Religion

[RSnow]

I can see all of you out there smacking your foreheads and saying "obviously RSnow was going to bring this one back"

Truth is though that I had a lot of fun on the old Religion thread and learned a lot from most of the people who posted.

For whoever cares, the old thread was here (I think):
http://www.poxnora.com/forums/listthreadreplies.do?fid=8&tid=542910&p=0

Oh yeah, be nice to each other and don't over-spam my thread.

[jimmie1982]

Don't let this get out of hand, it is a sore topic for a lot of people and can be easily misunderstood. Post at your own risk and keep replies clean and do not flame anyone.

[cidbahamut]

The thing about Religion that I've figured out these last 21 years is that it really boils down to being something each person has to find for themselves. It's why I don't necessarily call myself Christian anymore, I went through all the motions as a child but never found the spirituality of it all for myself. I realized this while watching my friend explore eastern religious texts to a depth I never believed possible.

[BrokeHeart]

To me, due to my life experiences in a family that was and is to put it lightly, zealous, I believe, based on the current events of the world and my upbringing that religion is an excuse for war.

Of course there's a good rule I follow now that some of you may want to as well:

"There are 3 things in life you never talk about, Politics, Religion, and Funeral Parlors"



I'm still digesting it myself, but I've got a decent handling on it, although not the best.

[Thelvin]

I agree. I think when it comes down to it, it should be an individual choice, decision and lifestyle. If it's hurting nobody but yourself, that's fine. It's another matter entirely when it harms others. You see it in the news every once in a while. I was sad reading about that story in the news with those hundreds of children in those poly sect compounds in the lower fourty-eight. I think it's probably a good idea to abstain from talking about politics and religion in open forum. Funeral parlors should be a thread in the FW faction somewhere. ;)

To me, due to my life experiences in a family that was and is to put it lightly, zealous, I believe, based on the current events of the world and my upbringing that religion is an excuse for war.

Of course there's a good rule I follow now that some of you may want to as well:

"There are 3 things in life you never talk about, Politics, Religion, and Funeral Parlors"



I'm still digesting it myself, but I've got a decent handling on it, although not the best.

[dommikhail]

On the contrary, open forums are quite possibly one of the best possible places to discuss the typically undiscussable. The property of anonymity provided by online alias's allows oneself to speak their minds freely and without worry of serious repercussion beyond a solid counter-argument. The one thing needed on the user end is an open mind and the fore-knowledge to know that something with a serious nature as religion has is meant to be handled in a polite manner, and to not take offense to disagreements.

Now, that being said, I never took part in the old thread, so I have a rather basic question. Is this to be a discussion of organized religion. or a discussion of faith and belief. I classify the two in radically different catagories and have near polar opposite points of view on the two. Faith and belief in its very nature I find to be a personal and self-discovered thing. It perhaps more than anything else defines a person, and the development of one's faith is a life's work. Organized religion on the other hand I categorize as a brainwash exercise in mediocrity and deception, the single most destructive and potentially evil force in the history of mankind.

[goldmonkee]

I see religion as early attempts to explain the world. It's difficult for us to comprehend today, but not long ago people believed that the Earth was flat, that spontaneous generation occured (maggots came from meat, mice from hay, etc). Go back even further and things like planets, stars and even rain were incomprehensible - there was no explanation but that of the spiritual, the magical. It's common sense to us that a comet is a piece of rock and ice travelling through space; to them, it was a communication from a divine being. In this sense, religion was the first step toward science. Without the aid of telescopes, microscopes, the scientific method, books containing knowledge accumulated over lifetimes, communication across large distances and all of the things we take for granted today, it was the best explanation that could be given for these things.

There was also the biggest mystery, to this day the greatest wonder we've ever known - ourselves. Religion laid out what was right, what was wrong. It told us where we came from and where we would go. It gave us the meaning of life and death. In this sense, religion was the first step toward philosophy. It answered the questions we had about ourselves, using what was considered to be fact at that time. It quite simply made people feel good, like they had a purpose.

Today, we have progressed an infinite amount in our understanding of the things around and inside of us. To cling to the religious explanations is to put the reasonings of those people from years ago above those of today...to put blind faith over reason. As we progress further and further in our quest to explain, understand and document the universe, we must trust our logic and the findings it brings us.

[goldmonkee]

Side note: I believe that when you die, it is exactly like it was before you were born. A near eternity of absolute non-existence.

[Gridlok]

Don't let this get out of hand, it is a sore topic for a lot of people and can be easily misunderstood. Post at your own risk and keep replies clean and do not flame anyone.

We went like 40 pages in the old thread just fine there Jimmie. It's nice of you to show that you care though.

I'll be back posting my thoughts on certain subjects just as soon as I complete my own research into the demon lords that lead the legions of hell. If anyone can help me out I would appreciate it, the subject is really obscure apparently.

[Gridlok]

Side note: I believe that when you die, it is exactly like it was before you were born. A near eternity of absolute non-existence.

I brought that fate up in the old thread, it's depressing but could very well be what happens. I really don't want to believe it, but it makes sense... without a brain(which after a time has either rotted or been cremated) you wouldn't have your memories, your thoughts, your senses, your anything.

[RSnow]

To those of you who have doubts as to the feasibility of arguing religions online, I thought it was impossible to have a thread on a topic like this. That's why I meticulously avoided the thread in the last forum until it got to be 25 pages long and still hadn't been shut down by mods for offensiveness. Thanks guys for demonstrating that there are some reasonable people left online ;)

So, this quote gave me the perfect starting place for what I believe:

I see religion as early attempts to explain the world. It's difficult for us to comprehend today, but not long ago people believed that the Earth was flat, that spontaneous generation occured (maggots came from meat, mice from hay, etc). Go back even further and things like planets, stars and even rain were incomprehensible - there was no explanation but that of the spiritual, the magical. It's common sense to us that a comet is a piece of rock and ice travelling through space; to them, it was a communication from a divine being. In this sense, religion was the first step toward science. Without the aid of telescopes, microscopes, the scientific method, books containing knowledge accumulated over lifetimes, communication across large distances and all of the things we take for granted today, it was the best explanation that could be given for these things.

There was also the biggest mystery, to this day the greatest wonder we've ever known - ourselves. Religion laid out what was right, what was wrong. It told us where we came from and where we would go. It gave us the meaning of life and death. In this sense, religion was the first step toward philosophy. It answered the questions we had about ourselves, using what was considered to be fact at that time. It quite simply made people feel good, like they had a purpose.

Today, we have progressed an infinite amount in our understanding of the things around and inside of us. To cling to the religious explanations is to put the reasonings of those people from years ago above those of today...to put blind faith over reason. As we progress further and further in our quest to explain, understand and document the universe, we must trust our logic and the findings it brings us.
I will start by saying that I was not always a Christian. I was born into a Christian family, but soon left my family's beliefs and went out to find my own. I had always considered myself to be intelligent and well read, and so with some time, a few resources and books, and some thought I imagined that I could find the secrets of the universe. Imagine my surprise at finding myself back at all those children's stories I abandoned as nonsense all those years ago...

The most common misconception about religion is that people think it contradicts science. A lot of people believe that religion is unscientific. Well duh. The problem with this is that people are implying that science contains all knowledge in the universe. It's kinda like history. History is clearly not science, but that does not make it inherently wrong. In the same way, Religion and Science are not, cannot be at odds because they are talking about different things. Religion was designed, in the words of Francis Collins, one of the greatest scientists of our day, not to fill the gaps in science, but instead to go in a direction science was never designed to go in, the same way that biology only fills the "gaps" in physics in the sense that one of the gaps in physics is that it does not have any explanation for biology. In short, science was created by humans to explain the things we could see and touch and understand. Religion was created to explain the things that humans could not see or touch or fully understand, the "why" of the universe rather than the "what." If anything, I will say that our science confirms, but does not prove, religion. After all, all of us who like beautiful sunsets or glorious afternoons or long hikes in the woods or watching constellations at night or even a nice steak or fine wine knows that our universe is wonderful and amazing and complex at the same time. And, in a sense, it's more miraculous than any fantasy story ever written by man.

Now I could be an incredibly clever fool and go around and prove step by step using my knowledge of the creation of the universe and the life of Jesus and clever arguments such as Pascal’s Wager to “prove” what I’m saying is true, but when someone is convinced of something, they will invent argue to defend that conviction. So instead I will skip straight to the big question “why are you (generic you being used here) so reluctant to believe there is a God?” This is the question to which I have never gotten a very satisfactory answer. If someone cares to volunteer an answer, that would be wonderful. Until then, I will rely on the most common answers I get:

“Because there’s no proof that God does exist.”

There are 2 ways to look at this. The person could be asking me to prove that God exists. Or the person could be saying that the very notion of God’s existence seems very remote and distant. I will answer by saying that this is the age old “I don’t want to think about it” mentality. You see, our very lives are all based on hundreds of thousands of these “unprovable” factors stacked on top of each other, although living in today’s “civilized” world, we forget it. What assurance does any of us have that the world’s economy will not collapse and we’ll all go back to the stone age? What assurance do we have that there won’t be a nuclear war or even that we won’t get hit by a car tomorrow as we cross the street? The answer is that we have none, but we don’t want to think about that because it makes us uncomfortable. We like thinking that nothing in the world exists but the things that we are familiar with because it allows us to become our own Gods. It allows us to believe we are truly in control, and that things can be seen with certainty. This is why church attendance always increases during troubled times, because people start to realize that they are not Gods, and that our world is not built on a rock foundation, but instead on sand. You see, if we had to go through life planning for every eventuality, every possibility, we’d have nervous breakdowns.

Unlike these other cases, however, the existence of God is not a “distant” eventuality because we are all going to die. In fact, while it is certain that in 200 years, none of us will still be alive, it is not certain that any of us will still be here tomorrow. So saying that religion is something “distant” which can be put on hold indefinitely or shelved entirely is not viable. If, God forbid, anyone dies tonight, it will immediately and quickly become relevant. A word of caution to those agnostics who intend to sit on a fence until it’s too late. Agnosticism can only be a temporary position at best.

I will finish by saying that becoming religious is no more of a "Leap of faith" than getting married is. There's no assurance that things will turn out well or even that you two will always agree. You just have to trust your spouse to want what's best for you. Logic and reason are all well and good, but we do not have the ability to see the future 100% clearly all the time. So we all use faith already in our everyday lives when Logic and Reason fail us, or offer us an unclear or uncertain answer.

[CryFar]

Rsnow: Can you write my research report on Religion this year?

[RSnow]

Rsnow: Can you write my research report on Religion this year?

What's the report on?

I think that's pretty cool btw. I've never written anything religion-oriented except online. My high school was pretty formal and so we never did anything outside the box. So no religion, philosophy, creative writing, or anything.

[Coldslash5]

To me, due to my life experiences in a family that was and is to put it lightly, zealous, I believe, based on the current events of the world and my upbringing that religion is an excuse for war.

Of course there's a good rule I follow now that some of you may want to as well:

"There are 3 things in life you never talk about, Politics, Religion, and Funeral Parlors"

I'm still digesting it myself, but I've got a decent handling on it, although not the best.


i agree whole heartidly, i personally see religion as a tool used by people to place blame when they dont understand something. All we hear about these days is how more and more people are dying for something that cant even be proven exists.

[CryFar]

What's the report on?

I think that's pretty cool btw. I've never written anything religion-oriented except online. My high school was pretty formal and so we never did anything outside the box. So no religion, philosophy, creative writing, or anything.

Nothing. I can choose. I just want some help from you on it when I have to start on it.

Edit: So basically, it can be any religious topic.

[RSnow]

i agree whole heartidly, i personally see religion as a tool used by people to place blame when they dont understand something. All we hear about these days is how more and more people are dying for something that cant even be proven exists.

You mean George Bush? He exists, tho most of us wish it were otherwise. Of course, we have no assurance that he's worth fighting for. Or maybe the "american way" tho we have no idea WHAT that is, let alone if it's worth fighting for. Or maybe we're all just fighting for the "american right" to have oil at prices less than $2 a gallon. There you have it folks, a pure, non-subjective, completely mathematical and entirely proven to exist reason to die. You like it better than any of the other reasons?

Or did you mean on the other side? You mean the people that the US has pretty much enslaved for the past couple of decades? Heck, if I were them, I'd be looking for an excuse to kill us too, and I believe in an anti-violence religion...

[Restless19]

I love Jesus and he loves me, enough said.

[theDVS1]

You mean George Bush? He exists, tho most of us wish it were otherwise. Of course, we have no assurance that he's worth fighting for. Or maybe the "american way" tho we have no idea WHAT that is, let alone if it's worth fighting for. Or maybe we're all just fighting for the "american right" to have oil at prices less than $2 a gallon. There you have it folks, a pure, non-subjective, completely mathematical and entirely proven to exist reason to die. You like it better than any of the other reasons?

Or did you mean on the other side? You mean the people that the US has pretty much enslaved for the past couple of decades? Heck, if I were them, I'd be looking for an excuse to kill us too, and I believe in an anti-violence religion...

Every major religion looks down upon violence. It is one of things that makes any religion valuable to me. Regardless of what some watered down translated version of what some super ancient dudes thought "God(s)" actually say, the fact remains, the universal moral compass built into each religion preaches tolerance, and enlightening. Not persecution or crusades. It's really quite ironic that most of the wars spanning documented human history were started over beliefs. It's really quite sad that people think they have the right to kill someone for believing in something different then they do. It's also quite sad that people think the US is over there solely for oil. Yes, that is Bush's reason to have us there, I believe a higher purpose is involved though. Another thing that many religious texts speak of involve the middle east and it's end of times significance. I find myself wondering is this the beginning of the end, or maybe even a sub-conscious knee jerk reaction to coincidental rising of mid-east tensions. I really wish I had a little more Christian background as far as the Bibles interpretation of the Middle East and Armageddon, since I think it is most prevalent in Catholicism and the stricter Christian denominations.

