Support NeoGAF

[Dever]

Everything that happens is God's will, this means life and death. So where a good thing is God's will (i.e. thanking God for things going your way) this also means that bad things, like a coincidental death, is also God's will.

Secondly, depending on who you talk to, when mass death happens, i.e. 9/11, this is evidence God is angry. Many, many people believe this. How do you prove them wrong?

Do you believe that?

 

[Evlar]

Everything that happens is God's will, this means life and death. So where a good thing is God's will (i.e. thanking God for things going your way) this also means that bad things, like a coincidental death, is also God's will.

Secondly, depending on who you talk to, when mass death happens, i.e. 9/11, this is evidence God is angry. Many, many people believe this. How do you prove them wrong?

If you're Voltaire, you write Candide.

EDIT: (Not so much to prove them wrong... to prove them horrible).

 

[Dude Abides]

Oh, my. The same accrediting association that is the standard for theological education in North America accredits both Harvard Divinity School (http://www.ats.edu/MemberSchools/Pages/SchoolDetail.aspx?ID=387) and my school (http://www.ats.edu/MemberSchools/Pages/SchoolDetail.aspx?ID=493). Guess you're out of luck on your contention, unless of course, you're willing to argue that Harvard Divinity School's ThD is not a scholarly effort.

You may be surprised to learn, that amongst those of us with educations from top-level institutions, as opposed to Bumfuck Bible College, the mere invocation of the H-bomb fails to inspire awe. Unlike your school, Harvard attempts to balance "study" from the "believer's perspective," -i.e. non-scholarly wanking- with religious studies -i.e. actual scholarly study of religion. From what I gather from SWBTS's website, sadly, it's all the former. Thus, you're essentially a chiropractor passing himself off as a doctor.

You are in serious need of a reader and/or course on Philosophy of Religion. I'll just quote again part of the text I mentioned and leave it at that: "One of the key issues for philosophers of religious language is, How can we speak meaningfully of God?" I suppose, then, that "What does 'perfect' actually mean if we're talking about God?" isn't in the same vein. After all, you provided ample evidence to show that not only is not really a philosophical issue, but that it doesn't belong in philosophy of religion.

It turns out I got my training in religious studies at an actual educational institution, rather than a house of intellectual fraud. Do you really think this is convincing? Someone who is also unable to distinguish between the academic pursuit for truth and Bible study makes the same error you do, but because it's in a book with Philosophy in the title I'm supposed to be impressed?

Of course you can't compare them to the originals because the originals no longer exist. Neither I nor the website argued for such a comparison.

Which makes it completely meaningless.

Again, a .5% margin of error. If one manuscript containing passage A says one thing and another manuscript containing passage A says another, then one of those has to be an incorrect copy: a transmission error.

Or both could be incorrect copies. Or one could be a correct copy of an earlier copy, and the other a correct copy of a different earlier copy. There are lots of possible explanations for why two manuscripts might be different, which makes your confident assertion of a .5% "transmission error" so risible. Let me know if you understand this basic concept before we continue further in this vein.

*Sigh* The 99.5% consistency is attested by many New Testament scholars, most notably Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost 20th century experts on New Testament textual criticism. See: http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/019516122X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270763558&sr=8-1

*Sigh*. Again, even though I am charitably willing to grant that "99.5% consistency" has any meaning when you're comparing a large set of texts written in several different languages, 99.5% consistency across a set of texts is not the same thing as 99.5% certainty that those texts are accurate reproductions of never-seen originals.

 

[Slightly Live]

Dude Abides, whilst agree with your stance, mostly, I disagree strongly with your insulting and downright degrading tone that you take with DeusTrinitas.

Bumfuck, really?

I respect DeusTrinitas for taking his position and standing by it despite my polar opposite views but I do think you are crossing the line by slinging insults like that.

 

[jdogmoney]

Ok guys, So i got into a religion argument with a guy I know. And well, here is a message from the guy himself. The goal is not to be an asshole, or to prove to him god doesn't exist, but rather to explain why his thinking is so incredibly flawed. With that in mind, how would you respond to this post GAF?

Entering God into science does not undermine the process Jeff. In fact modern science owes all of its presumptions to Christian philosophy. Hinduism's gods are fickle and who can know what they will do. Their universe is disorderly chaotic and the law of non-contradiction does not apply. There is no logic. Allah's world is too transcedent and can not be understood by humans. The atheists world is all chance and random fluctuations. The greek and roman gods are fickle and do all kinds of crazy things. Modern science relies on God:

the universe (world) is orderly;
this orderly universe can be known; and
there is a motive to discover the order.

These are 3 premises all of modern science rests on. And it rests on the back of early Christian thinkers:

Pascal, Newton, Faraday, even Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Copernicus, and many more.

They all believed that the universe was rational because it was made by a rational God. If this is true we will expect some primary causes in the created cosmos. For example the cell, organisms, logic, morality, life, truth, et al. If we undermine God and try to find secondary causes for all of these we're stupid and end up cutting off our legs because they stand on the fact that the universe is orderly, which presupposes God. There are just some things secondary causes can not explain: the order of the cosmos, the complexity of life - any attempt to provide a natural explanation of this verges on the absurd and illogical. Believing the cell came together by random chances and then evolved into us would require probabilities way past statistical impossibility 1*10^50. Numbers that are even close to this we throw out as impossible in thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and in everyday life. It is absurd to base one's worldview on chances this improbable and not give credit where credit is due.

Hey, you're named Jeff, too!

And you could ask if God is quantifiable or measurable. If miracles are consistently repeatable. Um, if God is bound by physical laws.

If he knows anything at all about his own religion, he'll say no.

Then, you ask how we could possibly have him enter the scientific process? He is beyond nature, so it's impossible for any meaningful results to come about when talking about him scientifically.

[You should also mention that Allah is the same damn thing as the Christian god. His gross misunderstanding of the atheist view is something that is not likely to be corrected.]

Also, we'd be "stupid" if we weren't trying to find out the "secondary causes". I'm tactfully not replacing "secondary" with "actual". Even assuming God is responsible for our intelligence, it's be remiss of us not to actually use it.

 

[Dude Abides]

Dude Abides, whilst agree with your stance, mostly, I disagree strongly with your insulting and downright degrading tone that you take with DeusTrinitas.

Bumfuck, really?

I respect DeusTrinitas for taking his position and standing by it despite my polar opposite views but I do think you are crossing the line by slinging insults like that.

I apologize. Fort Worth is in a major metropolitan area, not Bumfuck.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Why do you think the Bible is true?

[I don't recall whether this has been asked, if so, please forgive me...]

I asked Deus directly; he never answered. Here's another one:

If you admit that errors have accumulated over the years due to mistranslations, copying errors, and/or intentional tinkering, why does it even matter if it was inerrant in the first place? You can't possibly know which lines were preserved properly and which weren't, so anything in there could be false, right? So you're assuming not only that the original document was perfect, but also that the only stuff that got "purple monkey dishwasher"ed over the years were trivial things. Why would this be the case?

