and teachings are considered lost by Islam. With only bits and pieces being contained in the Gospels.

Which I find rather fascinating to be honest. If you wish to be logical about the whole affair, Islam is a better intact information source due to its insistence on 100% accuracy within its religious texts and being written by the players in question in the the time period in question instead of hundreds of years later. Altering religious text is heresy to Islam. But they overlap with much of the same people and events as the Bible.

Of course suggesting such a thing would get me run out of town in a lot of places down south me thinks. >.>

Kheldarson

04-04-2011, 01:17 AM

Kabe is correct actually, many of the myths are Sumer in origin. The flood one especially. It's been mentioned once or twice before in these threads.

And I've been one of the ones who mentioned it. I was just expanding his argument to include Exodus and show how the other three books of the Torah can be excluded. Again, Genesis and Exodus should be taken as stories. Stories from where, probably a lot from Sumer (although the flood didn't necessarily have to come from Sumer, seeing as the Hebrews would've experienced it on their own), but seeing as they did make it to Canaan and to Egypt at various points, there's probably overlap from those regions too.

Gravekeeper

04-04-2011, 01:50 AM

And Revelations, don't forget tacking on the grand finale. >.>

RecoveringKinkoid

04-04-2011, 03:42 AM

Of course suggesting such a thing would get me run out of town in a lot of places down south me thinks. >.>

Well, contrary to what you learned watching those very informative documentaries, The Dukes Of Hazzard, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Li'l Abner, no more or less so than anywhere else. :rolleyes:

Ghel

04-04-2011, 02:45 PM

So...I believe that caramel is kind of nasty. This is a true statement. But my mom enjoys caramel and thinks it's one of the best things in the world. This is also a true statement. Is one of us lying then?

That's the same argument being given here. Only replace caramel with God. I haven't asked you to believe that God exists, only to believe that I believe God exists. And thus I have a whole line of logic to go with it.
I think this has been answered admirably, but I'd like to add my two cents.

The statements "I like caramel" and "I dislike caramel" are not truth statements. They are statements of opinion. Opinion is the only way in which something can be true for one person and not true for another.

When you're talking about God, however, you're making the claim "God exists." Continuing the caramel comparison, all that's needed to demonstrate that "caramel exists" is true, is to hand someone a caramel. Now, you just need to do that with God.

Gravekeeper

04-04-2011, 03:01 PM

Well, contrary to what you learned watching those very informative documentaries, The Dukes Of Hazzard, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Li'l Abner, no more or less so than anywhere else. :rolleyes:

Oh its more, definately more. My parents use to road trip through the US every year in their motorhome for years. Every year its been getting just a bit weirder for them since 9/11. After their trip last summer, they've sworn off ever going again because there's places in the south they aren't even comfortable stopping at now. People see the Canadian license plate and literally walk up to them to challenge them about politics, Jesus and what not. Because Canada is a godless socialist wasteland, remember. ><

the_std

04-04-2011, 03:55 PM

Unfortunately, I have to agree with GK. The final nail in the coffin for me was Top Gear's Southern USA special (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_US_Special).

Challenge 4 (Lethal Car Decorating): Prior to entering Alabama, the presenters were instructed to roller-paint each other's cars with slogans which might lead to them getting shot by the locals. May painted pro-homosexual slogans on Hammond's car ("Man-love rules OK"), Hammond painted "Country and Western is Rubbish" on Clarkson's, and Clarkson painted "Hillary for President, "NASCAR sucks" and "I'm bi" on May's car. All three attempts were so successful at offending the locals that, in one of Top Gear's most famous moments, the presenters and the filming crew members were chased out of town by friends of the owner of State Line Convenience in Seminole, AL, who pelted the crew's vans with rocks. The frightened crew quickly aborted the challenge and washed the paint off the cars, some using the t-shirts off their backs and cola drinks, and left.

If you watch that segment of the special, it is actually straight-up scary. I've never seen anywhere else in North America that is willing to threaten death and destruction as quickly and easily as those rednecks did.

RecoveringKinkoid

04-04-2011, 05:02 PM

Really, guys? Because I live here with a biracial husband, swarthy ethnic face, and pretty liberal views on religion. So I'm thinking I probably have a better grasp on the attitudes of the average South Carolinian (at the very least) than, say, a reality show with a demographic to impress.

And, with respect, a couple of Canadians on a road trip.

I've run into nut jobs here. And in New Jersey. And Maryland. And Massachusetts. And Nevada and Texas.

I've run into nut jobs in ITALY.

There's plenty of places in the south I'm not comfortable stopping. And plenty up north, too. There are places out west I've been warned to avoid. I can't go any farther east without getting wet, so I can't speak much about the merfolk.

Unfortunately, assholes spring from every type of soil in the world. They are the kudzu of humanity.

the_std

04-04-2011, 05:40 PM

Kink, I believe that there are heaps and heaps of great people in the South. I believe that you and your husband are very happy. I also know for sure that there are assholes everywhere.

But there is a difference between someone swearing at me and cutting me off in traffic, and someone chasing me down in a pick-up truck with a bunch of guys in the back, pelting me with rocks and death threats.

Crazedclerkthe2nd

04-05-2011, 04:11 AM

Oh its more, definately more. My parents use to road trip through the US every year in their motorhome for years. Every year its been getting just a bit weirder for them since 9/11. After their trip last summer, they've sworn off ever going again because there's places in the south they aren't even comfortable stopping at now. People see the Canadian license plate and literally walk up to them to challenge them about politics, Jesus and what not. Because Canada is a godless socialist wasteland, remember. ><

As a Canadian now living in the South I've encountered this too, BUT the majority of people I've encountered think it's pretty neat I'm Canadian and are curious to know how things are different up there.

The people who do challenge me about politics do so because they don't understand. I had a long chat with my friend about health care and despite my efforts to make him see otherwise, he insisted that universal health care was a terrible, socialist idea.

Most are also shocked to learn Canada has gun control. They just can't imagine someone taking their pistols away. I explain that you can still have rifles and such in Canada but that doesn't sway them much.

They see Canada as a scary example of where the U.S. is headed and they don't like it...

...which blows my mind because in a lot of areas (Health care, job creation, environmental issues, general quality of life) Canada is AHEAD of America and yet somehow it would be the worst thing ever for us to become more like them??

FArchivist

04-05-2011, 09:13 PM

I think this has been answered admirably, but I'd like to add my two cents.

The statements "I like caramel" and "I dislike caramel" are not truth statements. They are statements of opinion. Opinion is the only way in which something can be true for one person and not true for another.

When you're talking about God, however, you're making the claim "God exists." Continuing the caramel comparison, all that's needed to demonstrate that "caramel exists" is true, is to hand someone a caramel. Now, you just need to do that with God.