[BrokeHeart]

You mean George Bush? He exists, tho most of us wish it were otherwise. Of course, we have no assurance that he's worth fighting for. Or maybe the "american way" tho we have no idea WHAT that is, let alone if it's worth fighting for. Or maybe we're all just fighting for the "american right" to have oil at prices less than $2 a gallon. There you have it folks, a pure, non-subjective, completely mathematical and entirely proven to exist reason to die. You like it better than any of the other reasons?

Or did you mean on the other side? You mean the people that the US has pretty much enslaved for the past couple of decades? Heck, if I were them, I'd be looking for an excuse to kill us too, and I believe in an anti-violence religion...

.........que`?

[jimmie1982]

I love Jesus and he loves me, enough said.

W00t!! QFT BABY!!!


I wasn't gonna post here, but that motivated me.

[demonmarch]

I love Jesus and he loves me, enough said.

blind devotion gets the world nowhere infact it forces us further and further backwards...

EDIT: jimmie's post just shows how the plauge spreads

[RSnow]

blind devotion gets the world nowhere infact it forces us further and further backwards...

EDIT: jimmie's post just shows how the plauge spreads

Common faith-based systems (you may even have heard of some of these before):

1) Religion
2) Marriage
3) Government
4) Currency
5) Internet
6) Stocks/Shares
7) Lottery/Gambling
8) Voting

Yup, you're completely right. Clearly all of the above just take us backwards. We should do away with all of them...

[theDVS1]

Common faith-based systems (you may even have heard of some of these before):

1) Religion
2) Marriage
3) Government
4) Currency
5) Internet
6) Stocks/Shares
7) Lottery/Gambling
8) Voting

Yup, you're completely right. Clearly all of the above just take us backwards. We should do away with all of them...

Alright, I follow all these except the internet. Al Gore made the internet.

[RSnow]

Alright, I follow all these except the internet. Al Gore made the internet.

Good call. I apologize for the misinformation, I would have subdivided but I was busy.

The whole thing about the internet is that everything on it was created by someone else, and for the most part we don't actually know anything about those people or that creation.

For example, Wikipedia is one of the most popular resources for high school and college students, but it assumes that people aren't very confused, or lying about the information they post.

When we signed up for poxnora, it was entirely possible that they'd take our money and run, this is also true for most of the online purchase systems. For the most part, we hope that the government makes sure that the things we buy actually arrive (or work, when they arrive, for that matter).

I mean, my family once bought a vacation package online from a "reputable" company, but when we got to our destination, we found that they had never actually bought the hotel rooms for us in the first place. Instead they left with our money. It was a bad experience, but it has not deterred us from vacationing again. We just have to hope that the Government will catch such scams, and that the majority of people are relatively trustworthy.

Games such as Starkingdoms also assume that people do not create multi accounts, even though they do. People just try to assume that most of the other people play fairly or the game is no fun.

So why is it so much easier to send thousands of dollars overseas to people we've never seen before, trusting them to do what they say they will (In my case, plan and finance a vacation), than it is to believe in a God who asks nothing of you except for behavior that most people would consider to be "good" behavior anyways? Or why do we work long hours every week and get a little slip of paper with a signed name on it or a stack of green pieces of paper, and consider that to be a worthwhile investment?

[Duality]

Common faith-based systems (you may even have heard of some of these before):

1) Religion
2) Marriage
3) Government
4) Currency
5) Internet
6) Stocks/Shares
7) Lottery/Gambling
8) Voting

Yup, you're completely right. Clearly all of the above just take us backwards. We should do away with all of them...

Generally I avoid topics like this. A 5000 foot poll isn't long enough but...
Generally speaking, everything you mentioned above has caused just as many problems as it's solved, with a number causing MORE movement backwards than forewords. What it comes down to, is that everything listed is a tool and tools can be used for both the advancement of people and the oppression of people. (although, I don't really agree with the internet being listed there, that's like saying any human interaction is to be taken on faith, I may be pessimistic, but even I am not THAT pessimistic, even if it is true)

Religion is a perfect example. Organized religion (different from spirituality) has served many, many purposes since it's inception. Everything from unifying a population, being the basis for many humanitarian deeds and general good works to the opposite end of the spectrum where it is used as a justification for the deaths of millions.

The spanish inquisition anyone? On the other end, my mother used to work for a social service agency that was started by a Sister of Mercy that helped poor, sometimes illiterate, sometimes ESL adults get GED's and move towards jobs. (perhaps improving their lives, perhaps not) If it wasn't for her religion beliefs, the founder of that agency may not have ever started it....

Like anything else that has come about from our warped little minds, religion depends on the person/persons using it.

Personally, I'm an agnostic. Went to various churches as a kid and very, very quickly decided it was all BS. So while I despise organized religion as generally being nothing more than a way for people not to have to think for themselves, I respect those who have turned it into something more than that for themselves.

[Radial]

I think this thread shouldn't be about religion, but be about why we shouldn't talk about religion.

[esiege]

Common faith-based systems (you may even have heard of some of these before):

1) Religion
2) Marriage
3) Government
4) Currency
5) Internet
6) Stocks/Shares
7) Lottery/Gambling
8) Voting

Yup, you're completely right. Clearly all of the above just take us backwards. We should do away with all of them...


Well I don't know what the definition of backwards is, but I would be perfectly content living without any of these things. (with the exception of government which I would specify to "this" government.

1) Organized religion causes anger, confusion, and war. Without a list of things you should believe, you could instead find what things you were meant to believe. Maybe you can help me out with this, theres a quote from the bible that states that every person will be given an opportunity to find god, no matter in what desolate place they are from (deep africa, etc).

2) Marriage has lost its meaning. The rate of divorce is at a ridiculous high. There are scandals daily about divorces ending in children lost, assets divided unfairly. If marriage was simply a pledge of love, not a legal contract, then how could we be worse off?

3) Our government is ruled by tyrannous men. You even flamed bush a little earlier in this thread. Our faith in the voting system has landed us a man with the lower popularity vote. We've had war camps in Japan since we dropped the bomb... so on and so on.

4) Our faith in our money is quickly falling. The original principles of reflecting material assets in the treasury has long been passed. The exchange rates are dropping, and could easily plummet. The investments we've made in our property of failing, foreclosure is at a huge level.

5) The internet has lead to a very profitable industry, in fact one of the largest money makers in america... porn. Never before have we had the faith to trust any random person, and trust our 13 year olds to *not?* look at naked pictures, and chat with 40 year old men.

6) There are a few investors who base their stock decisions on faith, but the other 90% base it on education, stock trends, and company profiles.

7) Gamblers however do play on faith. Unfortunately, the odds of the game are not destined in their favor. They may have faith that every spin on the slots is an equal chance of winning, but we all know the truth dont we?

8) And voting. We all saw the florida votes being changed, we have no real proof that any of the votes are actually tallied. That may mean that we do vote on faith... But wouldn't you prefer to vote on facts?

[BrokeHeart]

So why is it so much easier to send thousands of dollars overseas to people we've never seen before, trusting them to do what they say they will (In my case, plan and finance a vacation), than it is to believe in a God who asks nothing of you except for behavior that most people would consider to be "good" behavior anyways? Or why do we work long hours every week and get a little slip of paper with a signed name on it or a stack of green pieces of paper, and consider that to be a worthwhile investment?

Because God is interpreted in many ways by many, many different people. Your interpretation is that God is kind, will forgive no matter the sin, he sent his son Jesus, etc, etc, etc ad-nauseum. For me, I was drilled with the beliefs that God was kind and forgiving for those faithful, any of his followers who broke any of his commandments, teachings, etc would face his horrible and vicious wrath, take your soul without a moment's thought, crush you because your life was his gift to you. Basically I was taught through fear of retribution that one is always walking a fine line in life, lose your balance a little and you'll fall and burn. My family took advantage of that and used the Bible to get what they wanted from me. That phase of my life left me scarred and I'm still burning with anger at everyone who did this to me and for those who follow ideology such as this. This is slightly off topic but it gives insight as to "another side of the coin" in response to your belief toward God in general and to why it is much harder for some to believe in an entity that supposedly *cares* for us.

Back on tangent and on your other point regarding it being easier to believe in sending money to a company, receiving a slip of paper for a hard weeks work or something similar, it is on the point of that currency *is* involved. The dollar, in fact most currency, is highly valued and recognized by all over the world. It is tangible and it has proven itself to be potent in what it allows a person to do based on how the world is built. As Duality stated, a tool. Therefore, it is highly desirable and it is this trait that makes it much easier to believe in. I believe truly in my heart and soul that money can and does have absolute power in this world. Oil, Electricity, Food, Recreation, Water, etc, all of these things now cost currency and this simple fact allows money to transform from a tool into *the* tool.

I believe that if you offer someone the right amount of money you can have them do anything. Sure you may laugh, think it's ridiculous, cry BLASPHEMY at my words, but think about it, honest and truly. Knowing the fact that money can get you almost whatever your heart desires on earth, be it a fancier life, more comfortable living, that TV you always wanted, that car you only dreamed of, start a charity, donate to a worthy cause, setting you and your family up for life, that pack of gum you wanted, the food you want to eat, ad-nauseum...if someone came to you and paid you the exact amount you needed/wanted right then and there, staring you in the face (cash, take you to the bank and authorize it legitly, etc), no one could tell me they wouldn't actually consider what he had to say/have you do. Not everyone will do exactly what I have written or even not at all. But for the majority, the possibilities that transaction opens up are just too great.

This, in a nutshell, is why money is much easier to believe in than God. This whole essay was based on RSnow's response of God and Currency's ease of belief. I did not mean to offend with my words and is why I chose all of them very carefully. If I did.....ah well, sucks to be me, now don't it? =P

I should listen to myself more often:

"There are 3 things you never talk about. Politics, Religion and Funeral Parlors" but sometimes I chat anyway. At least I'll accept the consequences of my actions (temporary banning, termination of account, etc from the staff/moderators).

[jimmie1982]

blind devotion gets the world nowhere infact it forces us further and further backwards...

EDIT: jimmie's post just shows how the plauge spreads

Why are you trying to insult me? I thought this thread was open to all beliefs and debates based upon them. If you're here to try to roll over someone's faith then you should just stop coming here. Calling someone's given right at expressing their beliefs, ESPECIALLY in a thread written just for that, a plague is mindless ignorant and all the other tempered insults one can throw your way.

Respect level for this thread has now been lowered to a negative number.....and it's all your fault.

[KingSwampy]

I don't really believe in a higher being or another life but all of my family are Buddhist so...ya...

[Burnova]

I am finally able to post!!! I had faith the time would come...

[demonmarch]

Why are you trying to insult me? I thought this thread was open to all beliefs and debates based upon them. If you're here to try to roll over someone's faith then you should just stop coming here. Calling someone's given right at expressing their beliefs, ESPECIALLY in a thread written just for that, a plague is mindless ignorant and all the other tempered insults one can throw your way.

Respect level for this thread has now been lowered to a negative number.....and it's all your fault.

calm the hell down man and stop being so bloody defensive
jimmie here is doing what some people would call jumping to conclusions
i never barred someone from a certain religion speaking
god man.. i expressed my opinion as calling it a plague which i whole-heartedly believe it is for a number of reasons thats MY belief and YOU are trying to BAR ME from posting in this thread talk about hypocritical
stop acting like a child and ask why i think its a plague instead of launching a bloody personal attack. sometimes i wonder about these mods.

[maudlin27]

Generally speaking, everything you mentioned above has caused just as many problems as it's solved, with a number causing MORE movement backwards than forewords

Let's go through them then:
Marriage: Not all marriages are perfect, but currently if you're a child in a marriage your prospects in life are far better than if you're not (statistically). That is, less likely to lead a life of crime, more likely to achieve better education, job, etc. etc.

Government: Without government there would be anarchy. You wouldn't be able to have various public goods, you would have no enforcement of property rights meaning there would be pretty well no economy, and that means that wealth per person would be virtually non-existent.

Currency: Vital to improve the efficiency of the economy. Rather than bartering sheep for wood, you can instead have a common currency, backed up by the government, that allows you to trade each for the currency and result in an optimal trade for both people. After all you might have sheep and want wood, but the person with wood might want a cow instead. With bartering that means no trade or a non-pareto-optimal trade. With a currency it means you can sell your sheep to someone who wants it, use the money from that to buy the wood, which the wood seller can use to buy the cow.

Internet: Has done wonders for communication, productivity, information, etc. etc.; You have some problems with it, but the massive benefits it has provided far outweigh these.

Stocks/Shares: Allow companies to raise finance/investment, greatly boosting the economy. Also provide a control mechanism for those companies by the shareholders. Without stocks/shares companies would struggle to obtain funding for their projects more, meaning beneficial projects couldn't be undertaken, hurting the economy, and hence everyone in it on average.

Lottery/Gambling: This one is more debatable, due to the problems it can cause. However many of the people undertaking it may well be gaining a large amount of enjoyment, and so abolishing it would be denying them such entertainment and them the right to spend their money as they wish.

Voting: No method of decision making is perfect, but voting is at least seen as fairer than a dictatorship, since it removes the right of one person to force their opinions on everyone else.

So I disagree with the above causing more problems or as many problems as they have solved. They may have caused problems, but for the whole these are far less than the benefits they provide.

[CaptFalcon]

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm221/Captain-Falcon/Tag3.png


Any religion that does not state that the world began and will end through a Falcon Punch (sometimes refered to as the Big Bang) is incorrect. Converting to Falconism will spare you from a painful ending, replacing it with one slightly less painful. The best part about Falconism is that pure meat is the body of Captain Falcon. None of that bread. Meat is a real man's food, and by extension, a real religion's.

[jimmie1982]

calm the hell down man and stop being so bloody defensive
jimmie here is doing what some people would call jumping to conclusions
i never barred someone from a certain religion speaking
god man.. i expressed my opinion as calling it a plague which i whole-heartedly believe it is for a number of reasons thats MY belief and YOU are trying to BAR ME from posting in this thread talk about hypocritical
stop acting like a child and ask why i think its a plague instead of launching a bloody personal attack. sometimes i wonder about these mods.