 

[Mumei]

Dude Abides, whilst agree with your stance, mostly, I disagree strongly with your insulting and downright degrading tone that you take with DeusTrinitas.

Bumfuck, really?

I respect DeusTrinitas for taking his position and standing by it despite my polar opposite views but I do think you are crossing the line by slinging insults like that.

Really? I don't think that he's said anything unfair. He's right that there's a difference between religious studies and study from the believer's perspective, and they've both been condescendingly dismissive of one another in equal measure. Deus isn't being treated unfairly here.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

You may be surprised to learn, that amongst those of us with educations from top-level institutions, as opposed to Bumfuck Bible College, the mere invocation of the H-bomb fails to inspire awe. Unlike your school, Harvard attempts to balance "study" from the "believer's perspective," -i.e. non-scholarly wanking- with religious studies -i.e. actual scholarly study of religion. From what I gather from SWBTS's website, sadly, it's all the former. Thus, you're essentially a chiropractor passing himself off as a doctor.

Harvard was one example of many. I assumed you would understand the implication, but apparently you decided to focus on "the mere invocation of the H-bomb," as though your unproven assertion regarding the ability to inspire awe actually means something. I'm glad your undergraduate education from a "top-level institution" makes you feel important. And since you have such importance, I hereby assign you the task of contacting ATS and letting them know that they are accrediting "Bumfuck Bible College"s in addition to Ivy League schools. After all, you would know which schools meet the criteria for accreditation in religious study better than they.

It turns out I got my training in religious studies at an actual educational institution, rather than a house of intellectual fraud. Do you really think this is convincing? Someone who is also unable to distinguish between the academic pursuit for truth and Bible study makes the same error you do, but because it's in a book with Philosophy in the title I'm supposed to be impressed?

No, I expect you to use even a modicum of intelligence and realize that "language about God" is a philosophical issue discussed in myriad Philosophy of Religion textbooks and readers. The one from which I quoted is a de facto standard in Philosophy of Religion courses, but considering that your religious studies were done in a "top-level institution," I would hope someone of your academic caliber would already know that. Your assertion that "language about God" is a theological issue and not a philosophical one is entirely without merit and erroneous and if you don't believe me, feel free to e-mail any professor who teaches Philosophy of Religion and ask him or her. Seriously. Go for it.

Or both could be incorrect copies. Or one could be a correct copy of an earlier copy, and the other a correct copy of a different earlier copy. There are lots of possible explanations for why two manuscripts might be different, which makes your confident assertion of a .5% "transmission error" so risible. Let me know if you understand this basic concept before we continue further in this vein.

Yes, I understand the concept. But what you don't understand is basic New Testament textual criticism. The textual purity of 99.5% means that we are certain that 99.5% of the New Testament documents match up to the original manuscripts, even though we don't have the original manuscripts. We possess nearly 5600 ancient copies of the original New Testament manuscripts. The earliest copies we have are with 100 years of the originals. How many ancient manuscript copies do we have of Plato's works? 7. How much time elapsed between when Plato wrote those works and the ancient copies we possess? 1200 years. If the copies of the New Testament we possess are unreliable and had been changed repeatedly, then the copies of Plato are even more unreliable. How do we know that the copies we have of the New Testament are nearly the same as the originals? The better question is "how do we know that the copies we have of Plato's works are nearly the same as the originals?"

You may object, "Yes, but it could be that the originals said one thing and every one of the New Testament manuscripts we now have is wrong and was altered from the originals." That would mean that 5600 copies are all forgeries. If it is reasonable to assume that the New Testament documents we have now were not the original New Testament documents, then it is more reasonable to assume that the originals of Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle, Tacitus, Livy, Caesar, Aristophaneus, Euripides, Thucydides, Suetonius, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Plato, Pliny, and Lucretius are all forgeries as well.

I have not once argued that the reliability of the New Testament proves that the originals were inerrant. What I have argued is that the New Testament we possess today is the original New Testament.

*Sigh*. Again, even though I am charitably willing to grant that "99.5% consistency" has any meaning when you're comparing a large set of texts written in several different languages, 99.5% consistency across a set of texts is not the same thing as 99.5% certainty that those texts are accurate reproductions of never-seen originals.

Goodbye, Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle, Tacitus, Livy, Caesar, Aristophanes, Euripides, Thucydides, Suetonius, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Plato, Pliny, and Lucretius. What we thought were your original works simply cannot be.

 

[Pandaman]

Goodbye, Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle, Tacitus, Livy, Caesar, Aristophanes, Euripides, Thucydides, Suetonius, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Plato, Pliny, and Lucretius. What we thought were your original works simply cannot be.

:lol :lol :lol
Your sarcasm has more truth to it than you are aware, few of those works are thought to be wholey original and opening with Homer is a terrible idea.

By the way, have you gotten to that issue with the good governor yet? I haven't seen it, but i may have missed it.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

:lol :lol :lol
Your sarcasm has more truth to it than you are aware, few of those works are thought to be wholey original and opening with Homer is a terrible idea.

By the way, have you gotten to that issue with the good governor yet? I haven't seen it, but i may have missed it.

I opened with Homer because we have more ancient manuscripts of his works than the others. To what issue with good governor are you referring? The Quirinius census?

 

[jdogmoney]

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

I have never understood this sentiment.

 

[Dude Abides]

Your assertion that "language about God" is a theological issue and not a philosophical one is entirely without merit and erroneous and if you don't believe me, feel free to e-mail any professor who teaches Philosophy of Religion and ask him or her. Seriously. Go for it.

Already been over this. If you mean "How do humans talk about the Divine" or "What is the range of philosophical thought about God?" or even "How could 'perfect' apply in X conception of God," then you are engaged in a scholarly academic debate. If one is, as you were, suggesting "perfect' means two things as applied to God and to man because God's nature is X, then you are engaged in apologetic pseudo-intellectual wankery. Look, divinity schools, at least most of them, are affiliated with churches and their basic project is to teach and understand that Church's message. If you can't understand how that is different than the detached scholarly open-minded search for truth, I don't know what else I can say.

But what you don't understand is basic New Testament textual criticism. The textual purity of 99.5% means that we are certain that 99.5% of the New Testament documents match up to the original manuscripts, even though we don't have the original manuscripts.

First of all, the claim doesn't even make sense. What is "textual purity"? Frankly, it sounds like a made-up methodology that happily produces the highest percentage or does it have actual explanatory value? Do you mean canonical consistency? How do you account for different languages? Finally, do you understand the difference between saying that the set of manuscripts we have are 99.5% consistent as compared to each other and saying that they are 99.5% accurate as compared to the originals? It's simply a ridiculous inference to think you can say that with any degree of confidence.