And this is where you are completely, absolutely wrong.
I will quote from the basis of Christianity, the Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Bold emphasis mine. These are statements of belief, which are otherwise known as opinions. I am not saying "God exists." I am saying "It is my belief that God exists." or if you prefer "It is my opinion that God exists." The two are semantically equivalent.

Hyena Dandy

04-05-2011, 09:20 PM

I'm sorry, I've had trouble following this thread, so a couple points.

1) GK, I wasn't trying to accuse Raps of censorship. I was saying what you let us believe referring to him saying he wanted to get rid of religion. Not saying he was actually actively doing it. I apologize.

2) Raps: The difference between the FSM and this is that the idea of the flying spaghetti monster is "It can't be proven not to exist, therefore you should believe it."

What we are saying is "It can't be proven not to exist, so I can believe it."

The difference is that the theists in this thread are not telling other people what to believe, they're saying that its okay for them to believe it.

Nobody's saying they should be immune to criticism. What we've been trying to get across, or at least I have, is that we don't find the criticism relevant. You're saying our beliefs don't hold up to examination, and I, at least, never claimed they did. In fact, the OP of the thread was that I DON'T believe the Bible to be literally true.

Edit: Added on thought.

The impression I've gotten, at least from Raps, was that everything is on the table for debate, which is fine. But I've also gotten the impression that he's saying if your beliefs don't stand up to being criticized, don't express them on a debate forum.

Which sounds noble, but what it comes down to is saying that I (and anyone else like me) who doesn't CARE if their beliefs stand up to the criticism isn't allowed to express themselves.

I'm sure that's not what you MEAN to be saying, but that is how its coming across.

Rapscallion

04-05-2011, 09:52 PM

Edit: Added on thought.

The impression I've gotten, at least from Raps, was that everything is on the table for debate, which is fine. But I've also gotten the impression that he's saying if your beliefs don't stand up to being criticized, don't express them on a debate forum.

Which sounds noble, but what it comes down to is saying that I (and anyone else like me) who doesn't CARE if their beliefs stand up to the criticism isn't allowed to express themselves.

I'm sure that's not what you MEAN to be saying, but that is how its coming across.

I certainly don't mean to censor things on here. I think a better way of phrasing things would be that if you want to put it on here then don't be surprised if people take it to pieces. My apologies if it was able to be taken in other ways.

Fact it, I do care if your beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny. From my perspective it's a waste of the effort you could have put into bettering humanity. It also worries me about the next generation - younger people are far more likely to militant than other age groups, wanting to be holier than the generations that came before. I have no doubt that your motives are good, but there are always going to be those who take it too far.

Rapscallion

Ghel

04-05-2011, 09:53 PM

These are statements of belief, which are otherwise known as opinions. I am not saying "God exists." I am saying "It is my belief that God exists." or if you prefer "It is my opinion that God exists." The two are semantically equivalent.
Are you saying that you don't think your beliefs are true (or that you don't care whether they're true)? Why would you want to believe something that isn't true?

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I think that's something that everybody should strive for.

The impression I've gotten, at least from Raps, was that everything is on the table for debate, which is fine. But I've also gotten the impression that he's saying if your beliefs don't stand up to being criticized, don't express them on a debate forum.

Which sounds noble, but what it comes down to is saying that I (and anyone else like me) who doesn't CARE if their beliefs stand up to the criticism isn't allowed to express themselves.
Please take this as a suggestion: If you don't think your beliefs will stand up to criticism, then you shouldn't post them on a debate forum, where they will be expected to withstand criticism and where you will be expected to defend your statements.

Rapscallion

04-05-2011, 10:29 PM

As a side note, to clarify my position further, I don't have any sort of contempt for anyone who has faith, unless it really does affect others negatively (I'm thinking of the Phelps type on this). If someone attends their church every Sunday, or mosque on Friday, or synagogue on Saturday, that's their deal.

If they try persuading me of the rectitude of their position, I'll quite happily engage in discussions such as this. I find them somewhat invigorating. I don't usually dislike people as a result of it, though.

Two decades past it was a different story. I'm far more mellow now.

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

04-05-2011, 10:42 PM

From my perspective it's a waste of the effort you could have put into bettering humanity.
How?

Name one manner, other than debating on the Internet, I've wasted any effort at all by believing that God exists?

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I think that's something that everybody should strive for.
That's all well and good, and I'm glad it works for you.

Some others find the pursuit of the Cold Hard Truth as a spiritual solution to be unacceptable.

^-.-^

FArchivist

04-05-2011, 10:55 PM

Are you saying that you don't think your beliefs are true (or that you don't care whether they're true)?

I am saying that it is my opinion that my beliefs are true.

Why would you want to believe something that isn't true?

I wouldn't. Since I am of the opinion that my beliefs are true this does not present a problem to me. If I am ever of the opinion that my belief in God is not true, I will stop believing.

(I think this would be remarkably detrimental to human society, however, as my previous explorations of atheism positing from a non-existence of any deity led to logical conclusions that you would find horrifying.)

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I think that's something that everybody should strive for.

Your opinion on the subject has been noted.

I personally don't give a damn what anyone believes so long as they don't get in my way. You could believe in God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nothing, or everything and I just won't give a damn. It's why I married an atheist; it's none of my business what she believes.

Rapscallion

04-05-2011, 11:07 PM

How?

Name one manner, other than debating on the Internet, I've wasted any effort at all by believing that God exists?

I'd need your autobiograpghy for that.

Rapscallion

Hyena Dandy

04-05-2011, 11:44 PM

or that you don't care whether they're true

Yeah, I don't care whether they're true. Because if they're true, I'm happy, but if they're false, and life doesn't have a grand meaning or anything, I've lived a happier more fulfilling life since I became a Christian than I did before I converted. If life doesn't have a grand meaning, then its up to us to make it. And I have made my meaning.

Fact it, I do care if your beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny. From my perspective it's a waste of the effort you could have put into bettering humanity.

In order to determine how to react to that sentence, I'd need to know whether you were saying "Fact is," or "Face it."

I'm not making fun of your typo, I just need to understand the tone of the post.

I'd need your autobiograpghy for that.

Then what makes you think she (or I) have wasted any effort.

Rapscallion

04-05-2011, 11:53 PM

Oops - was 'fact is'.

As to the assumption, it's a good general rule of thumb that someone identifying as christian is going to spend time in a religious institution once a week - usually a church.

Rapscallion

RecoveringKinkoid

04-06-2011, 12:18 AM

Fact it, I do care if your beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny. From my perspective it's a waste of the effort you could have put into bettering humanity. It also worries me about the next generation - younger people are far more likely to militant than other age groups, wanting to be holier than the generations that came before. I have no doubt that your motives are good, but there are always going to be those who take it too far.