Wow, first off I am human and Christian before I am Mod, don't blame the title. Secondly if you want to make a statement based on your beliefs don't quote an innocent post and dub it a plague.....Do you even realize what a plague is?

You say you don't mean to bar someone from any specific religion from speaking? Then why reply with such obvious hate for our words? The first two people to express a divine love for something greater than themselves, a love that can be spread even to those full of hate, you jump all over it with hate making it sound revolting. Don't think because I am a mod I will come here completely neutral and willing to listen to hate spread its epidemic, if you do you are mistaken. Now if you truly want to hear all sides of this tale called Christianity and can do so without becoming hateful and meaningless in your debate for your side of it, then more power to you.

Call me a hypocrite all you like, the fact is I came hear to tell my side of things not to demolish what you stand for. And believe me, if I wanted to hurt your lil' feelings it is obvious it would be OH too easy.

I am going to have to stay away from this thread, it's sad really, since it's title is religion. Kinda gives a false sense of sanctuary for anyone that wants to come here to debate on religion but instead offers a brewing ground for hate.

[theDVS1]

I am going to have to stay away from this thread, it's sad really, since it's title is religion. Kinda gives a false sense of sanctuary for anyone that wants to come here to debate on religion but instead offers a brewing ground for hate.

Turn the other cheek, guy. The internet is a brewing ground for hate, and lord knows you don't wanna have to avoid that. If I walked away from every thread that personally offended me, I would of missed some of the best "debates" I have participated in/read.

[CSchwarz]

Didn't demonmarch start the first religion thread (assumably thought up after posting quite ...enthusiastically about the subject in Ocy's Grind You Gears thread), originally intended as a troll thread but wound up being a very well-mannered discussion, that became continued in the 23-page one? oh, I should look that first one up and arc it...


ANYWAYS.


Mister demonmarch. If you cannot respectfully express your opinions here, then I would politely request you refrain from posting in this thread. There's a whole forum out there, and countless others on various other sites. You needn't scour this one thread.

[19gerben91]

Wow, first off I am human and Christian before I am Mod, .

whatever you are the omnicorn loves you

[RSnow]

Well I don't know what the definition of backwards is, but I would be perfectly content living without any of these things. (with the exception of government which I would specify to "this" government.

1) Organized religion causes anger, confusion, and war. Without a list of things you should believe, you could instead find what things you were meant to believe. Maybe you can help me out with this, theres a quote from the bible that states that every person will be given an opportunity to find god, no matter in what desolate place they are from (deep africa, etc).

2) Marriage has lost its meaning. The rate of divorce is at a ridiculous high. There are scandals daily about divorces ending in children lost, assets divided unfairly. If marriage was simply a pledge of love, not a legal contract, then how could we be worse off?

3) Our government is ruled by tyrannous men. You even flamed bush a little earlier in this thread. Our faith in the voting system has landed us a man with the lower popularity vote. We've had war camps in Japan since we dropped the bomb... so on and so on.

4) Our faith in our money is quickly falling. The original principles of reflecting material assets in the treasury has long been passed. The exchange rates are dropping, and could easily plummet. The investments we've made in our property of failing, foreclosure is at a huge level.

5) The internet has lead to a very profitable industry, in fact one of the largest money makers in america... porn. Never before have we had the faith to trust any random person, and trust our 13 year olds to *not?* look at naked pictures, and chat with 40 year old men.

6) There are a few investors who base their stock decisions on faith, but the other 90% base it on education, stock trends, and company profiles.

7) Gamblers however do play on faith. Unfortunately, the odds of the game are not destined in their favor. They may have faith that every spin on the slots is an equal chance of winning, but we all know the truth dont we?

8) And voting. We all saw the florida votes being changed, we have no real proof that any of the votes are actually tallied. That may mean that we do vote on faith... But wouldn't you prefer to vote on facts?
*applause* that was a well thought-out post... But, pardon me if I still disagree;

I will argue that without the semblance of government, voting, and economy, the world would be a much worse place. We'd be back to a barter economy, and crime rates would skyrocket.

The system currently works because people BELIEVE it works, not because it does. Perhaps the media is actually censored and votes are not counted, but the BELIEF that this was truly a democracy is what changed US history from Nat Turner to MLK. The BELIEF that the government protects the people is all that stops robbers from running loose in the streets, even though it took the government many years to shut down traditional crime rings, the belief that it can and will is what keeps us safe.

So maybe the Government and the current economic system are evils, but they are necessary evils to prevent us going back to stone age.

Oh, and the stock market is actually a faith-based system. Consider Enron and the Great Depression; both show how the economy can artificially inflate/deflate itself.


As for the fighting which has been going on on this thread, it's time for some rules. Please no name-calling, insults, spamming, whining, hair-pulling, screaming, shouting, unnecessary violence, necessary violence or short tempers. I personally believe that we are all able to keep this post on the topic which it was created for; to fight our common enemy, Ignorance, and to allow us to all express those opinions of ours which are adult enough to be said in public.

Cheers!

[demonmarch]

again my backs against the wall with christians on every side trying to shut my mouth

Wow, first off I am human and Christian before I am Mod, don't blame the title. Secondly if you want to make a statement based on your beliefs don't quote an innocent post and dub it a plague.....Do you even realize what a plague is?

You say you don't mean to bar someone from any specific religion from speaking? Then why reply with such obvious hate for our words? The first two people to express a divine love for something greater than themselves, a love that can be spread even to those full of hate, you jump all over it with hate making it sound revolting. Don't think because I am a mod I will come here completely neutral and willing to listen to hate spread its epidemic, if you do you are mistaken. Now if you truly want to hear all sides of this tale called Christianity and can do so without becoming hateful and meaningless in your debate for your side of it, then more power to you.

Call me a hypocrite all you like, the fact is I came hear to tell my side of things not to demolish what you stand for. And believe me, if I wanted to hurt your lil' feelings it is obvious it would be OH too easy.

I am going to have to stay away from this thread, it's sad really, since it's title is religion. Kinda gives a false sense of sanctuary for anyone that wants to come here to debate on religion but instead offers a brewing ground for hate.


god you are offended so bloody easily
once again you have asked me WHY i think the way i do so i can only come to the conclusion you avoiding the question because you don't want to have a debate about it, which is infact what this thread is here for?

so if thats true why did you come here? to rip into anyone who can think freely?

anyway. now i'm going to reply to the quote

"Wow, first off I am human and Christian before I am Mod, don't blame the title. Secondly if you want to make a statement based on your beliefs don't quote an innocent post and dub it a plague.....Do you even realize what a plague is? "

would you like me to water down bloody everything i say? no i will call it a plague and continue to do so until i see that its done more good than bad.
i know exactly what a plague is

You say you don't mean to bar someone from any specific religion from speaking? Then why reply with such obvious hate for our words? The first two people to express a divine love for something greater than themselves, a love that can be spread even to those full of hate, you jump all over it with hate making it sound revolting.

i have told any christian buddhist muslim or any religion to stop speaking i've spoken with hatred but how does that stop one from talking? the only way that would stop someone talking is if they are intimidated and how does one intimidate someone over the internet? if you are intimidated by me thats pathetic.
two people express their love for something they think exists sure go for it i'm not stopping you and i wont stop you but i will say what i think about it is that wrong? if i allow you to think as you please should i not be able to do the same?

Don't think because I am a mod I will come here completely neutral and willing to listen to hate spread its epidemic, if you do you are mistaken. Now if you truly want to hear all sides of this tale called Christianity and can do so without becoming hateful and meaningless in your debate for your side of it, then more power to you.

if you don't have a neutral stance on everything jimmie why are you a mod? mods are supposed to be NEUTRAL and if, by your own admittance you are not neutral then whats stopping you from banning me because i'm saying something you don't like.
i've never thought that any side of a debate was meaningless you however wont hear one side so why are you here? its obvious you can't talk about this normally and calmly.

that last bit amused me.
Now if you truly want to hear all sides of this tale called Christianity and can do so without becoming hateful and meaningless in your debate for your side of it, then more power to you.
ok so if i want to have a debate with a christian about their religion i am to say nothing.
ridiculous.

"Call me a hypocrite all you like, the fact is I came hear to tell my side of things not to demolish what you stand for. And believe me, if I wanted to hurt your lil' feelings it is obvious it would be OH too easy."

you came here to hear your side and no one elses obviously.
god man don't even try this i can hurt you more internet tough guy crap its not like i believe any of it. you say its easy to hurt me? i said plague and now your going ape****


"I am going to have to stay away from this thread, it's sad really, since it's title is religion. Kinda gives a false sense of sanctuary for anyone that wants to come here to debate on religion but instead offers a brewing ground for hate."

its a good thing that your staying away as its clear you only came to hear one story and none other. the title gives the impression of a debate about religion not a " lets talk about one religion and when someone disses go ape**** and launch a personal attack."


i dunno maybe i'm being harsh but this is ridiculous.

[orithus]

Faith may be one thing we all belive in some things me i belive in myself im responsible for my actions my faliures and my sucesses.

I belive that when i die its not really game over but that my actions in life will be rememberd and through what i have done and how i have affected people i will still live on.

My view of organized religion is that it started as a way to contoll uneducated masses and that it still mainly is that no offence to anyone. Im from sweden we are pretty much atheist most of us here.

I still am a Christian in ways since i live in a world with christian timeline i have always belive in raising my family in christian tradition be to everyone else what you want them to be to you and so on im just dont belive in and deitys.

[Burnova]

Demonmarch, i have a few questions for you about your beliefs.

Do you have an organized belief system? What caused you to not believe in God, and more specifically, call it a plague?

[Gridlok]

Demonmarch, i have a few questions for you about your beliefs.

Do you have an organized belief system? What caused you to not believe in God, and more specifically, call it a plague?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's probably because the strife some religious people have caused. I said it in the old thread, things like the Crusades, the countless murders of Satanists, Wiccans, etc, the almost complete annihilation of first nation cultures, and even the attacks on Sep. 11th... all done in the name of some form of religion.
Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone that believes in god will burn you on a stake for worshiping nature... it just means the ones in power will(haha?).

I'm just assuming that's partly why :P

[RSnow]

again my backs against the wall with christians on every side trying to shut my mouth




god you are offended so bloody easily
once again you have asked me WHY i think the way i do so i can only come to the conclusion you avoiding the question because you don't want to have a debate about it, which is infact what this thread is here for?

so if thats true why did you come here? to rip into anyone who can think freely?

anyway. now i'm going to reply to the quote

"Wow, first off I am human and Christian before I am Mod, don't blame the title. Secondly if you want to make a statement based on your beliefs don't quote an innocent post and dub it a plague.....Do you even realize what a plague is? "

would you like me to water down bloody everything i say? no i will call it a plague and continue to do so until i see that its done more good than bad.
i know exactly what a plague is

You say you don't mean to bar someone from any specific religion from speaking? Then why reply with such obvious hate for our words? The first two people to express a divine love for something greater than themselves, a love that can be spread even to those full of hate, you jump all over it with hate making it sound revolting.

i have told any christian buddhist muslim or any religion to stop speaking i've spoken with hatred but how does that stop one from talking? the only way that would stop someone talking is if they are intimidated and how does one intimidate someone over the internet? if you are intimidated by me thats pathetic.
two people express their love for something they think exists sure go for it i'm not stopping you and i wont stop you but i will say what i think about it is that wrong? if i allow you to think as you please should i not be able to do the same?

Don't think because I am a mod I will come here completely neutral and willing to listen to hate spread its epidemic, if you do you are mistaken. Now if you truly want to hear all sides of this tale called Christianity and can do so without becoming hateful and meaningless in your debate for your side of it, then more power to you.

if you don't have a neutral stance on everything jimmie why are you a mod? mods are supposed to be NEUTRAL and if, by your own admittance you are not neutral then whats stopping you from banning me because i'm saying something you don't like.
i've never thought that any side of a debate was meaningless you however wont hear one side so why are you here? its obvious you can't talk about this normally and calmly.

that last bit amused me.
Now if you truly want to hear all sides of this tale called Christianity and can do so without becoming hateful and meaningless in your debate for your side of it, then more power to you.
ok so if i want to have a debate with a christian about their religion i am to say nothing.
ridiculous.

"Call me a hypocrite all you like, the fact is I came hear to tell my side of things not to demolish what you stand for. And believe me, if I wanted to hurt your lil' feelings it is obvious it would be OH too easy."

you came here to hear your side and no one elses obviously.
god man don't even try this i can hurt you more internet tough guy crap its not like i believe any of it. you say its easy to hurt me? i said plague and now your going ape****


"I am going to have to stay away from this thread, it's sad really, since it's title is religion. Kinda gives a false sense of sanctuary for anyone that wants to come here to debate on religion but instead offers a brewing ground for hate."

its a good thing that your staying away as its clear you only came to hear one story and none other. the title gives the impression of a debate about religion not a " lets talk about one religion and when someone disses go ape**** and launch a personal attack."


i dunno maybe i'm being harsh but this is ridiculous.

Demonmarch, you have insulted any number of people and their beliefs with your posts. I'm going to ask you to go to the forums, make a post titled "why RSnow's beliefs are stupid," then stay there. I promise not to go and crash your party. That way, when a thread gets locked, it won't be mine. You have disgraced not only my name, but the names of everyone who came here for some polite and intelligent discussion.

You are greatly mistaken. If ANYONE believes that I created this thread for the purpose of "debate" I am sorry but will now state that it is not true. A debate is a game played between 2 or more people where the objective is to bash another person's point of view into nothingness while maintaining your own. Please, do not post here if your objective is merely to destroy another's point of view.

[Gridlok]

Demonmarch, you have insulted any number of people and their beliefs with your posts. I'm going to ask you to go to the forums, make a post titled "why RSnow's beliefs are stupid," then stay there. I promise not to go and crash your party. That way, when a thread gets locked, it won't be mine. You have disgraced not only my name, but the names of everyone who came here for some polite and intelligent discussion.