The better question is "how do we know that the copies we have of Plato's works are nearly the same as the originals?"

We don't! as far as I know. Maybe there is better corroborating evidence for Plato but I haven't looked. Did I not concede this a few posts ago? It doesn't matter what the degree of Plato's fidelity to the originals is. Nobody claims they are 99.5% accurate or has any interest in doing so for other purposes. We've been over this. I'm trying to be nicer but it's starting to seem like you're just repeating talking points without regard to whether they have already been addressed.

then it is more reasonable to assume that the originals of Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle, Tacitus, Livy, Caesar, Aristophaneus, Euripides, Thucydides, Suetonius, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Plato, Pliny, and Lucretius are all forgeries as well.

People think the Iliad, to take one example, was written by multiple authors! It was orally transmitted for centuries! Of course it's different from the "original," probably significantly. The only one committed to the proposition that a copy of a particular work is very close to the original is you.

I have not once argued that the reliability of the New Testament proves that the originals were inerrant. What I have argued is that the New Testament we possess today is the original New Testament.

Which is 95% inerrant.

Goodbye, Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle, Tacitus, Livy, Caesar, Aristophanes, Euripides, Thucydides, Suetonius, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Plato, Pliny, and Lucretius. What we thought were your original works simply cannot be.

Anyone who thought they were their original works was ignorant on the subject. Or perhaps deeply committed to a belief in the gods described therein.

 

[JGS]

I didn't ask about all problems. Just an example. Any example. Just one.

Did none of mine count?:lol

Ahh, the ownership of morality. So here's my next question. What proof do you have that religion improves a person's sense of morality. Are the religious on average more moral than the non religious. Does advice based on scripture offer more help than secular advice? Is it more insightful? Any peer reviewed studies support that position? Looking at crime rates, teen birth rates, violence rates, divorce rates etc. Areas with higher religious populations do not present as being more moral than non religious populations.

Snarky.

No one owns morality. Morals aren't about a case of who has more or less anyway. It's about standards and what is accepted and what is not in any particular group. A sense of morality is the easiest thing since everyone has a sense of morality- religious or not. Everyone has the same base morality. My particular religion but others as well, place another layer over the basics - I believe the atheists call them restrictions. However, I don't view them as restrictions at all especially given the reasons for them. One man's restriction are another man's guidelines I guess. Choice is grand.

Science isn't a commercial endeavor in and of itself. It can certainly be used for commercial purposes, however. As to your question of "what's wrong with that?" First you need a product. I've seen no evidence of one. That, really is the foundational problem right there (this of course is specifically aimed at religions claiming gods and supernatural interventions into the physical world.)

Religion isn't either. The majority of churches out there aren't exactly inlayed in gold and the pastors don't make tons of money. My congregation pays no one, it's all voluntary as are the donations. It's a horrible way to run a business for commercial purposes.

But it is in any organization's interest to expand including the scientific world whose goal even in the non-profit sectors is to amass enough money to keep funding whatever experiment their working on at the time. They are very good at it.

Most major scientific achievements were funded by something weren't they? There's not too many hobo quantum physicists. They didn't make the collidor out of tin foil and used chewing gum. Commercial interests benefitted from that. One of the posters quoted proof that men were on the verge of creating life, but that's not what they were seeking at all. The experiment was entirely for commercial purposes.

I disagree with your view that religion doesn't offer something to someone. Besides, if I'm deluded and happy, why rain on my parade?

However, you are also incorrect in thinking that you need a "product". You just need a hook, a service, a demand for whatever is being supplied. Are you yhinking that religion has NONE of this? The reality is demand is higher for religion than it will ever be for atheism which literally offers nothing since it's not even a philosophy. It's simply a thought.

I don't quite understand how can you accuse them of something that it is impossible for them to have anyway.

 

[Wickerbasket]

However, you are also incorrect in thinking that you need a "product". You just need a hook, a service, a demand for whatever is being supplied. Are you yhinking that religion has NONE of this? The reality is demand is higher for religion than it will ever be for atheism which literally offers nothing since it's not even a philosophy. It's simply a thought.

I don't quite understand how can you accuse them of something that it is impossible for them to have anyway.

Athiesm actually has a lot to offer. It's actually on the rise at the moment, so more and more people seem to agree.

For instance, you arn't bound to follow odd religious rules and practices. It's also very liberating to be able to think freely without being weighed down by religious dogmas. You're also able to rely on you're own morality instead of entrusting it to a 2000 year old book.

There's literally an endless list of positives that athiesm as brought to my life, but I'm not going to detail every specific case. To say that it offers nothing is a complete joke.

 

[ronito]

Goodbye, Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle, Tacitus, Livy, Caesar, Aristophanes, Euripides, Thucydides, Suetonius, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Plato, Pliny, and Lucretius. What we thought were your original works simply cannot be.

That's a non-sequitor. Who here lives religiously by what Homer said? I don't think anyone has a problem with living by Jesus philosophy, but you don't see someone said, "Homer said that Helen went back to Menelaus therefore heaven help me she did! I don't care if evidence shows she didn't exist and even if she did she didn't go back Homer says so and he's unerrant!"

I do have to admit I find your religious education surprising. I was educated at BYU and played with the idea of majoring in religion and got a minor in it. If ever there was a house of intellectual fraud most non-mormons, and even many mormons would point BYU out as a huge candidate for #1.

Even so, the major and even the minor were very rigorous in training in differing philolosphy, history and religions and logic and "theology". And even though mormons have a prophet you're taught to consider everything with a critical mind (although to be fair when it comes to mormon leadership this is more of a wink wink nudge nudge 'you're going to find the same thing he did') but still no one, even the professors were married to a single way of thinking about things when it came to theology. Even ones that wrote books. So to see a student so married to a single theological approach, and one that is so exclusive, is frankly shocking.

 

[soul creator]

Athiesm actually has a lot to offer. It's actually on the rise at the moment, so more and more people seem to agree.

For instance, you arn't bound to follow odd religious rules and practices. It's also very liberating to be able to think freely without being weighed down by religious dogmas. You're also able to rely on you're own morality instead of entrusting it to a 2000 year old book.

There's literally an endless list of positives that athiesm as brought to my life, but I'm not going to detail every specific case. To say that it offers nothing is a complete joke.

warning, semantic discussion up ahead!

Technically, it's true that atheism in and of itself doesn't offer that. You could be a deist and get all of those benefits. Of course, practically speaking, since most of us live in majority Christian countries, a side effect of atheism is that you it does allow for those things you mentioned to happen.

 

[Pandaman]

I opened with Homer because we have more ancient manuscripts of his works than the others.

right, and when you read the second sentence in your introduction to homer, you'll reconsider the 'his works' part. the man predated the greek alphabet itself, the works of the Iliad are oral history's transcribed much, much later and are popularily considered the works of multiple bards and authors.