Rapscallion

Okay, Raps, I got to take exception to this. First of all, playing World of Warcraft is a waste of effort people could be instead into bettering humanity. So's hanging out here. So is drinking, buying shoes, screwing, and filling in Thundercats coloring books. Saying I shouldn't "believe" a certain way because I could be otherwise be out there curing cancer and saving orphans from burning buildings is, at best, grasping at farts.

Second, yes. Young people do that. Then they grow up. I have a really vivid memory of what being a kid was like. That's why young people call old people "sell outs", and "the man" and other epithets that describe what they swear they will never become and yet always do.

And three: Good intentioned people need to knock it off because there is always some other person who does not know where to draw the line. Really.

Dude.

Andara Bledin

04-06-2011, 01:21 AM

As to the assumption, it's a good general rule of thumb that someone identifying as christian is going to spend time in a religious institution once a week - usually a church.
Not that I've experienced. I haven't been inside a church that wasn't part of a tour since I was 6 or so.

Okay, Raps, I got to take exception to this. First of all, playing World of Warcraft is a waste of effort people could be instead into bettering humanity. So's hanging out here. So is drinking, buying shoes, screwing, and filling in Thundercats coloring books. Saying I shouldn't "believe" a certain way because I could be otherwise be out there curing cancer and saving orphans from burning buildings is, at best, grasping at farts.
Thanks. I was having trouble figuring out how to say just this.

^-.-^

Hyena Dandy

04-06-2011, 02:29 AM

As to the assumption, it's a good general rule of thumb that someone identifying as christian is going to spend time in a religious institution once a week - usually a church.

So, what do you expect me to be doing in that time that would benefit humanity?

I do like to think, in some small way, I benefit humanity. I do that by writing. And the strength I have to write, whether its a poem or porn, comes from the self-confidence I get from my faith.

Also, "Some people will take it too far" can be applied to anything.

Some people take anything too far. "Religion is a corrupting force on the world" can be taken too far just as easily as "There is only one true faith."

Gravekeeper

04-06-2011, 03:20 AM

1) GK, I wasn't trying to accuse Raps of censorship. I was saying what you let us believe referring to him saying he wanted to get rid of religion. Not saying he was actually actively doing it. I apologize.

Ahhh, okay then.

Though it seems I again have to point to What Raps Said(tm). But hey, easier then having to type it out myself. >.>

Hyena Dandy

04-06-2011, 03:23 AM

Point to what he said about what?

RecoveringKinkoid

04-06-2011, 03:25 AM

So, what do you expect me to be doing in that time that would benefit humanity?

I'm guessing we probably need to stop with the weekly food bank drives, the hosting AA, the ongoing project to turn our unused back building into a community center, the various support we give to members who fall ill or onto hard times, the "adopt a family" things and whatnot? :headscratch: I concede it ain't much, but it's something, at least. I'm not trying to make us look like some great benefactor by any means, but I am trying to make a point. These are things we do to help our fellow man. They are things my church does.

I'm confused as you are, HD. Trying to make an easier way for those we share this life with only counts if one is not affiliated with a philosophy of any sort? What am I missing?

Gravekeeper

04-06-2011, 03:25 AM

Point to what he said about what?

Not the time waste thing, the other thing about the debating and the non-contempt. Heh ;p

Hyena Dandy

04-06-2011, 03:27 AM

Not the time waste thing, the other thing about the debating and the non-contempt. Heh ;p

Can you repost it? I'm afraid I'm lost.

Gravekeeper

04-06-2011, 03:33 AM

Can you repost it? I'm afraid I'm lost.

Nrrr, making me type it. Was just trying to say that if you walk into the debate, don't be surprised if your position gets addressed. But I don't have any ill will behind it, I, like Raps, merely find it engaging. Even if I tend to get thrown into the theist or atheist camp by one side or the other depending on the thread. >.>

Ghel

04-06-2011, 03:34 AM

I wouldn't mind religion being relegated to the status of a hobby or pastime. But for most people, their religion colors their entire worldview. Beliefs can, and frequently do, have a negative effect on people's lives. Like the belief that prayer can heal, particularly when prayer is used as a substitute for medical attention. Like the belief that immunizations cause autism, leading to children dying from diseases that could have been prevented if they had been immunized.

If religion is merely a pastime, then arguing about it is like arguing about which is better - Star Trek or Star Wars. No matter how good your argument is, you're still arguing about fiction. The views of a religious fanatic should have no more bearing on education or politics than the views of a scifi fanboy.

Now, I have no problem with discussing the merits of a fictional universe, as long as we agree that the framework of the discussion is fiction. But as soon as you tell me that Tatooine really exists, I have no choice but to consider you delusional.

I am saying that it is my opinion that my beliefs are true.
It doesn't work that way. A thing is true or false independent of whether one believes in it. You can believe that a god exists, but your belief doesn't make it true. You can have an opinion about that god's nature, but that opinion is moot if the god in question doesn't exist.

I'm guessing we probably need to stop with the weekly food bank drives, the hosting AA, the ongoing project to turn our unused back building into a community center, the various support we give to members who fall ill or onto hard times, the "adopt a family" things and whatnot? :headscratch: I concede it ain't much, but it's something, at least. I'm not trying to make us look like some great benefactor by any means, but I am trying to make a point. These are things we do to help our fellow man. They are things my church does.
Are you saying that you wouldn't do any of these things if they weren't affiliated with your church?

Hyena Dandy

04-06-2011, 03:41 AM

Nrrr, making me type it. Was just trying to say that if you walk into the debate, don't be surprised if your position gets addressed. But I don't have any ill will behind it, I, like Raps, merely find it engaging. Even if I tend to get thrown into the theist or atheist camp by one side or the other depending on the thread. >.>

Ah, that's it!

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to give the impression I felt my position was unassailable, or too holy or something.

I should restate, then.

I appreciate debate too, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

To debate, I must explain my position, and my position is that whether or not God ACTUALLY exists is entirely irrelevant to my BELIEF that God exists. I acknowledge my position isn't rational, and I am at peace with that.

Edit: Ghel, you confuse me, but I hope you can explain your position.

Why do you accept at face value all the BAD things that are done in the name of religion as being religion's fault, but then claim that the good would happen anyway?

Also: She would probably not turn her church's unused back building into a community center if she didn't have a church.

FArchivist

04-06-2011, 07:45 AM

Like the belief that immunizations cause autism, leading to children dying from diseases that could have been prevented if they had been immunized.

I would like to point out that this particular belief has no basis in religion at all. It is instead predicated on a bunch of science woo, mostly started by Andrew Wakefield and the litigation firm that funded him.

If religion is merely a pastime, then arguing about it is like arguing about which is better - Star Trek or Star Wars. No matter how good your argument is, you're still arguing about fiction. The views of a religious fanatic should have no more bearing on education or politics than the views of a scifi fanboy.