I concur.
The goal here is to maintain a discussion on religion and why you do or don't agree with it, not to bash Jimmie or the people opposing you. More of a structured discussion, without the point and counter point rule.

[RSnow]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's probably because the strife some religious people have caused. I said it in the old thread, things like the Crusades, the countless murders of Satanists, Wiccans, etc, the almost complete annihilation of first nation cultures, and even the attacks on Sep. 11th... all done in the name of some form of religion.
Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone that believes in god will burn you on a stake for worshiping nature... it just means the ones in power will(haha?).

I'm just assuming that's partly why :P

Apologies for my digression.

I will take the unconventional standpoint by saying that sept 11 and the crusades had as much political/cultural cause as religious.

I do not believe anyone can disagree with me when I say that human beings as a race have had a long history of violence and "evil." If we look through history, we will find few to no groups of people with no blood on their hands. And when 2 groups of people choose to fight, any number of excuses are made to convince people to do so.

The Crusaders used religion as a pretext to get soldiers to fight against the increasing power of the Muslim Empire. Hitler used biology/evolution along with blame to explain his war on Europe. The US used government and ideology to fight the Communist powers. LOL. When people want to fight wars, they spend more time looking for excuses than they do for alternatives.

[Gridlok]

Apologies for my digression.

I will take the unconventional standpoint by saying that sept 11 and the crusades had as much political/cultural cause as religious.

I do not believe anyone can disagree with me when I say that human beings as a race have had a long history of violence and "evil." If we look through history, we will find few to no groups of people with no blood on their hands. And when 2 groups of people choose to fight, any number of excuses are made to convince people to do so.

The Crusaders used religion as a pretext to get soldiers to fight against the increasing power of the Muslim Empire. Hitler used biology/evolution along with blame to explain his war on Europe. The US used government and ideology to fight the Communist powers. LOL. When people want to fight wars, they spend more time looking for excuses than they do for alternatives.

This is true, but you can't argue that religion isn't among the excuses used for declaring war. Jihad(the skewed version of it), etc.
But yeah, I was just stating why I think someone would label god/religion as a plague, if you want we can get back into that whole thing with warfare and how religion, among other things, is used to justify it.

[orithus]

What Gridlok is saying is what i meant with saying that organized religion is used in controlling uneducated ppl a political person (Bush, Saddam, Bin laden) uses to get ppl to to do as they wish without questioning why. As it was said earlier in this thread USA is not in Iraq for any thing else then the oil was the same in desertstorm oil and Africa.

Also a side note USA probly is the most dangerous country in the world at the moment and it has nothing to do with terror or anything but there is no country that overconsumes natural resorces as heavily as the States do.

[Gridlok]

What Gridlok is saying is what i meant with saying that organized religion is used in controlling uneducated ppl a political person (Bush, Saddam, Bin laden) uses to get ppl to to do as they wish without questioning why. As it was said earlier in this thread USA is not in Iraq for any thing else then the oil was the same in desertstorm oil and Africa.

Also a side note USA probly is the most dangerous country in the world at the moment and it has nothing to do with terror or anything but there is no country that overconsumes natural resorces as heavily as the States do.

That's also why the states is one of, if not the most powerful nation on the planet. But, that's a discussion for a different thread.
I wholly agree with you on the religion and control part though, the majority of men who fought in the crusades fought because they were promised eternal salvation if they were killed in battle, and thusly many, many martyrs were born.
The leaders however, as Rsnow stated, had different reasons to go to war altogether.

[orithus]

Ofc the states is the most powerfull country in the world and i agree this is about religion not politics. And i might have come down hard on religion its not all bad for instance my grandmother found great comfort in her faith the last years of her life and it helped alot.

Also note that i have not anywhere said that actively religious ppl are stupid in any way i do feel that someone that has had a broad and good education will have a very hard time to be a religious person.

But well educated and smart is not the same thing =P

[demonmarch]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's probably because the strife some religious people have caused. I said it in the old thread, things like the Crusades, the countless murders of Satanists, Wiccans, etc, the almost complete annihilation of first nation cultures, and even the attacks on Sep. 11th... all done in the name of some form of religion.
Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone that believes in god will burn you on a stake for worshiping nature... it just means the ones in power will(haha?).

I'm just assuming that's partly why :P

gridlok is aboslutely right i believe it is a plague as it spreads from one mind to the next and causes death along the way
not that i'm trying to say every christian muslim or any religious person would be capable or would want to kill for their god but you can't ignore the ones who have

just to reply to the orignal reply

Demonmarch, i have a few questions for you about your beliefs.

Do you have an organized belief system? What caused you to not believe in God, and more specifically, call it a plague?

i have no organized belief system i do not believe in god because firstly the stories make no sense and after that it has done more harm than it has helped


"Demonmarch, you have insulted any number of people and their beliefs with your posts. I'm going to ask you to go to the forums, make a post titled "why RSnow's beliefs are stupid," then stay there. I promise not to go and crash your party. That way, when a thread gets locked, it won't be mine. You have disgraced not only my name, but the names of everyone who came here for some polite and intelligent discussion.

You are greatly mistaken. If ANYONE believes that I created this thread for the purpose of "debate" I am sorry but will now state that it is not true. A debate is a game played between 2 or more people where the objective is to bash another person's point of view into nothingness while maintaining your own. Please, do not post here if your objective is merely to destroy another's point of view."

excuse me for my poor choice of words by debate i meant discussion (i kinda think they are the same thing)
look mate i don't want to say your beliefs are stupid but i'm also not willing to water it down i can see you no one else is willing to water it down so why should i?
why would this thread get locked? i only ripped into jimmie because he did so first if anyone tainted the conversation it was him with his childish personal attacks i would like an intelligent discussion but no one seems to want to allow me speeak

[RSnow]

This is true, but you can't argue that religion isn't among the excuses used for declaring war. Jihad(the skewed version of it), etc.
But yeah, I was just stating why I think someone would label god/religion as a plague, if you want we can get back into that whole thing with warfare and how religion, among other things, is used to justify it.

Heck no. Anyone who claims that religion has never been used to justify warfare has clearly not visited this planet in the past couple of millenia or so.


Oh, and as to the reason for US supremacy, there are any number of them. For one thing, US skirted the World Wars which devastated so much of Europe's resources, but at the same time, we piggybacked off the war to get us into a wartime economy which increased our military drastically.

Going into the cold war, we had a nearly impassable military lead over every other country except for the USSR, which had no economy.

In modern day, we have kept power by hegemonizing small countries and stealing their resources. American Empire is an apt description. If anyone is interested in the current American Hegemony, I'd suggest a book: "confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins.

[RSnow]

Bump... ... (for 10 characters)

[demonmarch]

this swapped from religion to politics

so if abortions are wrong among christians because its "murder" shouldn't condoms also be murder because its killing possible babies just as feotus's are possible babies?

[daemun]

this swapped from religion to politics

so if abortions are wrong among christians because its "murder" shouldn't condoms also be murder because its killing possible babies just as feotus's are possible babies?


ooh this is just begging for a monty python reference...

[Burnova]

Demonmarch, to answer the condom question:

In traditional Christian belief structures, condoms, and premarital sex (including oral, sodomy, etc) are a sin primarily because they are indulgent in carnal pleasures. (To teach a bit more, this aspect could be attributed to Plato, as much of his philosophy is prevalent in the writing and interpretations of the Bible). This also includes masturbation, so everyone will have to find something else to do while pox is down.

Secondly, if you don't believe in God, and you don't have any belief structures, what exactly do you believe? Do you think about how life formed or a possible meaning to life? Do you believe in evolution? If so, do you even understand it? Or, dare i ask, do you not even care?

[RSnow]

Demonmarch, to answer the condom question:

In traditional Christian belief structures, condoms, and premarital sex (including oral, sodomy, etc) are a sin primarily because they are indulgent in carnal pleasures. (To teach a bit more, this aspect could be attributed to Plato, as much of his philosophy is prevalent in the writing and interpretations of the Bible). This also includes masturbation, so everyone will have to find something else to do while pox is down.

Secondly, if you don't believe in God, and you don't have any belief structures, what exactly do you believe? Do you think about how life formed or a possible meaning to life? Do you believe in evolution? If so, do you even understand it? Or, dare i ask, do you not even care?

Burnova is correct as usual. Christians believe that Sex is something special, designed for a "joining" between a man and a woman, to the point where the two "become one flesh." Any other use is a perversion. If you will consider God to be an artist, this is analogous to taking his painting and using it as a napkin during dinner. It's an affront at the very least to the artist.

Now, I believe you were hasty in your statement "Christians believe abortion is a sin." I would change that to read "conservatives" as some Christians do not believe it is a sin and plenty non-christians believe abortion is wrong. For example, I do not believe we CAN know if abortion is a sin or not. You see, the only way we could define abortion to be a sin is by subclassifying it under murder. Since we cannot know when God chooses to bestow life, however, we cannot know when the baby is "living" and therefore can never truly know if the abortion was murder. Furthermore, any scientific solution will be based on an arbitrary definition of "life" and therefore will be equally unreliable. I will go as far as saying that Condoms are not murder because (as far as we know), God has never brought a sperm cell to life without use of an egg.

Now, I will follow this up by saying that, if uncertain, we should not do it without good cause. To abort a baby when we cannot say if it's alive is like walking into a mall, closing your eyes, and shooting a couple of bullets randomly. You can always say that "we don't know for sure that we shot anyone," but better safe than sorry, don't do it without good reason. If there IS good reason (the mother's life is in danger, for example), it's a personal choice. My main problem with abortion is that, for the most part, it's just a means by which people duck responsibility. We take an action, and then try to avoid the consequences not caring who gets hurt in the process, which I believe is an unacceptable course of action.

[daemun]

Demonmarch, to answer the condom question:

In traditional Christian belief structures, condoms, and premarital sex (including oral, sodomy, etc) are a sin primarily because they are indulgent in carnal pleasures. (To teach a bit more, this aspect could be attributed to Plato, as much of his philosophy is prevalent in the writing and interpretations of the Bible). This also includes masturbation, so everyone will have to find something else to do while pox is down.

depends what you mean by traditional, the catholic church actually owned brothels up until the reformation, and jesus never actually makes any direct references to homosexuality in the new testament. the whole no gratuitous sex thing is relatively new.

My main problem with abortion is that, for the most part, it's just a means by which people duck responsibility. We take an action, and then try to avoid the consequences not caring who gets hurt in the process, which I believe is an unacceptable course of action.

if a 14 (hell, even 16) year old girl gets herself pregnant, i think most people would agree that she was not mature enough to make an informed descision about if/with who she should have sex. is it right to force an even more complicated responsibility on her? some people would be doing way more harm than good in becoming parents. and yeah, there is the whole adoption thing, but very young pregnant girls have a much higher rate of all sorts of complications that could end up seriously harming or even killing the mother or her baby. not to mention the whole battery of other implications and social stigma that young pregnant girls face, that end up in things like increased likelihood to drop out, drink excessively etc.

but i guess that all sort of depends on what you classify as ducking responsibility.

[Jakem25]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's probably because the strife some religious people have caused. I said it in the old thread, things like the Crusades, the countless murders of Satanists, Wiccans, etc, the almost complete annihilation of first nation cultures, and even the attacks on Sep. 11th... all done in the name of some form of religion.
Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone that believes in god will burn you on a stake for worshiping nature... it just means the ones in power will(haha?).

I'm just assuming that's partly why :P

This is a case of false religion.... those people were not REAL christians/muslims etc.
They just use it as an excuse and mostly just make the good honest people of that religion look bad. Christianity teaches a love of everyone. I am pretty sure muslims are the same.

[daemun]

This is a case of false religion.... those people were not REAL christians/muslims etc.
They just use it as an excuse and mostly just make the good honest people of that religion look bad. Christianity teaches a love of everyone. I am pretty sure muslims are the same.

what is a "REAL" christian/muslim/jew? when it comes to religion, "real" ie "true" is a social construct. stems from the fact that despite what many fundamentalists say, it is impossible to read a text as old as say, the bible, without interpreting it. even if it were possible, its been interepreted many times in the past. thus anyone claiming to know the "real" ways of a religion, only has their own personal preference on what that reality is. and we all know that that sort of consensus is effected hugely by cultural variations.



and just so people know where i personally stand. im not sure whether or not some greater being exists. i think its fairly obvious that science shows an indisputable amount of proof that many claims, former and current, of various religions, are due to natural phenomenon and not divine intervention. if there is a greater being, i think its just as likely to be a flying spaghetti monster as an omni benevolent jesus god ghost, but even more likely is that there probably simply isnt.

i think most religious texts have some good stuff to be learned in them, but nothing worth fighting or dieing for.

whether or not a person believes in one is their own choice, so long as they leave me and my government alone. to the i love jesus and he loves me people, i think thats great you can believe in something that provides you with fulfilment and peace, and im sincerely happy for you as long as you folks dont try to step on anyone else's toes/constitutional rights :) (absolutely no sarcasm).

and rs if you really believe that the stock market is faith based then... well i wouldnt want you managing my retirement portfolio :P

[Jakem25]

what is a "REAL" christian/muslim/jew? when it comes to religion, "real" ie "true" is a social construct. stems from the fact that despite what many fundamentalists say, it is impossible to read a text as old as say, the bible, without interpreting it. even if it were possible, its been interepreted many times in the past. thus anyone claiming to know the "real" ways of a religion, only has their own personal preference on what that reality is. and we all know that that sort of consensus is effected hugely by cultural variations.

Christianity teaches a love of everyone. Someone who kills a bunch of people and says "God doesn't like those people so kill them" is not a real Christian because they are not following the very basic idea of Christianity. It is only an excuse. It sounds a hell of a lot better than "Kill them because I hate them!!"