Hell, you cant even buy a copy of the Iliad anymore without a hundred page textual criticism saying as much.

To what issue with good governor are you referring? The Quirinius census?

ofcourse.

 

[JGS]

Of course not. Science tells us things about how nature is. It won't tell you how humans ought to behave. You often hear things from the very stupid creationists about how because I believe in evolution I must also believe Hitler was right or that humans should act like animals, since we are animals! :lol Science can describe the brutal selection going on in nature, but only a madman thinks we should apply that to human society.

I have to choose my words carefully, but I'm pretty sure I agree with this.

Well, again, they're not just drawings. They're based off of real fossils found somewhere around Pakistan I think and then dated too. Many biologists like Dawkins would also argue that the fossil evidence is not the strongest evidence for evolution, and that even without a single fossils, we could prove evolution beyond reasonable doubt with genetic evidence. For human evolution, look up for example the GULO gene and endogenic retroviruses. Those are the two big ones I know of.

Evolution doesn't need proving. We all know it happens, but it does not need to happen on the grandest scale (& most improbable scale) unless God does not exist. I believe God exists so why do I need proof that a single celled organism eventually evolved over billions of years into a blue whale?

Being the insane apologist that I am, even if science proved that this happened (It won't imo), would it be acceptable for me to say that God controlled the whole process because that's what I would probably say?

EDIT- tried to look up those two points about human evolution on the fly and it didn't work out so well, but I'll continue.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Evolution doesn't need proving. We all know it happens, but it does not need to happen on the grandest scale (& most improbable scale) unless God does not exist. I believe God exists so why do I need proof that a single celled organism eventually evolved over billions of years into a blue whale?

Don't you agree that a lot of small changes can add up to a big change? There are huge time intervals involved here.

Being the insane apologist that I am, even if science proved that this happened (It won't imo), would it be acceptable for me to say that God controlled the whole process because that's what I would probably say?

Of course. In fact, unlike you, I think the concept of God is perfectly consistent with abiogenesis. Why can't there have been a God that set up the physical laws of the universe, knowing in his infinite wisdom that they would lead inevitably to human life, and then just sat back observed? There's no real reason to believe that's the case, and it may not be the most comforting version of God, but it has the advantage of being pretty much bulletproof, since it lies entirely outside the realm of science.

 

[JGS]

Athiesm actually has a lot to offer. It's actually on the rise at the moment, so more and more people seem to agree.

For instance, you arn't bound to follow odd religious rules and practices. It's also very liberating to be able to think freely without being weighed down by religious dogmas. You're also able to rely on you're own morality instead of entrusting it to a 2000 year old book.

There's literally an endless list of positives that athiesm as brought to my life, but I'm not going to detail every specific case. To say that it offers nothing is a complete joke.

I know atheism has a lot to offer if you want it. It can certainly remove a lot of baggage if you have no idea why you're religious. Since ones who don't believe in God don't worry about pleasing him, many turn to their fellow man and often make great efforts (if not successes) to help them.

However, it's just impossible to be one if you believe in God. I do. Since I do, it behooves me to see what he wants of me. I don't follow odd religious rules.

Some show themselves to be snobs and their blame is misplaced oftentimes if they think little old me is responsible the the world's woes and science responsible for all of the world's glory.

I believe it will continue to be on the rise as young people abandon religion since their parents are already apathetic to it. However, it won't be the majority for a long, long time.

 

[Artanisix]

Strong senses of good/bad unrelated to the physical atmosphere, to simple stuff like the feeling of being watched.

Do people genuinely never have these types of experiences or do they just write them off to extensive LSD usage or whatever?

That I would say is more of a psychological question, and one that evolutionary psychology purports to answer. The main hypothesis is that human brains have been shaped by evolution to see agency in everything around us - we hear something rustling in the bushes at night and our immediate reaction is that an animal or person is there, only to realize it was just the wind. It makes sense on an evolutionary point of view, because the early human ancestors that had the natural reaction of believing it was the wind right away would have been Smilodon food.

We also attribute agency to inanimate objects. You see someone stub their toe and they shout at that "stupid goddamn table", or their computer acts up and they get the urge to punch it or yell at it. To sum it up, it's our innate tendency to perceive and attribute agency to things that set the stage for a belief in higher powers.

Of course, this would only set the stage. It's through our increased intelligence (our brains being over three times as large as a chimps, who can also think somewhat symbolically) and our propensity for symbolic abstractions (language and morality) where actual Gods and spirits emerge.

A mix of agency detection, intentionality, cognitive bias and the capacity for abstract thought is the current theory on why humans have a tendency to believe in Gods and spirits.

 

[DragonGirl]

Did none of mine count?:lol

Since you said this I assume you actually made a list somewhere. I'll have to go back and look for it.

No one owns morality. Morals aren't about a case of who has more or less anyway. It's about standards and what is accepted and what is not in any particular group. A sense of morality is the easiest thing since everyone has a sense of morality- religious or not.

A grand personal philosophy I basically agree. But it is not shared by many of your fellow religious, specifically the noisy influential ones. You called my ownership of morality statement snark. I made the statement in recognition of a very common meme among the religious of moral superiority and general demonization of secularists and atheists in particular. A view that does not jive with statistics. You don't speak for them and they apparently don't speak for you and for that I commend you, but my statement was broader than just your commentary. A holier than thou attitude prevalent among many influential religious can not be denied. They do indeed claim ownership of morality by the simple fact that they worship a god and belong to such and such sect. This is an aspect of religion quite useful for raising oneself while putting down others. It's a component of tribalism. I do not accuse you of this personally, but surely you are aware of this common attitude?

Everyone has the same base morality. My particular religion but others as well, place another layer over the basics - I believe the atheists call them restrictions. However, I don't view them as restrictions at all especially given the reasons for them. One man's restriction are another man's guidelines I guess. Choice is grand.

Basics? All cultures place a layer over the basics refining it into culturally approved specifics. How exactly does religion differ? Also, yes, choice is grand. It is the creed of many influential religious groups to take that choice away however. This is especially prevalent in education. We've seen its ugly influence in politics.

Religion isn't either. The majority of churches out there aren't exactly inlayed in gold and the pastors don't make tons of money. My congregation pays no one, it's all voluntary as are the donations. It's a horrible way to run a business for commercial purposes.

Yes, many churches make no money other than what I pay through my taxes. I've also heard a rather funny statement "feed the world, sell the Vatican". Then there are the televangelists... This was all a tangent, for that I apologize but I'm just curious as to your reaction of these and other examples of extremely wealthy religious organizations with quite blatantly do not use the wealth for the betterment of human kind. What are their morals?