Yet the views of a sci-fi fanboy can - and have- had lots of bearing on education and politics. For instance, the entirety of the American space program can pretty much be based on certain beliefs that were made prominent by science fiction from the 1880s to the 1930s, without a shred of evidence that they could be true.

Now, I have no problem with discussing the merits of a fictional universe, as long as we agree that the framework of the discussion is fiction. But as soon as you tell me that Tatooine really exists, I have no choice but to consider you delusional.

*shrugs* Prove that Tatooine does not really exist somewhere in the universe. For all I know and can prove, it may. Tatooine could possibly exist, especially if one is using current multiversal theory on the variants of modal realism in conjunction with David Lewis' counterpart theory. Similarly, in M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer). Each universe takes the form of a D-brane. Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes. This would allow for a metafictional quantum inference that could create a Star Wars universe, complete with a Tattooine.

It doesn't work that way. A thing is true or false independent of whether one believes in it.

Not according to the uncertainty principle. Until the box is opened, the cat is both alive and dead, existing in simultaneous states. (And this doesn't even include the separate paths if one takes into account the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.)

You can believe that a god exists, but your belief doesn't make it true.

My belief (or your disbelief) does not make it untrue either.

You can have an opinion about that god's nature, but that opinion is moot if the god in question doesn't exist.

Well, then we will certainly know if my opinion is moot or not once the question is settled and God is disproved.

I think you would not do well with postmodern deconstructionism either. That or conversations about consensual reality. For instance, subjective idealists hold the view that there isn't one particular way things are, but rather that each person's personal reality is unique. Such idealists have the world view which says that we each create our own reality, and while most people may be in general agreement (consensus) about what reality is like, they might live in a different (or nonconsensus) reality.

Rapscallion

04-06-2011, 10:40 AM

Okay, Raps, I got to take exception to this. First of all, playing World of Warcraft is a waste of effort people could be instead into bettering humanity. So's hanging out here. So is drinking, buying shoes, screwing, and filling in Thundercats coloring books. Saying I shouldn't "believe" a certain way because I could be otherwise be out there curing cancer and saving orphans from burning buildings is, at best, grasping at farts.

It may be arrogance on my part, but I think hanging out here and having honest discussions is the sign of an above-average intellect. :D

Drinking - as a teetotaller, I'd tend to agree. However, that's recreation. It can also be proved to exist.

World of Warcraft is recreation as well - it doesn't represent itself as how the world we live in truly is. I would, however, quantify the WoW as a waste thing in my terms as being playing it obsessively day and night and living off the state as being a waste. Coming back from a twelve-hour shift and spending a couple of hours whacking orcs is recreation and stress relief. The former was my brother until I forced him to get a job by cutting him off my Internet connection.

Actually, drinking and WoW are very similar in this regard - taken to extremes they are damaging.

Filling in a Thunderca... have I been leaving my webcam on again? Anyway, that's how children learn art. Thundercats isn't portrayed as something real. I know there's a church of star trek out there somewhere - or at least I saw a documentary mentioning it a while ago. This (http://futureupdate.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/star-trek-church-bombing-believed-to-be-hate-crime/) is one of the more amusing links I came up with when looking for it. Not relevant, but funny. Star Trek and Star Wars and other such diversions are fictional and admit it. If people change their lives as a result of it and treat it as the word of a divinity, then there's more problems.

Saving orphans and the like - it doesn't quite have to be as extreme as that, but there's no reason to attribute said actions to the teachings of an unprovable deity. How about just doing it because it's the right thing to do?

Second, yes. Young people do that. Then they grow up. I have a really vivid memory of what being a kid was like. That's why young people call old people "sell outs", and "the man" and other epithets that describe what they swear they will never become and yet always do.

Most grow up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Pales tinian_conflict).

And three: Good intentioned people need to knock it off because there is always some other person who does not know where to draw the line. Really.

Dude.

So, what exactly are you saying here? That my views are offensive? I'm not perfect. I don't go out and train to be a heart surgeon so I can save lives, but I do try to work to better myself and help others where I can. I like to think I've made a reasonable role model for others to follow in some regards. I try to make society more productive as part of it so we can afford more heart surgeons etc. I try to play my part.

Yet the views of a sci-fi fanboy can - and have- had lots of bearing on education and politics. For instance, the entirety of the American space program can pretty much be based on certain beliefs that were made prominent by science fiction from the 1880s to the 1930s, without a shred of evidence that they could be true.

The key word there is 'fiction'. For every aspect of science fiction that has been made into fact, there's plenty more than haven't. As a guide, there's a shitload of science fiction out there. Enough monkeys and enough typewriters and you have Shakespeare etc.

There's a difference between these two positions:

First - you can't prove that this old book that describes a divine force as being our creator and salvation is incorrect, so I'm going to live my life in a certain way, whether that be feeding the poor or killing infidels or any of the shades of grey between.

Second - you can't prove that this new book that describes alien robots from distant galaxies is incorrect, so I'll ... not do a thing differently.

Rapscallion

RecoveringKinkoid

04-06-2011, 12:14 PM

Are you saying that you wouldn't do any of these things if they weren't affiliated with your church?

Unlikely, as by myself I do not have the resources. We protect each other and support each other. A guy gets laid off, we rally and find odd jobs to pay him for. Someone becomes ill we take up a collection so they don't lose their house that month. When I had surgery, a cooler full of ready to eat food showed up on my doorstep. Various groups need a meeting place we can provide one. So no. I can't do all that alone, and anyways I wouldn't even know about most of the needs. So that's exactly what I'm saying.

Rap: the point is, recreation is still recreation. It's not saving the world. By this logic, I can go to the movies and blow a little time and as long as it's fiction, it's okay. But if I spend the same amount of time in a church it's not okay because I happen to believe what I just saw.

Your views are not offensive, no. I didn't mean to imply that they were. I did find a few of your points weak and frankly reaching, and was trying to find a humorous way to tell you that.

Monkeys and typewriters do not produce Shakespeare, by the way. They produce the comments section over on YouTube.

Ghel

04-06-2011, 12:19 PM

Edit: Ghel, you confuse me, but I hope you can explain your position.

Why do you accept at face value all the BAD things that are done in the name of religion as being religion's fault, but then claim that the good would happen anyway?

Also: She would probably not turn her church's unused back building into a community center if she didn't have a church.
All right, I'll clarify. I think that people are good or evil independent of their religious beliefs. That's what I was trying to get at in my response to Kinkoid's post. If she would do those good things anyway, what difference does it make if it's the church that houses them?