[daemun]

Christianity teaches a love of everyone. Someone who kills a bunch of people and says "God doesn't like those people so kill them" is not a real Christian because they are not following the very basic idea of Christianity. It is only an excuse. It sounds a hell of a lot better than "Kill them because I hate them!!"

i know its tough to understand, particularly if you have an inside perspective, but christianity itself is a social construct. no christian ever has or ever will live their live down to every last exacting detail of the bible. it would be impossible because the bible does conflict itself in some areas. it also endorses some things that would be considered distasteful or illegal today, like stoning a cheating wife to death, or selling your daughters into slavery.

see, you say christianity teaches love, but christianity cannot teach, a person needs to teach it. and no matter what, at least some of their values are going to rub off on you when they teach it. its unavoidable.

so when you talk about a real christian, what you really mean is what you personally accept as being a real christian - other christians, like the ones who fought and killed in the crusade for example, would probably like to disagree with you :)

[Jakem25]

i know its tough to understand, particularly if you have an inside perspective, but christianity itself is a social construct. no christian ever has or ever will live their live down to every last exacting detail of the bible. it would be impossible because the bible does conflict itself in some areas. it also endorses some things that would be considered distasteful or illegal today, like stoning a cheating wife to death, or selling your daughters into slavery.

see, you say christianity teaches love, but christianity cannot teach, a person needs to teach it. and no matter what, at least some of their values are going to rub off on you when they teach it. its unavoidable.

so when you talk about a real christian, what you really mean is what you personally accept as being a real christian - other christians, like the ones who fought and killed in the crusade for example, would probably like to disagree with you :)

Good points will comment more later, right now I am going to bed. Goodnite all.

[demonmarch]

Demonmarch, to answer the condom question:

In traditional Christian belief structures, condoms, and premarital sex (including oral, sodomy, etc) are a sin primarily because they are indulgent in carnal pleasures. (To teach a bit more, this aspect could be attributed to Plato, as much of his philosophy is prevalent in the writing and interpretations of the Bible). This also includes masturbation, so everyone will have to find something else to do while pox is down.

Secondly, if you don't believe in God, and you don't have any belief structures, what exactly do you believe? Do you think about how life formed or a possible meaning to life? Do you believe in evolution? If so, do you even understand it? Or, dare i ask, do you not even care?

lol pox is down. hands off!
that makes sense but nowadays christians have had to change their beliefs to keep the new generations joining some churches have stayed with the old stuff and wont change kudos to them they actually believe in something that shouldn't change but now i don't think if you asked a preist wheter or not masturbation is wrong they would still say it was

eh. i have a belief structure but it one that no one else will believe i believe evolution to an extent
what i believe is a variation on reincarnation but to me it gives me a hope that the next world will be more interesting
it goes as such:
when you die you go to a massive room which is filled with souls souls of those who haven't chosen what to do. all around this rooms walls are posters these posters tell of a world sort of like advertising a new life. you could touch the poster and be born on that planet or you could go to the end of the room and see the receptionist (or something like this) and ask to create your own from then you are given ultimate power over your planet you have to form it and make every creature then when you feel you are finished you can put up a poster and then you have a certain amount of powers you can use to push your beings in the right direction (which is my take on why the god doesn't do anything for us now, because he has run out of powers) when all your creatures die you may start again.

in this way there are no gods and when you die everyone is equal.
(

[orithus]

Heh I must have a easy life i dont belive in Reincarnation as such i belive that when i die its game over so better make good use of the time i have here and hope that my memory lives on i dont seek any higher meaning in life i just want to have fun while im in it.

To many religious ppl around where i live think The one that has had most boring in life wins and then they will have a good time in heaven. would kinda suck if there is no heaven wouldnt it =P.

And for the record a day without masturbation is a day thats wasted.

And as one of my best friends says sex is only perverted if its done right

[theDVS1]

One thing I think people should make a note of when speaking of religion vs politics, is most of the countries that the US have had issues with as of late need to cater to these religious zealots, not because they are the abundant people of said society, but because they are the most powerful, or most effective fear mongers . Just as the US's presidential candidates need to say things they might not agree with to win votes, the officials of countries like Pakistan, Iran, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan need to appear tough and full of a zealot's bravado. Personally, I believe any thought or idea or religion or belief can and will be perverted in today's information age. Really, thanks to the propaganda all the media worldwide spews, we get this cycle of the media perverting governments, the governments perverting religion, and then religion perverting the media...and then it all starts over again.

Onto the whole sex is bad thing, meh, well, screw that (sorry for the pun). Since I am as open minded as I am in terms of religion, and can find value in anything that at least tries to keep people from murdering, raping, stealing, dishonesty, etc., I have dated Jewish, Christian, and Buddhist girls. They all liked sex just the same as any other person. The point of this being, we are all with "sin" or corruption, that is a fact. Just because we know there are reasons not to do something, doesn't mean we are logical or faithful enough to not do it. Where Christianity counters this idea is through forgiveness. Accept God into your life, and honestly repent for your sins, and all will be forgiven. Really a genius idea, with a critical flaw. While that would help those that have done much wrong find hope for salvation, it also leads to huge loop holes that even supposed men of God are tempted to climb through. Like I have stated before, my understanding of Christianity is about 10 years out of my head (since that is about how long it has been since I have gone to any sort of organized religious service), so I apologize if have replaced fact with any of my own conclusions.

[theDVS1]

To many religious ppl around where i live think The one that has had most boring in life wins and then they will have a good time in heaven. would kinda suck if there is no heaven wouldnt it =P.


Yeah, it would suck to waste 50-100 years of your life devoted to some belief promising an afterlife, just to find it wrong...however, eternity is a lot longer then even 10 life spans.

As far as reincarnation goes, that has been one of the most interesting and intriguing ideas any religion has ever come up with for me. This is one of those things were I just think, well how in the heck did someone think of that. It kinda reminds me of hey if you keep playing with that, it will fall off...but instead, you keep acting like that you'll come back as a slug.

[RSnow]

One thing I think people should make a note of when speaking of religion vs politics, is most of the countries that the US have had issues with as of late need to cater to these religious zealots, not because they are the abundant people of said society, but because they are the most powerful, or most effective fear mongers . Just as the US's presidential candidates need to say things they might not agree with to win votes, the officials of countries like Pakistan, Iran, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan need to appear tough and full of a zealot's bravado. Personally, I believe any thought or idea or religion or belief can and will be perverted in today's information age. Really, thanks to the propaganda all the media worldwide spews, we get this cycle of the media perverting governments, the governments perverting religion, and then religion perverting the media...and then it all starts over again.

Onto the whole sex is bad thing, meh, well, screw that (sorry for the pun). Since I am as open minded as I am in terms of religion, and can find value in anything that at least tries to keep people from murdering, raping, stealing, dishonesty, etc., I have dated Jewish, Christian, and Buddhist girls. They all liked sex just the same as any other person. The point of this being, we are all with "sin" or corruption, that is a fact. Just because we know there are reasons not to do something, doesn't mean we are logical or faithful enough to not do it. Where Christianity counters this idea is through forgiveness. Accept God into your life, and honestly repent for your sins, and all will be forgiven. Really a genius idea, with a critical flaw. While that would help those that have done much wrong find hope for salvation, it also leads to huge loop holes that even supposed men of God are tempted to climb through. Like I have stated before, my understanding of Christianity is about 10 years out of my head (since that is about how long it has been since I have gone to any sort of organized religious service), so I apologize if have replaced fact with any of my own conclusions.

Unfortunately the loopholes don't work...

Pretending to believe in God so you can be saved while still doing whatever on purpose is just that-pretending. It's probably the stupidest tactic ever created, because if God exists, he would certainly know that you were only following the letter of the law. Jesus condemned those people in biblical times in the form of the Jewish religious authorities.

But yeah, it is kinda hard to swallow knowing that everyone, even the people you despise, can be saved the same way you can. On the other hand, people you despise might just despise you back, so perhaps forgiveness all around is not such a bad thing after all.

And I don't think that the 50-100 years can be called "wasted." Perhaps I'm a fool, but my life has much more purpose and also much more peace in it since I've become a Christian. I'm sure that you could explain it away as being a psycological phenomenon, but I'm going to say that life is really more fulfilling this way. No fear because you're being taken care of. A sense of purpose to life. The knowledge that there IS a right course of action and that you follow it as much as you're able. The promise of seeing loved ones again. Things like that. Perhaps an illusion, but my illusionary God is almost certainly a better God then some other illusionary gods.

[daemun]

my illusionary God is almost certainly a better God then some other illusionary gods.

for you maybe, but not for everyone, and therein lies the biggest problem with religion.

[RSnow]

for you maybe, but not for everyone, and therein lies the biggest problem with religion.

Oh come on. Eternal life, paradise, protection, forgiveness whenever I want it AND a personal connection to God. Sorry, but it doesn't get a whole lot more lucrative than that...

But not all gods are deities, if you follow me.

I've found that the worst god to serve is probably instant gratification, followed by money. Most religions offer some benefits, but secular gods offer very, very few...

But in any case, I'm not trying to bribe you. I'm merely stating that I believe that my existence is not "wasted" because I follow a God. If you're looking for a reason to follow a god, read my earlier post.

Oh and one last thing. I do believe that in the end, everyone ends up serving one god or another, willingly. But as I said, not all gods are deities.

[daemun]

Oh come on. Eternal life, paradise, protection, forgiveness whenever I want it AND a personal connection to God. Sorry, but it doesn't get a whole lot more lucrative than that...

But not all gods are deities, if you follow me.

I've found that the worst god to serve is probably instant gratification, followed by money. Most religions offer some benefits, but secular gods offer very, very few...

But in any case, I'm not trying to bribe you. I'm merely stating that I believe that my existence is not "wasted" because I follow a God. If you're looking for a reason to follow a god, read my earlier post.

Oh and one last thing. I do believe that in the end, everyone ends up serving one god or another, willingly. But as I said, not all gods are deities.

its not that cut and dry though. for the vast majority of people who would call themselves religious, following god entails a whole host of other highly variable (and culture dependant) variables. i think its ignorant to say "my god is the best for everyone" and i also think its contrary to what is really the basis of christian values - live your own life in peace, and let others do the same with theirs.

i think north america's indiginous people are a good example of this. christianity was thrust upon them by mostly well intentioned priests, and that was a huge factor in the cultural vacuum that followed. ive written a few papers on this so im not gonna let myself get carried away talking about it, but if anyone wants to know more send me a message and i'll explain further.

so in short, if youve found a belief system that is working for you, thats awesome and im sincerely happy for you, and im not being sarcastic at all when i say this. i think its great for people to believe in something. but in claiming that your belief system is the best, or by extension trying to force that system on anyone else, regardless of the virtues that you feel your system has, you are doing something that is very not ok.

as for the benefits of christianity that you stated, some people simply find the idea of an omnibenevolent god offensive when you consider how much human influence has altered christian dogma over history. i mean, its supposed to be the word of god right? not everyone thinks so, and theres a pretty hefty amount of science and history that also says its not. thats not to say im calling anyone a fool for believing it is - thats what faith is all about after all. and we're fortunate enough to live in a place where we're free to believe whatever we want. not everyone has that faith and thats not nessesarily a bad thing.

i think secular philosophy can do just as much to enrich a person's life as religion. i personally can find a lot of value in life and in living it well without any notion of a divine being. i find that life feels more precious and valuable when you forget about an eternity that may or may not come. its empowering.

if i die and end up standing before some all powerful god, and i have truly lived a good life (which im capable of doing whether or not i believe) and god condemns me to "hell" because i would not explicitly believe in something that has become so twisted by human influence and is so contrary to science, then i'll gladly spend eternity in hell, knowing that i lived a good life anyways.



edit: quick notion to the idea of everyone serving some sort of god, be it a diety or otherwise: its a common argument, but its flawed in that a diety god and something like money, fame, or anything else that is used in place, are so inherently different that they cant be compared. an atheist who lives for money can count it and know exactly how much he has. that has nothing to do with faith.

[theDVS1]

Unfortunately the loopholes don't work...

Pretending to believe in God so you can be saved while still doing whatever on purpose is just that-pretending. It's probably the stupidest tactic ever created, because if God exists, he would certainly know that you were only following the letter of the law. Jesus condemned those people in biblical times in the form of the Jewish religious authorities.



I could prolly rant about every paragraph from this post, altho, Ill admit the other two I would be just playing the devils advocate. My big problem here is you think people are actually conscious of their deviancy, and choose to act then repent. I think it really comes down to weakness, followed up by sincere and honest repenting, followed by more deviancy. I am a big believer in self perpetuating cycles being the constant and dominant downfall of man as a whole. However, alas, I feel I may be a little too intoxicated to intelligently and decisively prove this point. So expect a follow up post some time after work tomorrow, when my hangover wears off. Either that, or I will forget I posted here tonight, and will be back in a few days. I tend to avoid off topic, too much Captain Falcon.

[theDVS1]

its not that cut and dry though. for the vast majority of people who would call themselves religious, following god entails a whole host of other highly variable (and culture dependant) variables. i think its ignorant to say "my god is the best for everyone" and i also think its contrary to what is really the basis of christian values - live your own life in peace, and let others do the same with theirs.

i think north america's indiginous people are a good example of this. christianity was thrust upon them by mostly well intentioned priests, and that was a huge factor in the cultural vacuum that followed. ive written a few papers on this so im not gonna let myself get carried away talking about it, but if anyone wants to know more send me a message and i'll explain further.

so in short, if youve found a belief system that is working for you, thats awesome and im sincerely happy for you, and im not being sarcastic at all when i say this. i think its great for people to believe in something. but in claiming that your belief system is the best, or by extension trying to force that system on anyone else, regardless of the virtues that you feel your system has, you are doing something that is very not ok.

as for the benefits of christianity that you stated, some people simply find the idea of an omnibenevolent god offensive when you consider how much human influence has altered christian dogma over history. i mean, its supposed to be the word of god right? not everyone thinks so, and theres a pretty hefty amount of science and history that also says its not. thats not to say im calling anyone a fool for believing it is - thats what faith is all about after all. and we're fortunate enough to live in a place where we're free to believe whatever we want. not everyone has that faith and thats not nessesarily a bad thing.

i think secular philosophy can do just as much to enrich a person's life as religion. i personally can find a lot of value in life and in living it well without any notion of a divine being. i find that life feels more precious and valuable when you forget about an eternity that may or may not come. its empowering.

if i die and end up standing before some all powerful god, and i have truly lived a good life (which im capable of doing whether or not i believe) and god condemns me to "hell" because i would not explicitly believe in something that has become so twisted by human influence and is so contrary to science, then i'll gladly spend eternity in hell, knowing that i lived a good life anyways.



edit: quick notion to the idea of everyone serving some sort of god, be it a diety or otherwise: its a common argument, but its flawed in that a diety god and something like money, fame, or anything else that is used in place, are so inherently different that they cant be compared. an atheist who lives for money can count it and know exactly how much he has. that has nothing to do with faith.