But it is in any organization's interest to expand including the scientific world whose goal even in the non-profit sectors is to amass enough money to keep funding whatever experiment their working on at the time. They are very good at it

Most major scientific achievements were funded by something weren't they? There's not too many hobo quantum physicists. They didn't make the collidor out of tin foil and used chewing gum. Commercial interests benefitted from that. One of the posters quoted proof that men were on the verge of creating life, but that's not what they were seeking at all. The experiment was entirely for commercial purposes.

True, and all of those things are remarkably tangible.

I disagree with your view that religion doesn't offer something to someone. Besides, if I'm deluded and happy, why rain on my parade?

The only problem I have with the religious parade is when it steps on my face. Maybe your personal parade is polite, stays on the street, and the band plays quietly. If so then I really don't care if it marches down my street.

Also, I never said religion doesn't offer anything to anyone. I simply say that what those offers are founded on: The belief in a god with such and such tenets, who offers this reward and that punishment, is not real. This in itself, while it irks me intellectually, isn't really the problem (well, it can spawn problems with critical thinking processes and how vulnerable one makes oneself to manipulation but leave it). The primary problem I, and most atheists have with the religious parade is, as I said, when it's gleefully marching all over my autonomy.

However, you are also incorrect in thinking that you need a "product". You just need a hook, a service, a demand for whatever is being supplied. Are you yhinking that religion has NONE of this? The reality is demand is higher for religion than it will ever be for atheism which literally offers nothing since it's not even a philosophy. It's simply a thought.

I think you need a product because selling divine vaporware is dishonest. The product, depending on the religion is heaven, karmic reincarnation, 72 virgins, or whatever. That's also the hook. The price is obedience. Failure to pay up is threat of hell and its equivalents. I think that's pretty awful. The buyers conditions can be pretty brutal too and not just to those who bought the product, but even those who didn't. Homophobia, bigotry, sexism. All sanctified in various holy texts. Worst TOS ever.

As for atheism offering nothing, there are atheistic philosophies that lay out ideals of morality and how to best live. Look into secular humanism, for example. Religion has cribbed some good ideals from human nature and culture along with a lot of really rotten ones. Then it adds a layer of supernatural nonsense on top of it. I'd be happy if the religious took a page from the Jefferson Bible and simple strip out the supernatural parts and the morally abhorrent and outdated parts and just kept the basic good advice. Of course, you don't need a holy text to get that good advice at all.

I don't quite understand how can you accuse them of something that it is impossible for them to have anyway.

You lost me here. Did this already get addressed?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Already been over this. If you mean "How do humans talk about the Divine" or "What is the range of philosophical thought about God?" or even "How could 'perfect' apply in X conception of God," then you are engaged in a scholarly academic debate. If one is, as you were, suggesting "perfect' means two things as applied to God and to man because God's nature is X, then you are engaged in apologetic pseudo-intellectual wankery. Look, divinity schools, at least most of them, are affiliated with churches and their basic project is to teach and understand that Church's message. If you can't understand how that is different than the detached scholarly open-minded search for truth, I don't know what else I can say.

does it have actual explanatory value? Do you mean canonical consistency? How do you account for different languages? Finally, do you understand the difference between saying that the set of manuscripts we have are 99.5% consistent as compared to each other and saying that they are 99.5% accurate as compared to the originals? It's simply a ridiculous inference to think you can say that with any degree of confidence.

We don't! as far as I know. Maybe there is better corroborating evidence for Plato but I haven't looked. Did I not concede this a few posts ago? It doesn't matter what the degree of Plato's fidelity to the originals is. Nobody claims they are 99.5% accurate or has any interest in doing so for other purposes. We've been over this. I'm trying to be nicer but it's starting to seem like you're just repeating talking points without regard to whether they have already been addressed.

People think the Iliad, to take one example, was written by multiple authors! It was orally transmitted for centuries! Of course it's different from the "original," probably significantly. The only one committed to the proposition that a copy of a particular work is very close to the original is you.

Which is 95% inerrant.

Anyone who thought they were their original works was ignorant on the subject. Or perhaps deeply committed to a belief in the gods described therein.

I appreciate you trying to be nicer. I don't have time to address these tonight, but I'll try to get back to them tomorrow. And I apologize for having a demeaning attitude towards you at times and trading insults. That was not a very Christlike attitude for me to have, so please forgive me. Hopefully we can discuss these issues more tomorrow.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

right, and when you read the second sentence in your introduction to homer, you'll reconsider the 'his works' part. the man predated the greek alphabet itself, the works of the Iliad are oral history's transcribed much, much later and are popularily considered the works of multiple bards and authors.

Hell, you cant even buy a copy of the Iliad anymore without a hundred page textual criticism saying as much.

ofcourse.

Thanks for that clarification regarding Homer. And I posted an initial list of journal articles on the census a few pages back. It was earlier this morning.

 

[ronito]

I know atheism has a lot to offer if you want it. It can certainly remove a lot of baggage if you have no idea why you're religious. Since ones who don't believe in God don't worry about pleasing him, many turn to their fellow man and often make great efforts (if not successes) to help them.

However, it's just impossible to be one if you believe in God. I do. Since I do, it behooves me to see what he wants of me. I don't follow odd religious rules.

Some show themselves to be snobs and their blame is misplaced oftentimes if they think little old me is responsible the the world's woes and science responsible for all of the world's glory.

I believe it will continue to be on the rise as young people abandon religion since their parents are already apathetic to it. However, it won't be the majority for a long, long time.

You make a mistake that many people that are religious people make. They think that Atheism is about being free from rules and for some it is. But for many it's about being free from the crutch of religion. If you're good, you're good because it's the right thing to do. Not to get some great reward in heaven. When they do something bad, it's not because some unseen nature ore devil that you have to fight, it's because you were a stupid asshole and you should do better. A belief that one hand working is better than twenty hands praying.

Penn Jillette put it far better than I ever could.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

 

[Zaptruder]

Dude Abides, whilst agree with your stance, mostly, I disagree strongly with your insulting and downright degrading tone that you take with DeusTrinitas.

Bumfuck, really?

I respect DeusTrinitas for taking his position and standing by it despite my polar opposite views but I do think you are crossing the line by slinging insults like that.

Don't. Don't legitimize the inane argument from authority schtick that deus is riding.

The only thing that matters here is critically thinking through the arguments put forth, and in that respect both JGS and Deus are masters of fail.

Of course I'm sitting on the sidelines sniping at them with ad hominens and other poor argumentative techniques, but why waste all my time when I can predict the outcome of engagements and can have more fun this way?

Plus the rest of team-atheist seems to be doing a bang up job of calling these guys out on their shit. (To no avail... of course.)

 

[FunkyMunkey]

You make a mistake that many people that are religious people make. They think that Atheism is about being free from rules and for some it is. But for many it's about being free from the crutch of religion. If you're good, you're good because it's the right thing to do. Not to get some great reward in heaven. When they do something bad, it's not because some unseen nature ore devil that you have to fight, it's because you were a stupid asshole and you should do better. A belief that one hand working is better than twenty hands praying.