I think everybody in this discussion is basically good. However, religion can be, and has been, used as a tool to coerce good people into doing evil things. A number of examples have already been listed in this thread. That's not to say that that sort of coercion always happens, but it should be a reason to examine your beliefs to see whether they coincide with reality. Because the more out-of-tune with reality one's beliefs are, the more likely one can be convinced to do evil things in their name.

Unlikely, as by myself I do not have the resources. We protect each other and support each other.
You make it sound as if churches are the only ones who do charity work. Well, there are plenty of secular charities as well. If your church had to shut down for some reason, would you find another charity to support? Or would you just give it up because it wasn't run by your church?

I would like to point out that this particular belief has no basis in religion at all.
I didn't say it did. I merely said that it was a belief. But since the belief that immunizations cause autism has no basis in reality, it is every bit as dangerous as the belief that prayer heals.

Yet the views of a sci-fi fanboy can - and have- had lots of bearing on education and politics. For instance, the entirety of the American space program can pretty much be based on certain beliefs that were made prominent by science fiction from the 1880s to the 1930s, without a shred of evidence that they could be true.
Yes, we all know that fiction can have an effect on the real world. There is no doubt of that. However, it is still fiction. The people reading science fiction know (or ought to) that it is fiction. Turning science fiction into reality requires a process known as science. Using science, we can discover which parts of a story are true. Are you willing to subject your religion to science, so that we can discover which parts of it, if any, are true?

Prove that Tatooine does not really exist somewhere in the universe.
We really shouldn't have to be having a discussion of the burden of proof again. We've done this to death.

The person who claims that a thing exists has the largest burden of proof in a discussion. If I were claiming that no gods exist, I would still have a smaller burden of proof than the person who claims that a god does exist.

However, I am not claiming that no gods exist. I am claiming that (1) no god has ever been demonstrated to exist, and that (2) the Christian God, if he exists, is a dictatorial tyrant who encourages misogyny and genocide among his worshipers and doesn't deserve to be worshiped by rational people.

Not according to the uncertainty principle. Until the box is opened, the cat is both alive and dead, existing in simultaneous states. (And this doesn't even include the separate paths if one takes into account the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.)
That has nothing to do with whether the observer believes the cat is alive or dead. The cat is alive or dead, independent of the observer, or his belief.

I think you would not do well with postmodern deconstructionism either. That or conversations about consensual reality. For instance, subjective idealists hold the view that there isn't one particular way things are, but rather that each person's personal reality is unique. Such idealists have the world view which says that we each create our own reality, and while most people may be in general agreement (consensus) about what reality is like, they might live in a different (or nonconsensus) reality.
Question: do you hold this view? If not, please leave it out of the discussion. I would much rather discuss what each of us personally believes than some abstract philosophical concept that has no real bearing on the discussion.

RecoveringKinkoid

04-06-2011, 12:35 PM

All right, I'll clarify. I think that people are good or evil independent of their religious beliefs.

Then why do you have a problem with individual people's beliefs?

That's what I was trying to get at in my response to Kinkoid's post. If she would do those good things anyway, what difference does it make if it's the church that houses them?

Exactly what I'm trying to understand.

You make it sound as if churches are the only ones who do charity work. Well, there are plenty of secular charities as well. If your church had to shut down for some reason, would you find another charity to support? Or would you just give it up because it wasn't run by your church?

Not sure what I might have said to make it sound that way. I can only speak for the church I personally belong to.

And I would not need to find other charities. I'd keep supporting the secular charities I already support. I would, however, find another church.

Ghel

04-06-2011, 01:52 PM

Not sure what I might have said to make it sound that way. I can only speak for the church I personally belong to.

And I would not need to find other charities. I'd keep supporting the secular charities I already support.
You made an (apparently sarcastic) comment that if religion is a waste of time, your church should stop doing all the charity that it does. But the religion doesn't do the charity. The group of people who get together wanting to do good do the charity. That's all that I was trying to say.

RecoveringKinkoid

04-06-2011, 02:13 PM

What I was responding to was Rap's implication (and this is my interpretation of what he said) that people who follow a religion are wasting their time that could be better spent serving humanity.

Part of the tenets of my religion is that we are under an obligation to help each other, both small scale and large. And since we strive to do just that as best we can, the suggestion that we need to "stop believing in God/following a certain philosophy so we can get on with the business of helping people" made no sense to me.

Andara Bledin

04-06-2011, 03:17 PM

I'd like to know why people who spend a lot of effort explaining how they don't like other people telling them how to think then go on to spend a lot of effort telling other people how not to think.

^-.-^

FArchivist

04-07-2011, 01:17 AM

First - you can't prove that this old book that describes a divine force as being our creator and salvation is incorrect, so I'm going to live my life in a certain way, whether that be feeding the poor or killing infidels or any of the shades of grey between.

Second - you can't prove that this new book that describes alien robots from distant galaxies is incorrect, so I'll ... not do a thing differently.

And yet, there are now thousands of people who follow the ways of the Jedi (as a religion, no less). Or who adhere to the philosophy of the Goreans. Or who follow the moral code of the Lensmen.

I think everybody in this discussion is basically good. However, religion can be, and has been, used as a tool to coerce good people into doing evil things.

1) It's also been used as a tool to coerce bad people into doing good things.

2) I am not basically good. I am basically corrupt and extremely selfish. The only reason I do good things is because of my moral code. The only reason I have a moral code is because of the religion I was raised in, modified by the laws of today.

And frankly, I think most people are like me. But you can discard that, if you like...that just, like, my opinion, man. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/quotes)

Yes, we all know that fiction can have an effect on the real world. There is no doubt of that. However, it is still fiction. The people reading science fiction know (or ought to) that it is fiction. Turning science fiction into reality requires a process known as science. Using science, we can discover which parts of a story are true. Are you willing to subject your religion to science, so that we can discover which parts of it, if any, are true?

Sure. Go right ahead. I don't think you'll find anything that isn't mythological or allegorical in nature and thus not subject to scientific inquiry, but you're free to speculate. I recommend you to the Jesuits, who have been working their religion with science for a number of years now. I recall once hearing this interesting theory on how the Resurrection could have been done if certain atomic reactions had occurred, but you'd have to ask them about it.

We really shouldn't have to be having a discussion of the burden of proof again. We've done this to death.

Exactly. And since I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I'm getting tired of you sitting there and smugly saying "Provide proof!" When I present my religion as an Absolute Fact, as a scientific hypothesis, I'll ram proof down your throat.

I don't question your belief that all life is sacred or that people are basically good. I don't need you to provide proof of that. Why? It's a belief and you're free to believe whatever and all I need to do is say "I disagree." And that's flat.

The person who claims that a thing exists has the largest burden of proof in a discussion. If I were claiming that no gods exist, I would still have a smaller burden of proof than the person who claims that a god does exist.