This is a silly line of "logic". To laugh in the face of something, that has clearly been the right choice, and say, "well your an ass for not proving me wrong while I was alive" is just egocentric. Do the right thing(s) in life, follow something, anything that makes you feel whole (I don't care if this falls into the religion, spirituality, or just a strong moral code), and I really don't see any benevolent god sending you to "hell". Just because you don't believe a/some book(s) storyline, doesn't mean the moral isn't there. Hmm... sleep.

[daemun]

This is a silly line of "logic". To laugh in the face of something, that has clearly been the right choice, and say, "well your an ass for not proving me wrong while I was alive" is just egocentric. Do the right thing(s) in life, follow something, anything that makes you feel whole (I don't care if this falls into the religion, spirituality, or just a strong moral code), and I really don't see any benevolent god sending you to "hell". Just because you don't believe a/some book(s) storyline, doesn't mean the moral isn't there. Hmm... sleep.

im not sure if i understand you, but if youre refering to the part about me going to hell then we agree :) its not really a line of logic though, just a statement. another way to put my earlier statement: too often people of various religions place more importance on faith than on a persons actions while theyre alive. it is my opinion that if there is a benevolent god (which i think is highly unlikely but nevertheless) he doesnt condemn good people to hell because they didnt believe.

i know my statement seems like a very silly portrayal of god, but a lot of religious people who ive been canvassed by have painted this picture. judging by the arguments some people make, it seems like that is exactly what they think god is.

and yeah as for the moral of the story in the bible, read my earlier posts. i specifically said i think the bible is full of good lessons, it just becomes problematic when people try to take it (or parts of it) literally :)

[RSnow]

OK, I'm not going to quote, so you're going to have to remember who said what (OK, I'm lazy, and I'll admit it).

"Secular philosophy can do as much to enrich someone's life as religion"
I will not argue with that statement. I was merely stating that an enriched life is better than one which is not enriched, and thereby refuting the statement "religion is a waste of 50-100 years." I was merely stating that religion is one way to NOT waste 50-100 years.

"If there is a benevolent God, he won't condemn a good person to hell"
So, Firstly, hell is a consequence, not a punishment. That would be like saying, if I'm a good person, and I touch an open flame, a benevolent God would prevent me from getting burned. God will not save anyone who does not want to be saved, and IMO, he's done a very good job of telling us what we have to do to be saved; simply accept that he's willing to save you. In that way, yes, faith is more important than good deeds. Because faith represents your conscious choice, whereas good deeds could be the result of any number of factors, like guilt. Furthermore, faith represents a lifestyle but good deeds are temporary.
But, your logic is unfortunately flawed. If you believe you are a good person, what incentive do you have NOT to be a christian and be saved? I mean, it would require virtually no lifestyle change, but the benefits are potentially enormous.

"an atheist who lives for money can count it and know exactly how much he has. that has nothing to do with faith."
That's not my point. Sooner or later, we all end up serving something. whether we live for money or instant gratification or your family. Sooner or later, something becomes the primary motivation of your life. It has nothing to do with faith.

[jimmie1982]

lol pox is down. hands off!
that makes sense but nowadays christians have had to change their beliefs to keep the new generations joining some churches have stayed with the old stuff and wont change kudos to them they actually believe in something that shouldn't change but now i don't think if you asked a preist wheter or not masturbation is wrong they would still say it was

eh. i have a belief structure but it one that no one else will believe i believe evolution to an extent
what i believe is a variation on reincarnation but to me it gives me a hope that the next world will be more interesting
it goes as such:
when you die you go to a massive room which is filled with souls souls of those who haven't chosen what to do. all around this rooms walls are posters these posters tell of a world sort of like advertising a new life. you could touch the poster and be born on that planet or you could go to the end of the room and see the receptionist (or something like this) and ask to create your own from then you are given ultimate power over your planet you have to form it and make every creature then when you feel you are finished you can put up a poster and then you have a certain amount of powers you can use to push your beings in the right direction (which is my take on why the god doesn't do anything for us now, because he has run out of powers) when all your creatures die you may start again.

in this way there are no gods and when you die everyone is equal.
(

It is good to see inside your mind man, kinda helps to understand ones beliefs when they are so bent on denounce faith. As it has been said many times, faith is no more than the "hope" or belief of something bigger or more thought out than us.

[daemun]

If you believe you are a good person, what incentive do you have NOT to be a christian and be saved? I mean, it would require virtually no lifestyle change, but the benefits are potentially enormous.

i dont really like the whole insurance policy faith thing though. living my life well on my own accord feels better to me than living well because someone or something is telling me to. its been proven that giving positive reinforcement for an activity a person already enjoys decreases their enjoyment. also to accept something like christianity, you have to accept a way of thinking that runs dangerously contrary to science, and has been purposely exploited by people in the past and present as a means to get power and stay in power.

comes back to the whole burden of proof thing too. i try to do things in life because i have a reason, not because i "dont not" have a reason, if that makes any sense :P

and yeah i do agree with you that religion is not a waste, the comfort and enrichment it can provide some people is invaluable.

[RSnow]

i dont really like the whole insurance policy faith thing though. living my life well on my own accord feels better to me than living well because someone or something is telling me to. its been proven that giving positive reinforcement for an activity a person already enjoys decreases their enjoyment. also to accept something like christianity, you have to accept a way of thinking that runs dangerously contrary to science, and has been purposely exploited by people in the past and present as a means to get power and stay in power.

comes back to the whole burden of proof thing too. i try to do things in life because i have a reason, not because i "dont not" have a reason, if that makes any sense :P

and yeah i do agree with you that religion is not a waste, the comfort and enrichment it can provide some people is invaluable.

"dangerously contrary to science" hardly describes religion. If anything, science is running dangerously contrary to science these days. What is science? The study of our universe, BASED ON EVENTS THAT WE CAN OBSERVE. As such, a scientist who makes any comment on God other than in affirmation is no scientist at all. Because he has absolutely no evidence, and therefore could not possibly make any conclusive statement. "science" today has gone through extraordinary lengths to separate itself from religion. For example, people have created a "multiverse theory" to explain away the fact that the universe's existence in itself is a miracle. But in what way is that any different from religion? They created a theory which was, by definition, unprovable and unsupportable with any kind of evidence, just to explain away God. In short, they discarded the laws of science. In this way, science today has done the opposite of their purpose; rather than look at the evidence and find a theory supported by that evidence, science today has taken a theory and found "evidence" to support the theory.

As for insurance, your statement sounds a bit illogical, to say the least. If your job offered you a better healthcare package for continuing to do the same work you do already, would you take it? Of course, you'd be a fool not to. Yet when it comes to spirituality, arguably more important than physical health, people refuse to take any precaution whatsoever. What nonsense is this? "But," you will say, "there's no guarentee that my spirit is indeed in any danger." But is there any more evidence that your body is in danger? Perhaps you will be healthy until old age, and then the health care package is worthless. Yet will you refuse it on that ground?

"burden of proof" you say. But who has not heard the saying "better safe than sorry?" Who among us has no retirement plan, no healthcare, no insurance? So I say the burden of proof falls on you instead. It falls on you for you advise a much more risky course of action. You would risk your soul, while I risk nothing, therefore it is you who must prove to me that your risk is justified? Can you do so?

But, in my support, I will offer 2 pieces of evidence, that, although I do not need it, the burden of proof on my side may yet be fulfilled.

You mention science? Very well. Physics has told us that if any one of the 4 universal constants were to change by even the slightest margin, the universe could not exist. Not "be inhospitable." Not exist at all. Or rather, would cease to exist in any meaningful or measurable form.

Now, for history. History, and not just christian history, tells us about a man called Jesus Christ. And his life has no explanation other than that he was in fact God, or supernatural in the least. Don't bother saying that he was merely a good man or a prophet, for what prophet would claim to be the son of God? And what good man who is not insane claims to have the power to forgive sins? He could be a liar, but what liar dies for his lies? A rare man might just die for the truth, but who dies for a lie? Or he could be insane. But what insane man can outwit even the legal authorities of the age? And what Insane man has the ability to perform miracles?

[19gerben91]

rather than look at the evidence and find a theory supported by that evidence, science today has taken a theory and found "evidence" to support the theory.

you cant find a theory , you look at the problem make a theory , observe the problem and then find evidence wich either proves or disproves your theory and if needed you adjust your theory and observe anew untill you reach a conclusion

[Shadyguy1]

Current Christianity is nothing like what Jesus preached, so stop saying that "Christianity is the only way to be saved" because that runs contrary to everything Jesus stood for.

[RSnow]

you cant find a theory , you look at the problem make a theory , observe the problem and then find evidence wich either proves or disproves your theory and if needed you adjust your theory and observe anew untill you reach a conclusion

I was trying to say that they're manipulating or selectively stating evidence in such a way that it supports the theory that they're already convinced is right...

@ shadyguy-
How is Christianity different from what Jesus preached?

[daemun]

"dangerously contrary to science" hardly describes religion. If anything, science is running dangerously contrary to science these days. What is science? The study of our universe, BASED ON EVENTS THAT WE CAN OBSERVE. As such, a scientist who makes any comment on God other than in affirmation is no scientist at all. Because he has absolutely no evidence, and therefore could not possibly make any conclusive statement. "science" today has gone through extraordinary lengths to separate itself from religion. For example, people have created a "multiverse theory" to explain away the fact that the universe's existence in itself is a miracle. But in what way is that any different from religion? They created a theory which was, by definition, unprovable and unsupportable with any kind of evidence, just to explain away God. In short, they discarded the laws of science. In this way, science today has done the opposite of their purpose; rather than look at the evidence and find a theory supported by that evidence, science today has taken a theory and found "evidence" to support the theory.

As for insurance, your statement sounds a bit illogical, to say the least. If your job offered you a better healthcare package for continuing to do the same work you do already, would you take it? Of course, you'd be a fool not to. Yet when it comes to spirituality, arguably more important than physical health, people refuse to take any precaution whatsoever. What nonsense is this? "But," you will say, "there's no guarentee that my spirit is indeed in any danger." But is there any more evidence that your body is in danger? Perhaps you will be healthy until old age, and then the health care package is worthless. Yet will you refuse it on that ground?

"burden of proof" you say. But who has not heard the saying "better safe than sorry?" Who among us has no retirement plan, no healthcare, no insurance? So I say the burden of proof falls on you instead. It falls on you for you advise a much more risky course of action. You would risk your soul, while I risk nothing, therefore it is you who must prove to me that your risk is justified? Can you do so?

But, in my support, I will offer 2 pieces of evidence, that, although I do not need it, the burden of proof on my side may yet be fulfilled.

You mention science? Very well. Physics has told us that if any one of the 4 universal constants were to change by even the slightest margin, the universe could not exist. Not "be inhospitable." Not exist at all. Or rather, would cease to exist in any meaningful or measurable form.

Now, for history. History, and not just christian history, tells us about a man called Jesus Christ. And his life has no explanation other than that he was in fact God, or supernatural in the least. Don't bother saying that he was merely a good man or a prophet, for what prophet would claim to be the son of God? And what good man who is not insane claims to have the power to forgive sins? He could be a liar, but what liar dies for his lies? A rare man might just die for the truth, but who dies for a lie? Or he could be insane. But what insane man can outwit even the legal authorities of the age? And what Insane man has the ability to perform miracles?

who's the they youre talking about in the first paragraph? scientists as a collective? because if so, then youre claiming that they all ascribe to the same multiverse theory, which is incorrect. many scientists have discarded it as being "unprovable", much like religion, and therefore not science. things like evolution, the age of the world, and the occurence of natural disasters are measurable with science, and the answers they give us are very different from the answers that religion has given us in the past, and still continues to do so with the governments money in some science classrooms. that scares me.

back to the insurance policy thing. better safe than sorry? is that any way to make a huge life altering decision? i dont think that is how faith is supposed to work. if you accept anything that major into your life because "what the hell, why not?" was the best you could come up with, you need to have a long hard think about why you believe what you do.

by saying that the burden of proof falls on me you are commiting one of the most obtuse logical falicies; but its one that is often exploited by people in argument for religion. the more incredible the claim, the more incredible the proof required to support it. i cant proove that there isnt an invisible pink unicorn standing beside me, but does that mean there is one?

youre getting your stuff really mixed up talking about retirement plans and healthcare and whatnot. its a scientific fact that as i get older, my health will probably begin to fail me. i can take my current fitness level and diet, the lifespans of men in my family, any current medical problems i might have and make a pretty well informed decision on whether i require those things. so to answer, yes i have much more evidence that my body will fail me as i get older than the idea that when i die some part of my being is going to spend eternity in a place first thought up when people still thought the world was flat and further twisted to control sexually repressed europeans.

about the physical constants. i dont see what this proves other than physics makes sense. we cant even comprehend how old the galaxy is, where all the matter that makes up our universe came from, or how long it will all last. but we're tiny miniscule mammals on a little blue ball orbiting an unremarkable yellow star in the outer arm of on of an infinite number of galaxies. just because we dont understand it, doesnt mean it must be some sort of act of god. this line of thinking has been proved wrong in the past.


now the part about jesus:
"History, and not just christian history, tells us about a man called Jesus Christ."

we have two other "historical" accounts of a man named jesus who lived in that particular time period, other than the bible. both were written centuries later.