There are many, many religious people who, even if guaranteed a predetermined spot in hell, would still live their life to leave the world a better place than how they came into it.

You call him out on assuming in a generalized manner, that atheism is merely about being free, then you go and say that the actions of religious people are based upon the notion of a reward or punishment? That's bullshit and wide generalizations like that can't really be countered in a constructive way.

Plus the rest of team-atheist seems to be doing a bang up job of calling these guys out on their shit. (To no avail... of course.)

... what?

And look at the thread title. This isn't a "war" or some shit to win. And the fact that you think a discussion centric around "faith" can be won, means you've already lost the game you're playing with yourself.

 

[ronito]

There are many, many religious people who, even if guaranteed a predetermined spot in hell, would still live their life to leave the world a better place than how they came into it.

You call him out on assuming in a generalized manner, that atheism is merely about being free, then you go and say that the actions of religious people are based upon the notion of a reward or punishment? That's bullshit and wide generalizations like that can't really be countered in a constructive way.

No doubt. Just like I admitted that for many people athiesm is about no rules. I was just trying to point out that for many atheists it's about a higher sense of morality. Don't jump down my throat for trying to bring out a point. Did you even read the link I posted?

 

[FunkyMunkey]

No doubt. Just like I admitted that for many people athiesm is about no rules. I was just trying to point out that for many atheists it's about a higher sense of morality. Don't jump down my throat for trying to bring out a point. Did you even read the link I posted?

Yes I did. He seems to be directly targeting those who believe their God has day-to-day influences on their lives.

 

[JGS]

Since you said this I assume you actually made a list somewhere. I'll have to go back and look for it.

If you didn't see it in the post, just assume you don't think what I said counts.

A grand personal philosophy I basically agree. But it is not shared by many of your fellow religious, specifically the noisy influential ones. You called my ownership of morality statement snark. I made the statement in recognition of a very common meme among the religious of moral superiority and general demonization of secularists and atheists in particular. A view that does not jive with statistics. You don't speak for them and they apparently don't speak for you and for that I commend you, but my statement was broader than just your commentary. A holier than thou attitude prevalent among many influential religious can not be denied. They do indeed claim ownership of morality by the simple fact that they worship a god and belong to such and such sect. This is an aspect of religion quite useful for raising oneself while putting down others. It's a component of tribalism. I do not accuse you of this personally, but surely you are aware of this common attitude?

You asked me the question and I am not a representative of all religions. I don't believe in ownership of morality. It is not a common meme of my religion and certainly not that common of a dogma of except in this sense that God gives it as the creator.

Basics? All cultures place a layer over the basics refining it into culturally approved specifics. How exactly does religion differ? Also, yes, choice is grand. It is the creed of many influential religious groups to take that choice away however. This is especially prevalent in education. We've seen its ugly influence in politics.

So the sins of some = the sins of all when it comes to religion? Got it.

There are all types of moral codes/laws that everyone follows which is why it's not that big of a deal that religions have their own as well to set them apart.

Yes, many churches make no money other than what I pay through my taxes. I've also heard a rather funny statement "feed the world, sell the Vatican". Then there are the televangelists... This was all a tangent, for that I apologize but I'm just curious as to your reaction of these and other examples of extremely wealthy religious organizations with quite blatantly do not use the wealth for the betterment of human kind. What are their morals?

Wealth does not equal immoral/amoral. I know I'm going to try and prove that if no one else can. Sure there's plenty of religious wealth out there. I'm not Catholic so I'm not quite sure how much money they have although I imagine it's quite a bit accumulated over the centuries. To be fair, although they are wealthy, the Catholic Church is also known for helping their fellow man and being against war in general.

But the wealth of a church is often in lockstep with the wealth of it's laity unless they are amassed together in the megachurches. However, many of those are at break-even considering the costs of running it.

I for the most part do not agree with the vast majority of religions out there nor do I need to. With that said, it's not my place to defend them. I only need to believe in one of them. That does not add credibility to the idea that there is no God though - just that you have to pick a faith carefully. You can't have faith until you choose it.

True, and all of those things are remarkably tangible.

So's religion.

The only problem I have with the religious parade is when it steps on my face. Maybe your personal parade is polite, stays on the street, and the band plays quietly. If so then I really don't care if it marches down my street.

When has religion en masse stepped on anyone in the 21st century?

Is the implication that quite a number of them pick on you personally? If so, then how?

Also, I never said religion doesn't offer anything to anyone. I simply say that what those offers are founded on: The belief in a god with such and such tenets, who offers this reward and that punishment, is not real. This in itself, while it irks me intellectually, isn't really the problem (well, it can spawn problems with critical thinking processes and how vulnerable one makes oneself to manipulation but leave it). The primary problem I, and most atheists have with the religious parade is, as I said, when it's gleefully marching all over my autonomy.

The first reason is pointless as it again falsely thinks tangibility = reality. It will never be your place to tell someone their thoughts and beliefs aren't real just because you don't share them. One could say the same thing about any number of philosophies.

Your second reason is from the Dark Ages not the 21st century. There has never been a more secularist time than right now. You can't teach the Bible in school if your life depended on it.

People have more dangers from the state than they do religion.

I think you need a product because selling divine vaporware is dishonest. The product, depending on the religion is heaven, karmic reincarnation, 72 virgins, or whatever. That's also the hook. The price is obedience. Failure to pay up is threat of hell and its equivalents. I think that's pretty awful. The buyers conditions can be pretty brutal too and not just to those who bought the product, but even those who didn't. Homophobia, bigotry, sexism. All sanctified in various holy texts. Worst TOS ever.

More warmed up soup. Assuming your view is correct, why exactly would people be better off with honest vaporware - i.e. just dying?

Obedience is a good thing unless you impudent. Very few atheist practice what they preach on that one. After all, everyone's obedient to something unless you're an anarchist.

Once again, stay in the 21st century and you will see that freedoms toward women, races, and gay people were only possible with the support of the vastly larger segment of people known as...wait for it... religious folk.

As for atheism offering nothing, there are atheistic philosophies that lay out ideals of morality and how to best live. Look into secular humanism, for example. Religion has cribbed some good ideals from human nature and culture along with a lot of really rotten ones. Then it adds a layer of supernatural nonsense on top of it. I'd be happy if the religious took a page from the Jefferson Bible and simple strip out the supernatural parts and the morally abhorrent and outdated parts and just kept the basic good advice. Of course, you don't need a holy text to get that good advice at all.

So basically, atheists have rules and guidelines they follow. How Old Testament of them if true.

You should be happy that you don't have to read it at all without trying to tell other which version they should read.