Well, when I claim that the God of the Roman Catholics exists, I'll let you know. As it is, I don't claim that. I believe that God exists. I don't claim that he does. And yes, there is a difference; believing is my opinion, claiming is stating it as fact.

However, I am not claiming that no gods exist. I am claiming that (1) no god has ever been demonstrated to exist, and that (2) the Christian God, if he exists, is a dictatorial tyrant who encourages misogyny and genocide among his worshipers and doesn't deserve to be worshiped by rational people.

I agree with #1. No god of any religion has ever been demonstrated to exist in accordance with the standards of the scientific method.

However, I'll need to see your work for #2.

That has nothing to do with whether the observer believes the cat is alive or dead. The cat is alive or dead, independent of the observer, or his belief.

That's not how observer effect works. Light is both a particle and a wave until observed, at which point observer effect causes it to collapse into one or the other. Same with the cat - the cat is both alive and dead, according to quantum mechanics, until the observer effect has collapsed the possibility.

[QUOTE=Ghel;82299]Question: do you hold this view? If not, please leave it out of the discussion. I would much rather discuss what each of us personally believes than some abstract philosophical concept that has no real bearing on the discussion.

I'm not going to discuss what I personally believe with you any more than I would discuss it with Fred Phelps. If you can't handle abstract philosophical concepts that -I- say have bearing on the discussion, then get out of the kitchen. :wave:

I'd like to know why people who spend a lot of effort explaining how they don't like other people telling them how to think then go on to spend a lot of effort telling other people how not to think.

Because said unnamed people have a chip on their shoulder about the issue. :devil:

Gravekeeper

04-07-2011, 02:16 AM

However, I'll need to see your work for #2.

Not that I'm taking up Ghel's position, but I feel the need to point out that that part is pretty easy. A quick run through the Old Testament would suffice to demostrate that that "God" in particular was honestly kind of a raging bipolar asshole. >.>

Hyena Dandy

04-07-2011, 02:58 AM

Rapscallion

04-07-2011, 06:48 AM

Not that I'm taking up Ghel's position, but I feel the need to point out that that part is pretty easy. A quick run through the Old Testament would suffice to demostrate that that "God" in particular was honestly kind of a raging bipolar asshole. >.>

Well, there's an alternative view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1tg46ScP8w

Rapscallion

Gravekeeper

04-07-2011, 07:34 AM

Well, there's an alternative view.

Hah, yeah, they have a few good ones. Buddha's Apartment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXW1IXrthXE)was always worth a laugh. To me anyway. >.>

FArchivist

04-07-2011, 11:50 AM

Not that I'm taking up Ghel's position, but I feel the need to point out that that part is pretty easy. A quick run through the Old Testament would suffice to demostrate that that "God" in particular was honestly kind of a raging bipolar asshole. >.>

I don't think of it as raging asshole at all, just as "My House, My Rules." Assuming that any of that allegorical hoo-ha has any basis in fact and aren't parables with a moral lesson. From an allegorical perspective, it's no worse (and a lot better) than any other mythology.

Ghel

04-07-2011, 12:02 PM

I could go through the gospels and pick out Jesus' words that show that even he was a misogynist, warmaking tyrant, who threatened people with infinite torture for finite crimes. But I've hit a stopping point.

At least three of you have stated that you don't care whether your beliefs coincide with reality. I only care about reality. Therefore, we have no basis for a discussion. Thank you, and good night.

Andara Bledin

04-07-2011, 03:26 PM

Therefore, we have no basis for a discussion. Thank you, and good night.
I told you this very thing about two months ago.

^-.-^

Andara Bledin

04-07-2011, 08:36 PM

Apologies for the double post, but I feel that there needs to be some clarification on a particular point. (note: all uses of the word "you" are generic and not aimed at anyone specific)

The subject of faith, at least how I approach it and how it seems others also approach it, doesn't require that the object of our faith actually exists so much as that we are willing to believe that it does.

This is a subject where logic doesn't really apply and trying to treat it as a science problem is just proof that you don't understand the point of the exercise, which isn't wrong, merely different.

It may seem completely illogical, and it may be, but it works for us. You don't have to understand it, but we would appreciate it if you'd at least extend the same amount of respect that you expect to receive.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

04-07-2011, 08:46 PM

I expect to have any incorrect ideas I have challenged. That is the way forward - logical debate and reasoning. I'll change my points if my views are shown to be incorrect.

That's the sort of respect I expect.

Rapscallion

RecoveringKinkoid

04-07-2011, 09:30 PM

I expect to have any incorrect ideas I have challenged.

Rapscallion

If that is true, then would you be offended at someone challenging your atheism? If someone came to your door and tried to sell you their religion, how would you feel about that?

Because the main gripe I commonly hear from atheists about Christians is that they resent it when said Christians try "shove their beliefs down your throat." When it's been my experience that it's more often the other way around.

And don't tell me that your belief system in unassailable because it's the correct one and it should only be challenged if it's incorrect. Christians think the exact same thing about their belief system.

It's terribly ironic that the only people on this thread trying to disregard the beliefs of others are not the Christians.

Ipecac Drano

04-07-2011, 10:03 PM

It may seem completely illogical, and it may be, but it works for us. You don't have to understand it, but we would appreciate it if you'd at least extend the same amount of respect that you expect to receive.How about explaining it so that we can understand it?

Lachrymose

04-07-2011, 10:15 PM

Hmm...this post may be all over the place, so forgive me.

I realize there has been some rather...militant..stances on both sides in this thread. It's basically become attack-and-defend here.

Anyway, I try to keep middle ground. "Try" being the keyword. It certainly is tough when it comes to something as personal as religion (or lack thereof).

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.

I would not be offended if someone challenged my beliefs in a respectable, logical way. I may even re-evaluate my own if something you say strikes a chord with me.

But, to paraphrase what Penn and Teller stated in their Bible episode of Bullshit, if you have faith in something, I can't touch that. I can try to logically point out where you may be incorrect, but if it comes down to pure blind faith, nothing can refute that.

However, what I personally consider to be shoving down one's throat is more of a societal thing and less of a personal thing. In other words, if you were to try to convince me, even beligerantly, that I need to believe in your god, I wouldn't consider that to be shoving down my throat.

Just to name some examples, past and present:
- Forced to say the Lord's Prayer in public school (past)
- "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (yes, I know where this came from). I personally don't even think that schools should be able to force kids to pledge their allegiance to their country, but that's a whole other thread).
-"In God We Trust" on money (I personally don't give a rat's about this one, although it still is kind of blatant)
-All the issues regarding the ten commandments on state property.

I mean, these things don't truly, truly bother me (with the exception of the Lord's Prayer deal. But that's long passed.). But I still think it is blatant.
I'm sure I'll think of other things, but it really does happen day in and day out, it's just everyone, including me, has gotten used to it.