"And his life has no explanation other than that he was in fact God, or supernatural in the least."

thats only if you interpert the bible literally. do you interepert the rest of the bible literally? what about stoning to death disobediant children, cheating wives or anyone working on sunday? you cant cherry pick your evidence, the bible is either true or symbolic. i mean its either the word of god or it isnt, and if its the word of god, then what authority does man have to go through it and determine whats true and whats symbolic?

"Don't bother saying that he was merely a good man or a prophet, for what prophet would claim to be the son of God?"

lots of people, there were many prophets claiming to be the son of god in jesus's time, for example apollonius of tyana, who could alledgedly heal the sick, raise the dead and walk through walls, and who was persecuted and eventually crucified for his religious beliefs, and apparently ressurected and asscended to heaven. i recently talked to a young man from turkey who's messiah is a man who came to life after being shot by a firing squad about 20 years ago. ive personally met people claiming to be the son of god and believe it with all their hearts. the claim doesnt carry much weight with me.

"And what good man who is not insane claims to have the power to forgive sins? He could be a liar, but what liar dies for his lies? A rare man might just die for the truth, but who dies for a lie?"

Again assuming that it all went down the way the book says it does, just because he personally believed it doesnt mean its true. People die for ideals all the time. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 died for their ideals, i dont think youd find one person on this forum who would say that they died in the name of truth.

"Or he could be insane. But what insane man can outwit even the legal authorities of the age? "

Well they did catch him eventually...

"And what Insane man has the ability to perform miracles?"

again, this depends on the bible being interpreted literally, which many of us find hard to do given some of the conflicting messages it gives us. not to mention its age, i mean elvis died in the 70's and already people cant agree on whether he's alive or dead, or whether or not he did drugs. many of his biographies have conflicting stories and accounts. Imagine trying to get an accurate account of elvis's life in 2000 years.


believing the bible is an act of faith, and thats how it should stay. its not an objective historical account and if you treat it as one youre not only setting yourself up with a poor argument, youre missing the point of the bible.

[RSnow]

many scientists have discarded it as being "unprovable", much like religion, and therefore not science. things like evolution, the age of the world, and the occurence of natural disasters are measurable with science, and the answers they give us are very different from the answers that religion has given us in the past, and still continues to do so with the governments money in some science classrooms. that scares me.

Yep. I agree, evolution is perfectly provable. But evolution says nothing about God. Face it, you CANNOT disprove God's existence using science, and that was my point. BY DEFINITION, you cannot do it.



back to the insurance policy thing. better safe than sorry? is that any way to make a huge life altering decision? i dont think that is how faith is supposed to work. if you accept anything that major into your life because "what the hell, why not?" was the best you could come up with, you need to have a long hard think about why you believe what you do.
An incredible double standard. If God did not exist, then the ONLY logic you can use is the kind of logic I just used, pascal's wager. But were I to use a religious argument, you would denounce it as being "illogical." Put it like this, either you rely on logic and proof, or not. If you rely on proof and logic, then refute my statement. I doubt you can do it. But if you think there's something more than logic, then you virtually admit the existence of God, because a world without God would be purely logical and proof-oriented.



by saying that the burden of proof falls on me you are commiting one of the most obtuse logical falicies; but its one that is often exploited by people in argument for religion. the more incredible the claim, the more incredible the proof required to support it. i cant proove that there isnt an invisible pink unicorn standing beside me, but does that mean there is one?
Well, incredibility is a matter of personal belief. I believe that the statement "the universe just happened to be the way it is" is much more incredible than the belief in God. That would be like me finding a computer in the middle of the woods and saying "the universe must have worked just right so that the computer came into existence."

You want to see who's belief is really more unbelievable? read my post on physical constants.


so to answer, yes i have much more evidence that my body will fail me as i get older than the idea that when i die some part of my being is going to spend eternity in a place first thought up when people still thought the world was flat and further twisted to control sexually repressed europeans.

LOL. You really need to learn your history. Even the Greeks knew that the world was round. In fact, they calculated it's circumfrence with amazing accuracy.

But you're right, my analogy was flawed. It's like if I offered you free insurance on your house. There's no evidence that your house will break any day soon, in fact your house could easily outlive you with little or no maintenence. But would you refuse my free insurance just because the chance is low? Of course not.



about the physical constants. i dont see what this proves other than physics makes sense. we cant even comprehend how old the galaxy is, where all the matter that makes up our universe came from, or how long it will all last. but we're tiny miniscule mammals on a little blue ball orbiting an unremarkable yellow star in the outer arm of on of an infinite number of galaxies. just because we dont understand it, doesnt mean it must be some sort of act of god. this line of thinking has been proved wrong in the past.
You miss my point. The existence of the universe is a bona-fide miracle. According to our physics, there is a probability of approximately 0% that this universe should exist at all. In other words, according to our physics, the universe should not exist. And unlike the argument about the unlikelyhood of life on earth being explained away by the sheer number of planets, if the universe ceased to exist, there would be no second chance. That means a virtual impossibility occured the FIRST TIME. So now tell me who's belief is more rediculous. To believe that a God created the universe? or to believe that that a billion coins flipped simultaneously all landed heads the first time around? So that's why the multiverse is one of the more commonly accepted theories. Because scientists can't explain it any other way. Because even the most committed scientist won't argue that this universe just "happened" to exist. So, that's why I believe science reinforces, rather than contradicts, belief in God.


now the part about jesus:
"History, and not just christian history, tells us about a man called Jesus Christ."

we have two other "historical" accounts of a man named jesus who lived in that particular time period, other than the bible. both were written centuries later.


Blatantly untrue. EVERY roman historian in the area (middle east and asia minor), of a contemporary time period reinforces Jesus' existence in the sense we knew it (as in, general works, claimed works, and manner of death).

"And his life has no explanation other than that he was in fact God, or supernatural in the least."

thats only if you interpert the bible literally. do you interepert the rest of the bible literally? what about stoning to death disobediant children, cheating wives or anyone working on sunday? you cant cherry pick your evidence, the bible is either true or symbolic. i mean its either the word of god or it isnt, and if its the word of god, then what authority does man have to go through it and determine whats true and whats symbolic?

Jesus spent his whole life yelling at those who looked at the letter of the law rather than the spirit. So I will follow his advice. What is the spirit of the law, for disobedient children and cheating wives? This behavior is unacceptable and should be eliminated. What is the spirit of Jesus' message? That we all sin, but belief in him and repentance will lead to forgiveness. So, you have your answer. The bible is meant to be interpreted in spirit, not literally, but neither symbolically.


"Don't bother saying that he was merely a good man or a prophet, for what prophet would claim to be the son of God?"

lots of people, there were many prophets claiming to be the son of god in jesus's time, for example apollonius of tyana, who could alledgedly heal the sick, raise the dead and walk through walls, and who was persecuted and eventually crucified for his religious beliefs, and apparently ressurected and asscended to heaven. i recently talked to a young man from turkey who's messiah is a man who came to life after being shot by a firing squad about 20 years ago. ive personally met people claiming to be the son of god and believe it with all their hearts. the claim doesnt carry much weight with me.

Not true prophets. You misinterpret what I said. No true prophet could claim to be the Son of God, only the Son of God, a liar, or a madman could make such a claim. A false prophet would fall in the 2nd category.


"And what good man who is not insane claims to have the power to forgive sins? He could be a liar, but what liar dies for his lies? A rare man might just die for the truth, but who dies for a lie?"

Again assuming that it all went down the way the book says it does, just because he personally believed it doesnt mean its true. People die for ideals all the time. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 died for their ideals, i dont think youd find one person on this forum who would say that they died in the name of truth.
Aha! But was he crazy or a liar. I said "what liar dies for his lies," not "what decieved man dies for a lie."


"Or he could be insane. But what insane man can outwit even the legal authorities of the age? "

Well they did catch him eventually...

Yeah. They brought him before the court, which found him innocent. And then when they found he could not be convicted, they roused a mob to pressure the Govenor into executing him anyways. I think you need to read your history again...


"And what Insane man has the ability to perform miracles?"

again, this depends on the bible being interpreted literally, which many of us find hard to do given some of the conflicting messages it gives us. not to mention its age, i mean elvis died in the 70's and already people cant agree on whether he's alive or dead, or whether or not he did drugs. many of his biographies have conflicting stories and accounts. Imagine trying to get an accurate account of elvis's life in 2000 years.

True. But how many people have gone to the grave swearing that they've seen elvis? EVERY ONE of Jesus' disciples wiht the exceptions of John and Judas did. And John died under house arrest in exile, so that's not much of an improvement. I mean sure, plenty of people here and there claim to see elvis.



believing the bible is an act of faith, and thats how it should stay. its not an objective historical account and if you treat it as one youre not only setting yourself up with a poor argument, youre missing the point of the bible.


You seem to have missed my point about Jesus. He was either Crazy, a Liar, or telling the truth. If he was intentionally lying, he would not have died for his own lies. If he was crazy, how did he convince people to die for him, and why were others able to see his obviously delusioned miracles?

Please do us both a favor and actually understand what I'm saying before you respond. I spent half this post repeating my original points.

[daemun]

Yep. I agree, evolution is perfectly provable. But evolution says nothing about God. Face it, you CANNOT disprove God's existence using science, and that was my point. BY DEFINITION, you cannot do it.

Evolution doesn't say anything about god and it doesnt have to. Intelligent design does say something about god, and is being taught in science classrooms as an equally viable alternative to evolution. thats wrong

An incredible double standard. If God did not exist, then the ONLY logic you can use is the kind of logic I just used, pascal's wager. But were I to use a religious argument, you would denounce it as being "illogical." Put it like this, either you rely on logic and proof, or not. If you rely on proof and logic, then refute my statement. I doubt you can do it. But if you think there's something more than logic, then you virtually admit the existence of God, because a world without God would be purely logical and proof-oriented.

like i said in my earlier post, i dont accept things as true just because i dont have a reason not to. you failed to address the invisible pink unicorn.

Well, incredibility is a matter of personal belief. I believe that the statement "the universe just happened to be the way it is" is much more incredible than the belief in God. That would be like me finding a computer in the middle of the woods and saying "the universe must have worked just right so that the computer came into existence."

it has nothing to do with the icredibility of the statement, it has to do with trying to use gods existence in a logical argument. science and logic follow certain rules, the line of reasoning that something exists because it cannot be disproven is faulty.



LOL. You really need to learn your history. Even the Greeks knew that the world was round. In fact, they calculated it's circumfrence with amazing accuracy.

the world being flat is a figure of speech.maybe i should have said "a time when people still explained many natural phenomenon that we can now show are perfectly natural with supernatural forces." same idea, but its not really a cornerstone of my argument anyways.

But you're right, my analogy was flawed. It's like if I offered you free insurance on your house. There's no evidence that your house will break any day soon, in fact your house could easily outlive you with little or no maintenence. But would you refuse my free insurance just because the chance is low? Of course not.

goes back to the whole fakeness of believing just so i dont go to hell. and like i said i can live a good life of my own accord and feel empowered that i dont need some invisible hand over my head ready to smite me to be a good person.


You miss my point. The existence of the universe is a bona-fide miracle. According to our physics, there is a probability of approximately 0% that this universe should exist at all. In other words, according to our physics, the universe should not exist. And unlike the argument about the unlikelyhood of life on earth being explained away by the sheer number of planets, if the universe ceased to exist, there would be no second chance. That means a virtual impossibility occured the FIRST TIME. So now tell me who's belief is more rediculous. To believe that a God created the universe? or to believe that that a billion coins flipped simultaneously all landed heads the first time around? So that's why the multiverse is one of the more commonly accepted theories. Because scientists can't explain it any other way. Because even the most committed scientist won't argue that this universe just "happened" to exist. So, that's why I believe science reinforces, rather than contradicts, belief in God.

like i said, many things in the past that were beyond our understanding and were attributed to god in the past have been fully explained. the universe is way way way too old and big to comprehend with our level of understanding. but that doesnt mean its an act of god. thats like me trying to disprove god to you by asking where he came from.



Blatantly untrue. EVERY roman historian in the area (middle east and asia minor), of a contemporary time period reinforces Jesus' existence in the sense we knew it (as in, general works, claimed works, and manner of death).

names and dates :)

Jesus spent his whole life yelling at those who looked at the letter of the law rather than the spirit. So I will follow his advice. What is the spirit of the law, for disobedient children and cheating wives? This behavior is unacceptable and should be eliminated. What is the spirit of Jesus' message? That we all sin, but belief in him and repentance will lead to forgiveness. So, you have your answer. The bible is meant to be interpreted in spirit, not literally, but neither symbolically.

so how does one know when the bible is to be taken literally and when its to be taken "in spirit"? the answer is cultural variation. thats why there are so many sects. maybe i choose to take the story of jesus and his resurrection "in spirit", because i think its a good story and people can learn from it, but i dont think it actually happened.

Not true prophets. You misinterpret what I said. No true prophet could claim to be the Son of God, only the Son of God, a liar, or a madman could make such a claim. A false prophet would fall in the 2nd category.

ok first see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

alright im not even sure what youre trying to say here, but i think its something to do with jesus being a prophet and therefore being unable to say he was the son of god when he's not? and that somehow means he's not a false prophet? ok well lets assume that that is true, dont you think the people who wrote about jesus had something to gain by him being the son of god? they had a radical new religion and they needed followers. all they had to do was look around and see what worked, like apollonius of tyana. and just out of curiosity what was he?


Aha! But was he crazy or a liar. I said "what liar dies for his lies," not "what decieved man dies for a lie."

yeah thats just it, he didnt have to be a liar, just confused or very passionate.