 

[JGS]

You make a mistake that many people that are religious people make. They think that Atheism is about being free from rules and for some it is. But for many it's about being free from the crutch of religion. If you're good, you're good because it's the right thing to do. Not to get some great reward in heaven. When they do something bad, it's not because some unseen nature ore devil that you have to fight, it's because you were a stupid asshole and you should do better. A belief that one hand working is better than twenty hands praying.

Penn Jillette put it far better than I ever could.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

Geez, learn to take a compliment.:lol

I didn't make that mistake. I have to stop giving examples without a preface. Their concern for mankind is a sign they aren't free of rules. They feel an obligation to help. It's one they share with religious folk but it proves their not heartless bastards too.

Further you mistake why people follow God. I'm not scared of anything beyond large bodies of water and lightening. Many of us are religious because we want to be and do more than pray. One of the things told to us whacky religious people from our invisible sky daddy is to help others. If the end result is the same, why does the source matter?

I am amazed at the number of atheists that think they are the primary forces for good in the world and that the reason is somehow strangely more noble simply because they have a different reason.

 

[ronito]

Geez, learn to take a compliment.:lol

I didn't make that mistake. I have to stop giving examples without a preface. Their concern for mankind is a sign they aren't free of rules. They feel an obligation to help. It's one they share with religious folk but it proves their not heartless bastards too.

Further you mistake why people follow God. I'm not scared of anything beyond large bodies of water and lightening. Many of us are religious because we want to be and do more than pray. One of the things told to us whacky religious people from our invisible sky daddy is to help others. If the end result is the same, why does the source matter?

I am amazed at the number of atheists that think they are the primary forces for good in the world and that the reason is somehow strangely more noble simply because they have a different reason.

It cuts both ways. I can't count the number of people I've met on both sides. Athiests saying "Morality for reward is no morality." and then the people that say "Morality without god is no morality."

 

[Slightly Live]

Once again, stay in the 21st century and you will see that freedoms toward women, races, and gay people were only possible with the support of the vastly larger segment of people known as...wait for it... religious folk.

I'm sorry, but this is crossing a line. Christianity is partially to blame for holding back equal rights towards black folks, homosexuals and women for almost two thousand years.

This reminds me of the Republicans trying to give credit to Conservative white old men for "allowing" gays, woman and black folks equal rights in America. It's fucking preposterous bullshit.

You want to see some 21st Century religion at work? Go to Afghanistan and watch mothers ignite suicide bombs in crowded shopping streets after telling their children they'll meet again in Heaven, go to Africa and have a look at the families of homosexuals having to deal with burying their loved ones after a lynch mob in the name of Christ has had their way with them. Look at the idiotic, inbred white folks decrying a health care bill as the master plan of a "Communist nigger President" in the name of their Lord.

You want folks to credit religion for equality? It might take a while for religion to wash off the thousands of years of bloodshed that it constantly bathes in each day.

That's not to ignore the charity of religions and the good that they do, but you can't turn a blind eye of the vicious and immoral obstructions to basic human rights that religion has been for thousands of years and continues to be, today.

 

[Zaptruder]

And look at the thread title. This isn't a "war" or some shit to win. And the fact that you think a discussion centric around "faith" can be won, means you've already lost the game you're playing with yourself.

Does it seem like I think a discussion based around 'faith' can be 'won'? If that's what you're reading into it, then it seems you've gravely misconstrued my position.

But lets not kid ourselves here. At the meta level, everyone in this thread is playing a game of sorts; we make points for our views, we feel reinforced by those that share our views, and we shrug off the points the other side makes.

One side plays according to the rules of free thinking, the other according to the rules of faith. Both sides think they're winning on the basis of their rules.

 

[Count Dookkake]

But lets not kid ourselves here. At the meta level, everyone in this thread is playing a game of sorts; we make points for our views, we feel reinforced by those that share our views, and we shrug off the points the other side makes.

Wait, has that last part happened yet?

 

[Touchdown]

I'm sorry, but this is crossing a line. Christianity is partially to blame for holding back equal rights towards black folks, homosexuals and women for almost two thousand years.

This reminds me of the Republicans trying to give credit to Conservative white old men for "allowing" gays, woman and black folks equal rights in America. It's fucking preposterous bullshit.

You want to see some 21st Century religion at work? Go to Afghanistan and watch mothers ignite suicide bombs in crowded shopping streets after telling their children they'll meet again in Heaven, go to Africa and have a look at the families of homosexuals having to deal with burying their loved ones after a lynch mob in the name of Christ has had their way with them. Look at the idiotic, inbred white folks decrying a health care bill as the master plan of a "Communist nigger President" in the name of their Lord.

You want folks to credit religion for equality? It might take a while for religion to wash off the thousands of years of bloodshed that it constantly bathes in each day.

That's not to ignore the charity of religions and the good that they do, but you can't turn a blind eye of the vicious and immoral obstructions to basic human rights that religion has been for thousands of years and continues to be, today.

 

[soul creator]

I for the most part do not agree with the vast majority of religions out there nor do I need to. With that said, it's not my place to defend them. I only need to believe in one of them.

my fellow posters, read the bold and keep this in mind.

The first reason is pointless as it again falsely thinks tangibility = reality. It will never be your place to tell someone their thoughts and beliefs aren't real just because you don't share them. One could say the same thing about any number of philosophies.

Besides, if I'm deluded and happy, why rain on my parade?

I called it!

(notice how this discussion originally started with falsifiable claims such as things mentioned in the bible, human evolution, whether people can come back from death, communication with invisible beings, and now it's subtly moved onto "why do you hate feelings?")

Once again, stay in the 21st century and you will see that freedoms toward women, races, and gay people were only possible with the support of the vastly larger segment of people known as...wait for it... religious folk.

Correct, except the progressive religious folk who do this tend to ignore a large majority of their holy texts and the history of their religion. Of course, I'm glad they do, but this is hardly a point in the bible's favor, for example. Abolitionists and slave holders both had biblical evidence for their position. Martin Luther King and Jerry Falwell both had millions of followers who felt their Christianity was "right". Barack Obama and Rick Warren are both considered "committed Christians". All this shows is that "Christianity" (and this criticism generally applies to any monotheistic religion) is contradictory and incoherent, and people basically make it up as they go along. Which is what most of us have been saying for a while now

 

[Zaptruder]

Wait, has that last part happened yet?

Uh... shrug off as in lack of lasting impact. The points are rebutted then forgotten. Then repeated a few hundred posts later.

At least that's the impression I get from skimming through this thread.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Uh... shrug off as in lack of lasting impact. The points are rebutted then forgotten. Then repeated a few hundred posts later.

At least that's the impression I get from skimming through this thread.

I meant the other side making valid points.

 

[Zaptruder]

I meant the other side making valid points.

Those points are valid according to their rules...

 

[JGS]

I'm sorry, but this is crossing a line. Christianity is partially to blame for holding back equal rights towards black folks, homosexuals and women for almost two thousand years.