Thing is, keeping one's religion personal is never going to happen entirely. The world would be a better place if it did.
That being said, I understand why it doesn't stay personal. If you truly believe I am going to hell then I guess I can't blame you for trying to save me.

And that's where the waters get muddy with me.

Sorry for the rambling and disjointedness. It's hard to put down how I feel on this issue in a nice and neat way. Just know I totally posted this with a calm demeanor, and if responded to, would appreciate the same.

As I said, I'm always willing to re-evaluate my position. And I will never purposefuly disrespect your position without feeling attacked.

Rapscallion

04-07-2011, 10:29 PM

RK? I've had that - people trying to convert me on the doorstep. I've sat down and discussed things with JW's before now. I've bought colourful books from those professing the more Indian type religions (hare krishna or something). I was sent to methodist Sunday school. I explored the concept of religion.

I've yet to have anyone come up with anything to make me think they were right about their faith.

As I've said before, bring proof - solid, tangible proof - that your god is actually there, or that there's any divine force of whatever flavour in action, and I'll bend my knee in worship as directed by said being. I'd rather live in a world where I can say the right prayer and feed people who are starving, or heal wounds, than this where things start when born and finish when you die. Given the choice, I know which I'd prefer. Given the evidence, I know what there is.

I'd like there to be magic. I'm content to accept that there's nothing other than us, that we are all there is for each other. It's not what I'd prefer, but until someone shows me that their particular divinity is both there and worthy of praise, then I'll continue in my opinion. There's enough magic in the world without expecting more.

My views are quite assailable. If your god was able to feed the five thousand or the starving tribes in the desert, speak from a burning bush, turn people into salt, destroy towns, or any other miracles proclaimed, then fine, but I'd need to see and experience it. It's been quiet on that front for nearly two thousand years.

If you really think I would benefit from a closer relationship with god, have a word with god and get him to come and speak to me. I don't mean as a voice in my head, I'm talking letters of fire ten feet high, or walking in the door and saying, "Hi!" Something like that. Maybe a press conference? A host of angels coming down and doing their singing praises in Hyde park before a public appearance?

I'm not seeing it.

Rapscallion

Hyena Dandy

04-07-2011, 10:36 PM

I'm sorry if I've been misinterpreted. I have not meant to say you would benefit from a closer relationship with my God. I have meant to say that /I/ have benifited (sp?) from my faith.

I have also meant to claim that other people have benefitted from their faith, and that we should not get rid of religion, because it DOES benefit people.

I apologize if I've come off as telling you what to believe, that was not my intent at all.

Edit: Lach, I also apologize if I have come off as militant. Could you point out to me where I seemed militant, so I could avoid that in the future/explain?

Lachrymose

04-07-2011, 11:02 PM

Militant was probably the wrong word. I apologize.

Extreme defensiveness leading to some offensiveness and generalization...maybe is more what I'm looking for. Militant was shorter. :p

And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure that includes you. I'd have to wade through 21 pages to figure it out exactly.

(And yes, I realize I'm generalizing here, too..heh)

Gravekeeper

04-08-2011, 12:15 AM

I don't think of it as raging asshole at all, just as "My House, My Rules." Assuming that any of that allegorical hoo-ha has any basis in fact and aren't parables with a moral lesson. From an allegorical perspective, it's no worse (and a lot better) than any other mythology.

...No, it was definately raging bipolar asshole, sorry and yes, it is worse than a fair amount of other mythologies. If they're suppose to be parables with moral lessons, they're pretty shitty ones. Old Testament God did not fark around. Even if you did obey him, he might randomly smite you to prove a point.

Though to clarify I'm not saying that because you believe in God, you believe in that particular asshole version of him. I'm just objectively pointing out that in that collection in particular the character of God was pretty much a raging bastard. I would honestly question anyone following that particular version of him.

This is a subject where logic doesn't really apply and trying to treat it as a science problem is just proof that you don't understand the point of the exercise, which isn't wrong, merely different.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, seeing as their are faiths ( Buddhism ) where logic does apply and where this is a science problem so to speak. Unless you were speaking exclusively of Abrahamic religions.

Because the main gripe I commonly hear from atheists about Christians is that they resent it when said Christians try "shove their beliefs down your throat." When it's been my experience that it's more often the other way around.

Your experience is not the entire picture. I'm not saying it doesn't happen the other way around, but down the throat shoving is in the mainstream public discourse in the US when it comes to Christianity. There's always a push somewhere to actually have some supposedly Christian belief shoved down the throat of others so to speak in an official capacity. To the point where they try to literally alter the education cirriculum.

Besides, statistically speaking, there's no way Atheists are the majority when it comes to throat shoving in that particular match up. You're looking at around 30% of the world's population vs 2.5% or so. When you look at the US by itself, the match up is 76% vs 6%. The scoreboard is kind of bleak on that one ;p

And don't tell me that your belief system in unassailable because it's the correct one and it should only be challenged if it's incorrect. Christians think the exact same thing about their belief system.

...Raps didn't say his beliefs were unassailable, quite the opposite. However, again, Raps is coming from a realistic perspective. You cannot lay science vs religion down like that and say that religion holds equal footing. It doesn't work that way no matter how much you or anyone else that holds any sort of faith ( myself included mind you ) might want it too. One is "I can prove" the other is "I believe". They do not hold equal merit in a logical argument. Sorry.

Which honestly is the entire crux of this argument at this point. Science demands proof. Religion does not have it. That's fine. But, Religion cannot demand equal footing with Science just because it believes it should. That said, I'm not an atheist, and I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in whatever the hell you want. You're free to do whatever you want and anyone that thinks they're being forced or persecuted to do otherwise on an Internet forum needs to take a step back from the keyboard.

FArchivist

04-08-2011, 12:23 AM

I expect to have any incorrect ideas I have challenged. That is the way forward - logical debate and reasoning. I'll change my points if my views are shown to be incorrect.

Except that, as pointed out, anything based on belief cannot be subjected to logical debate or reasoning successfully. For instance, which tastes better? Chocolate or vanilla ice cream? The answer is purely subjective. As long as you treat religion (and philosophy, and ideology) the same way, there are no problems.

How about explaining it so that we can understand it?

My answer to that is the same that I give to people who keep asking me to educate them on the 101 of sexism, racism, and other -isms:

"It’s not my job to educate you — do your own homework."

There are comparative theology classes you can take. There is the internet to draw information from. There are God knows how many officials of many, many different faiths to confer with, if you so feel like.

But as a Catholic? It's not my job to proselytize. Or explain. Go ask a missionary. :wave:

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.

That's a really contradictory position to take.
Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
Agnosticism is the position that the existence and nature of a god or gods are unknown or unknowable.
How do you reconcile that?