No, that would be white people, homophobes, & sexists.:lol

I, as a religious person, hire all of them any day of the week.

Besides, are you saying religion is irredeemable for past crimes committed by ones claiming to represent Jesus?

Kind of harsh for such an open minded intellectual.

 

[JGS]

my fellow posters, read the bold and keep this in mind.





I called it!

(notice how this discussion originally started with falsifiable claims such as things mentioned in the bible, human evolution, whether people can come back from death, communication with invisible beings, and now it's subtly moved onto "why do you hate feelings?")

Ok, not sure why I was quoted, but OK.

Correct, except the progressive religious folk who do this tend to ignore a large majority of their holy texts and the history of their religion. Of course, I'm glad they do, but this is hardly a point in the bible's favor, for example. Abolitionists and slave holders both had biblical evidence for their position. Martin Luther King and Jerry Falwell both had millions of followers who felt their Christianity was "right". Barack Obama and Rick Warren are both considered "committed Christians". All this shows is that "Christianity" (and this criticism generally applies to any monotheistic religion) is contradictory and incoherent, and people basically make it up as they go along. Which is what most of us have been saying for a while now

Christianity isn't incoherent at all. It's all contained in one little book. Now Christendom on the other hand is a mess.

Who of us "progressive types" is ignoring the holy texts? Have I? If you think so, you've called wrong.


Try quoting the inconsistencies of whether atheism is a philosophy or not.

 

[Mumei]

No, that would be white people, homophobes, & sexists.:lol

I, as a religious person, hire all of them any day of the week.

Besides, are you saying religion is irredeemable for past crimes committed by ones claiming to represent Jesus?

Kind of harsh for such an open minded intellectual.

Wait, what? Christianity a great deal deal of responsibility for all of those. What do you mean "claiming" to represent Jesus? The religious attitudes that were responsible for holding back non-whites, gays, and women were at one point hegemonic, and many people's negative attitudes towards gays and disdain towards egalitarianism in relationships between men and women is directly informed by their religious attitudes.

I must be missing something, because you can't seriously be trying to just pass those problems off as not being directly attributable to religious attitudes.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Wait, what? Christianity a great deal deal of responsibility for all of those. What do you mean "claiming" to represent Jesus? The religious attitudes that were responsible for holding back non-whites, gays, and women were at one point hegemonic, and many people's negative attitudes towards gays and disdain towards egalitarianism in relationships between men and women is directly informed by their religious attitudes.

I must be missing something, because you can't seriously be trying to just pass those problems off as not being directly attributable to religious attitudes.

Of course those people weren't true Christians.

 

[Slightly Live]

No, that would be white people, homophobes, & sexists.:lol

I, as a religious person, hire all of them any day of the week.

Besides, are you saying religion is irredeemable for past crimes committed by ones claiming to represent Jesus?

Kind of harsh for such an open minded intellectual.

I'm not in a position to say whether or not religion can be "redeemed". I have left out a great deal of accomplishments and good religion has done for the world both yesterday and today.

You said specially the 21st Century, today, now. Right now, is religion a force for equality, today? Right now folks are using religion to hinder equality, there's too many examples in America, Asia or any part of the world to list.

You could argue that these folks are fringe elements, which may be true for certain circumstances, but look at the bible toting numbers of say the Tea Party movement as example. Most of these folks are uneducated intellectually but they can quote whole passages and scriptures to support their bigotry and hatred of common sense and equality.

Look at the Middle East and Africa, religiously run states demonising and oppressing homosexuals and woman. today and tomorrow.

A lot of this stuff stems from institutionalised discrimination rampant across the main religious groups.

Modernised religion has thankfully phased these elements out for the most part in most developed countries. However as the Tea Party shows, as gay bashing shows, as religious modern states have shown, it's still there.

If all the religious groups reached the same sort of modernised enlightenment that you yourself have demonstrated, the world would be a better place today, but it's not really like that.

If religious groups didn't institutionalise these elements in the past, they'd never exist today and the way religious denominations work, they may never truly be eradicated.

I really do wish every religious person held the same standards on equality as you do, today. They just don't and because of they way they've handled it in the past, despite 20th/21st Century changes, the world will be stuck with them, and their hate and bloodshed for a very long time. =\

 

[soul creator]

Ok, not sure why I was quoted, but OK.

I quoted the "I need to believe in one" because that gives a hint to how you view the question of "god" and "religion". It implies that religious belief is a prerequisite for you. So you shopped around, and found the one you liked the most. Which works great for something to make you feel better, but doesn't work that well for finding out whether something is true or not (and like the link I posted, those are two very different discussions).

Christianity isn't incoherent at all. It's all contained in one little book. Now Christendom on the other hand is a mess.

Is this a way of saying "the bible and religion is fine, it's just people that have problems with it"?

That seems like saying "Trickle down economics is fine, it's just that damn George Bush that messed it up", while ignoring the possibility that "trickle down economics" is flawed from the beginning, regardless of how it's "interpreted".

And of course, I think you already kind of admitted that it's not possible your religion could be wrong or inadequate. Your view of your religion is something you "need" to believe in and how no one should "rain on a parade". You approach it from a standpoint of "does this provide a positive feeling", and not from a standpoint of "are these claims true?". Due to this, the whole discussion with you on the bible, evolution, god's existence, is somewhat moot. Quoting the "I need to believe" and "why rain on my parade" was just a way to clarify that for anyone else reading

Who of us "progressive types" is ignoring the holy texts? Have I? If you think so, you've called wrong.

Well yes. As mentioned, "conservative" religious folks and "progressive" religious folks can all interpret things to back up their position. A simplistic example is basically this:

-Progressive Christians ignore the Old Testament, and focus on positive things Jesus said in the New Testament
-Conservative Christians ignore positive things Jesus said in the New Testament, and focus on rules set forth in the Old Testament.

And since the character in the bible described as "god" is essentially bipolar, there's no way to determine which one is the "right" one. Each side can go all list wars to support their view. Of course, I'm happy to work with the "progressive" ones since we still share similar goals! But if we happen to be in a discussion specifically about the source of those views (such as this thread), I will still think that their religious thinking is equally as flawed as the "fundamentalists", even though they may be much nicer people overall.

Try quoting the inconsistencies of whether atheism is a philosophy or not.

Atheism isn't a philosphy. Methodological Naturalism, Secular Humanism, some forms of Buddhism, etc. can all be philosophies that a lot of atheists have though.

 

[Mumei]

Of course those people weren't true Christians.

Then who were the true Christians? :lol

 

[Count Dookkake]

Then who were the true Christians? :lol

thatsthejoke.jpg

 

[jaxword]

Do you believe that?

At one point, yes.

No, that would be white people, homophobes, & sexists.:lol

I, as a religious person, hire all of them any day of the week.

Do you believe you represent the majority of your religion?