But, to paraphrase what Penn and Teller stated in their Bible episode of Bullshit, if you have faith in something, I can't touch that. I can try to logically point out where you may be incorrect, but if it comes down to pure blind faith, nothing can refute that.

That's the truth. For instance, try arguing with a die-hard Marxist. Oh Jesus Jumped Up On A Pogo Stick, you get SO tired of the term "dialectical materialism" real quick.

I've yet to have anyone come up with anything to make me think they were right about their faith.

I explored just about every variant of Christianity out there and all the major non-Christian religions. About the closest I got was Confucianism. Finally I just went back to the faith of my birth. Either I secretly love pedo priests or I just have a thing for ritual.

As I've said before, bring proof - solid, tangible proof - that your god is actually there, or that there's any divine force of whatever flavour in action, and I'll bend my knee in worship as directed by said being.

The amusing part is, according to the Catholics, they wouldn't want you to bend knee if there was solid, tangible, proof. Seeing may be believing, but it isn't faith. Your kneeling wouldn't be worth anything because it wasn't voluntary.

I'd rather live in a world where I can say the right prayer and feed people who are starving, or heal wounds, than this where things start when born and finish when you die. Given the choice, I know which I'd prefer. Given the evidence, I know what there is.

Except that answering those prayers and not leaving it up to random chance would be a violation of free will, and thus a symbol that Satan has won.

My views are quite assailable. If your god was able to feed the five thousand or the starving tribes in the desert, speak from a burning bush, turn people into salt, destroy towns, or any other miracles proclaimed, then fine, but I'd need to see and experience it. It's been quiet on that front for nearly two thousand years.

Yup. And it's supposed to stay that way, at least until Revelations happens. Which, according to Jesuits, probably won't be for another 10,000 years. Or 100,000. Or whenever. There's no actual timescale that Catholics have developed for that.

RecoveringKinkoid

04-08-2011, 12:31 AM

If you really think I would benefit from a closer relationship with god, have a word with god and get him to come and speak to me.

Rapscallion

Well, here's the thing. I don't have an opinion on that. As arrogant as I am, I'm still not arrogant enough to judge what spiritual path would benefit you. God does not need my blessing to come speak to you, should he deem it appropriate.

I cannot give anyone proof. That's why it's called "faith" and not "exhibit A". I personally have proof. But it's my proof. It's personal to me. It will not be proof for you. You have to find your own proof. As much as I hate to bring up trite, bumper sticker philosophy, believing is seeing.

Which is why this is futile debate.

Lachrymose

04-08-2011, 01:05 AM

That's a really contradictory position to take.
Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
Agnosticism is the position that the existence and nature of a god or gods are unknown or unknowable.
How do you reconcile that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

However, you are using the term agnostic in the correct way, and not the popular way that both I and the wiki did.

Andara Bledin

04-08-2011, 01:27 AM

I'm going to have to disagree with you, seeing as their are faiths ( Buddhism ) where logic does apply and where this is a science problem so to speak. Unless you were speaking exclusively of Abrahamic religions.
I was speaking specifically of my own approach to religion, which I thought I made clear one line prior.

Your experience is not the entire picture. I'm not saying it doesn't happen the other way around, but down the throat shoving is in the mainstream public discourse in the US when it comes to Christianity.
While I agree that out among the masses, you generally get the annoying god-pusher types.

However, this forum seems to be the complete opposite with pretty much all of those claiming to be religious quite happy to coexist with everybody else and agree that the god-pushers need to stop it, while a number of self-identified atheists are trying to "sell" their position as the "one true way" and not seeing why anyone should think they're acting like hypocrites for it.

^-.-^

FArchivist

04-08-2011, 01:35 AM

...No, it was definately raging bipolar asshole, sorry and yes, it is worse than a fair amount of other mythologies.

You think? Because off the top of my head, I would say that the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Sumerian gods, the Egyptian gods, and the pagan deities of the Rus were much, much, more douchey.

.Old Testament God did not fark around. Even if you did obey him, he might randomly smite you to prove a point.

I know. That's what makes Him awesome like sauce. :D

.I'm just objectively pointing out that in that collection in particular the character of God was pretty much a raging bastard. I would honestly question anyone following that particular version of him.

You see, what you call 'raging bastardy', I call Magnificent Bastardy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard). God in the Old Testament is like Lord Vetinari in Discworld.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, seeing as their are faiths ( Buddhism ) where logic does apply and where this is a science problem so to speak. Unless you were speaking exclusively of Abrahamic religions.

Buddhism may have logical elements, but there remains the central problems of reincarnation, Nirvana, what is really meant by "right" in the Eightfold Path and so on...

Science demands proof. Religion does not have it. That's fine. But, Religion cannot demand equal footing with Science just because it believes it should.

And never should anyone say that it should :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

However, you are using the term agnostic in the correct way, and not the popular way that both I and the wiki did.

And as a side note, which is why Wikipedia is only good for general referencing, but not for sourcing. *sigh* Idiot Wikipedians.

Let's lighten up the thread!
See! This is JESUS VS THE ATHEISTS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IblzBerSFk) :angel:

Gravekeeper

04-08-2011, 02:12 AM

You think? Because off the top of my head, I would say that the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Sumerian gods, the Egyptian gods, and the pagan deities of the Rus were much, much, more douchey.

No no, the Greek gods were more....er....oh whats the term. Wincest? The Norse Gods are a given, I mean, they're *Norse*. No one expected them to be all loving and merciful. The Sumerian gods are arguable reference material for the Abrahamic God. The Egyptian Gods were pretty strange, but I think they were more douchey to each other then anything else.

You're still staying in the realm of Western gods though. Drag in the Eastern ones too. I'm not sure Amaretsu, Quan-Yin or Tara ever murdered anyone's children because Satan said go for it, what the hell, may as well. Shiva might have his moments though.

I know. That's what makes Him awesome like sauce. :D

Well, after he sets your children on fire and gives you genital herpes to prove a point, let us know? -.-

Buddhism may have logical elements, but there remains the central problems of reincarnation, Nirvana, what is really meant by "right" in the Eightfold Path and so on...

Yes, of course. Reincarnation has some scant research ( and could use more ) and seems logical enough to me, but if I'm wrong, no biggie ( Buddhism will accept the rule of science, no problem ). Nirvana is an ideal state of being and mind. It is not a place. It's a goal. There's also little debate over what "right" means in the Eightfold path and the possible meanings aren't exactly wildly different. Also, the Eightfold path is a teaching, not a divine proclaimation. It is a tool, and one that even Buddha himself would have encouraged you to examine on your own merits rather then accept at face value.

Buddha never said he was a god and to stfu and listen to him or he would smite you. Buddha was just a mortal man with some good ideas. Much like Jesus probably was in reality, seeing as many of Jesus's sayings and teachings are suspiciously similar. ;p