Yeah. They brought him before the court, which found him innocent. And then when they found he could not be convicted, they roused a mob to pressure the Govenor into executing him anyways. I think you need to read your history again...

sheesh i was just teasing you :P

...... and i mean they did get him in the end anyways :P



True. But how many people have gone to the grave swearing that they've seen elvis? EVERY ONE of Jesus' disciples wiht the exceptions of John and Judas did. And John died under house arrest in exile, so that's not much of an improvement. I mean sure, plenty of people here and there claim to see elvis.

again this only works if one believes that the bible happened exactly as it says, which is a matter of faith, not fact. and youre missing the point - its not about elvis, its that after less than fifty years we have people claiming rediculous things about him, and conflicting biographical accounts of him. i think that shows how likely it is that a collection of stories can last 2000 years and remain unchanged by human hands, especially those of corrupt states.


You seem to have missed my point about Jesus. He was either Crazy, a Liar, or telling the truth. If he was intentionally lying, he would not have died for his own lies. If he was crazy, how did he convince people to die for him, and why were others able to see his obviously delusioned miracles?

again, assuming that it happened like it says in the book, which is unlikely, why does he have to be one of those three? maybe he was a man who fervently believed in what he had to say and was willing to die for it. we have lots of those alive today.

Please do us both a favor and actually understand what I'm saying before you respond. I spent half this post repeating my original points.

likewise. i think i'll only make one more post after this. its not my goal to debunk anyones faith or offend anyone. i know its important to some people and it can be difficult for them to stay friendly while arguing about it.

but the problem here is that no matter what i wont be able to convince you of anything. your argument is based on faith, and thats not something logic can argue against. not that id want to anyways, like ive said already im happy that you can believe in whatever you want. its my beliefs that are being challenged.

on the other hand, if youre trying to argue that the bible is all fact, then that i can easily challenge, because reason says it simply isnt so. if you believe in god, great. if you believe in god and try to cite the bible as proof, thats a different story. trying to sort out which parts of the bible to take literally is christianitys biggest mistake.

[RSnow]

OK, the quoting thing is getting rediculous. ;)

1) You say being taught religion in school is wrong. I agree. BUT, the option should be there for those who want it. You see, I grew up on the other side of the coin. My school had NO classes in philosophy, theology, ethics, or any such. You can see why that would be disturbing, even if you hate those subjects, for them to be not taught in school. I got put on probation one time because I was talking to a friend of mine about God. No joke. So yeah, I don't want religion to replace science. That's as illogical as science replacing religion. As I said, science is the study of things which can be dealt with in a physical sense. Religion is the study of things which are not physical and cannot be measured by any of the sciences.

2) I want you to explain something to me. I'm not intentionally being stupid, I'm really trying to understand you here. You claim that I'm not arguing logically, yet at the same time, you argue against pascal's wager. How can this be so? You say, (and I paraphrase) "if you base your beliefs on something so simple as a mathmatical calculation, you need to look at your reasons again." Yet what choice did you leave me? You wanted me to make a purely logical argument. So here it is; pascal's wager. Of course, if you meant something else, please tell me, I'm not telepathic. You called it "fake" to believe in something to avoid going to hell. But you see, "fakeness" is an asthetic aspect and not at all logical. If you meant, "believe something that's not true to avoid going to hell," then you are falling into a variation of the logical fallacy "poisoning the well." By assuming that my beliefs are not true, then you render all logical argument meaningless. Or, you could be saying that one's beliefs should not be influenced by something like fear. But here you deviate from logic by saying "should not" whereas logically there is absolutely no flaw in doing such a thing.

3) I will now comment on the invisible unicorns. You have, indeed, made sure that I cannot prove the unicorns are there. BUT, you have also made sure that you cannot prove they're not there. So you see, in this case, we BOTH fail the burden of proof. But, God is not the same as the unicorn as he has (allegedly) altered the course of events. But, wheras I can show scientifice evidence in favor of God's existence, all you can show is that my evidence may or may not be faulty. You have not showed how science opposes God, you have merely attacked my claim that it supports God.

4) Your argument against my big bang statement is a fancy version of the multiverse theory. You have just invented a scientific phenomenon which cannot be explained, supported, defended, OR attacked. In other words, the "scientific" phenomenon you just created is not scientific at all. The funny thing is that if we rename your force "the God force," you just "scientifically" justified my belief in God LOL. Now that you created frankenstein's monster, he's not under your control. You can't prove to me that this force isn't sentient and didn't manifest in a being named Jesus.

But seriously, hilarity aside, you just broke the cardinal rule of science AND did what you claimed I did- Invented a scientific phenomenon which, although there is no sign of it nor evidence for it, exists but cannot be argued for or against.

5)I'm sorry for making my Jesus argument so confusing. It's a rather common religious argument, which goes as follows:

1)Jesus was the son of God (or he wasnt)
2)Jesus knew what he was doing/was in full physical and mental control, (or he wasn't.)

This gives us 4 combinations True-True, True-False, False-True, False-False.
We must then eliminate the second possibility, as it's illogical, by definition God must be in control of himself. So that leaves True-True, False-True, and false-False. Out of those, you have to choose one. You're obviously not going to choose the first one.

So it's the second or the third of the remaining 3. If it's the second, Jesus was a liar. That is, he knew he was not the son of God, but he pretended to be anyways. This is illogical because he would not have played out the charade so far if he were merely lying.

If it's the third, then Jesus is a madman. This leads to all sorts of problems because madness is usually illogical, and Jesus was anything but, if the Jewish legal records are to be believed. Furthermore, A madman who believed he was telling the truth would not need to fake anything. So that means that somehow, the observed miracles were not faked by him, meaning we have another problem.

You brought up the fact that he was a zealot, a fanatic. But that is merely an extension of the third category. If a man believes beyond a doubt that he is the son of God to the point where he's willing to die over it, he truly is mad.
'
6) The bible is ALWAYS to be taken in the spirit that it was written in. And, if you want to know why the spirit of the Jesus story, I can tell you right now. A note from the author:

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Somehow, I think the spirit of that one's a little hard to misinterpret...

[daemun]

1) i agree that it should be available, but thats something totally different than being offered as an "alternative" to a well established scientific theory, and at the expense of the government at that. thats against the constitution.

2) alright, in my opinion pascals wager is a piss poor logical argument. it may follow a pattern of reasoning, but that certainly doesnt make it correct. the reason i believed in god when i was younger was because of pascals wager (even though id never heard of it). as i got older i realized that by believing in something that may be false can actually do a lot of harm. how many people have been killed in gods name? furthermore, what if i spend my life worshiping god when i should have been worshipping allah or buddah or zeus? pascals wager makes no assertion to which god is the correct one, and just about any diety out there seems just as likely as any other to exist. which leads to my next point, is false belief better than honest skepticism? if there is a god, hes surely smart enough to tell when someone really believes and when someone believes just because it seems like a good idea. if the bible is true, then in some translations even jesus had his doubts (father why have you forsaken me thing). im of the opinion that if there is a god, he gave me the brain i have for a reason. healthy skepticism is better than blind acceptance.

3) No. PLEASE do not try to prove god with science, or say that science justifies his existince. it doesnt, it shouldnt, it never will. like you said yourself, religion exists to serve a purpose that science cant. gods existence, or your belief in god, should not have to rely on scientific evidence. i mean, if science can prove, or even reason for, gods existence, then whats the point of faith? wouldnt everyone believe? i mean even if belief was the most reasonable choice, then why would god give us the free will to choose to believe or not believe, like it says he does in the book? im sorry, but science basically says that the bible isnt fact, that much of what we explained through god can now be explained through science, and that if god exists there is zero scientific proof. take your beliefs and believe em to your hearts content, but leave science out of it. im not gonna argue these points because there are people out there way smarter than me who have already proved it.

4) its not a multiverse theory, all im saying is that some things are currently beyond our understanding (although stephen hawking probably understands in perfectly well). over the next couple decades im sure we'll get a more concrete theory on the origins of the universe.

5) your reasoning doesnt follow in that it assumes one outcome to a given circumstance when there are many. for example, i know a lot of people who are "mad" (or zealots) who are perfectly coherent and some who are actually quite intelligent. but i dont think its any of those things.

think about it, there was this great new religion that was accesable to everyone. thats totally different from the traditional dogma of the time. you didnt have to be nobility, you didnt have to be a scholar, you didnt have to be rich, anyone could live a life that was close to god. obviously this is going to upset the people in power a little, maybe enough to discourage people from following it. but a messiah certainly changes that. they picked jesus, they could have easily picked apollonius. remember that the bible was put together by humans - its like an anthology of what was being taught in the churches of that time, thats why there are some gospels that arent in the bible. the stories in the bible were chosen to foster belief. and theres nothing wrong or subvertive about that, unless you try to argue that everything in the bible is cold hard truth.

6) to me "in spirit" sounds like an excuse for "currently cultural acceptable". its a mechanism that allows you to pick which parts you want to take literally and which parts you dont. whats the spirit for exodus 21:7? exodus 35:2? leviticus 18:22? how about corinthians 11:14, i mean, why is jesus always shown as having long hair?

your using the "in spirit" thing to justify your interpretation, but the thing is it justifies any interpretation. what you think is "in spirit" may be different for any number of people.


you mentioned jewish legal records at one point, do you have the name or author of a particular text?

the main thing though - you cant prove god with science. you cant even make a good argument for god with science. you shouldnt have to, you shouldnt want to. its a faith based system, faith requires no reason. believe because you believe and thats it. the second you try to use science to justify your beliefs youre doing two things - imposing on other peoples freedoms, and building a faith/science house of cards.

[RSnow]

1) we agree on something.

2) To quote you, "im of the opinion that if there is a god, he gave me the brain i have for a reason." So when that brain tells you "I dont want to piss off the ruler of the universe," why do you ignore its reasoning?
You are so wrapped up by the assumption that God and logic are at odds that you aren't even hearing what I'm saying. Look, on one hand, you argue that the only reasonable decisions are the ones supported by logic. On the other, you say that a religious decision based on logic is "fake." Make up your mind, and do it without assuming that I'm going to argue that logic has no place in faith. Logic and faith go hand in hand, and a decision can be made by both reasons. So stop assuming that I'm a practitioner of blind faith because I'm not. Faith in someone or something can be based on a logical conclusion of that thing.

3) So, rather than argue against the scientific data I have acquired, you instead make a vague appeal to people's sentiments. "Science should not be able to prove God's existence." That's BS, plain and simple. Science can prove the existence of anything which influences our universe. So if God is real and influences our world, we can measure that influence and look for God. But Science cannot prove the nonexistence of something which does not influence our world. Heck, are you saying that if God existed and came down to earth and caused our planet to spin the other way so the sun rose in the west, are you saying that science could not measure that change? Honestly? That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard, OF COURSE science can measure God whenever he interacts with our universe. And if by waving his hand he could change all physical laws, science would tell us that there's a pretty convincing trend going. And don't bother saying that trends don't constitute proof, because science is all about trends.

Oh, and saying "If science could prove God's existence, wouldn't everyone believe," you prove nothing except that people are irrational. I'd be happy to agree with that one...

4) OK, your theory is even more absurd than the multiverse theory. To paraphrase what you said, "I can't explain why science shows the existence of God, but somebody in the future will come along and prove me right." Your argument is based on the fact that this is one of those instances where all known physics happens to be wrong, but you can offer no proof WHATSOEVER that any of my physics is incorrect. All you can say is "well, maybe all the scientists on earth are just wrong, and future will vindicate me." Well, sorry, but it's just as likely that the future will vindicate me, and on top of that you just committed the ultimate sin in science: you just created a theory which cannot be proven one way or another, based on 0 evidence.

5) So, who made this story up. You argue that the church did. But you have clearly not done your research, or you would know that the account in the bible was written several years after his death by Jesus' closest companions. You would also know that EVERY AUTHOR of any book of the new testament died painfully under torture and persecution, swearing that every word in that book was true. So, what could inspire a man to lay down his life for a lie he created?

So just tell me, if you knew that the bible was a lie, and someone threatened to kill you painfully if you didn't admit it, what force would compel you to martyr yourself for a lie?

6) OK, RSnow's quick guide to reading the bible in the spirit it was written (and the bible should ALWAYS be read in the spirit it was written). First, read the passage AND the paragraph around it. Second, understand what the author was trying to say. Third, take into account cultural references.

Exodus 21- OK... It's because, during that timeperiod, male slaves/servants were required to do manual labor while the females were not. Therefore, a male slave could earn enough in 6 years to recompensate their master for the amount he paid for them. A female slave could not, so she would not be set free after 6 years.

Exodus 35- Jesus specifically comments on this commandment. I'd suggest you read what was written so that you can understand before you draw analysis.

Leviticus- Do NOT go there. I am not of what you'd call conventional sexuality either, yet I believe. Nobody is denied Heaven for who he was born, only for what actions he committed. And even should anyone do such a thing, he may be forgiven. In fact, EVERYONE has broken one of the rules in the bible. So we're all on the same page. And Jesus tells us that we may all be saved, regardless of which of those rules we break.

Corinthians 11- You do not know the culture, or you would know that a woman covering her head was a sign of respect, and that a man letting his hair grow unkempt was a sign of disgrace. As for the artists, I will say it's just artistic lisence. I'm not going to try to explain why they make his hair long any more than I'll try to explain why picasso's people are all flat and irregular.


Lastly:
"its a faith based system, faith requires no reason. believe because you believe and thats it. the second you try to use science to justify your beliefs youre doing two things - imposing on other peoples freedoms, and building a faith/science house of cards."

Looks like we better tell Copernicus and Galileo that they were imposing on other's freedoms and building a house of cards. You are clearly mistaken, because the ONLY thing science can be used for is to justify those of your beliefs which are justifiable. The whole point of science is that beliefs which are not justified will not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and the beliefs which are justified will. We will let the audience decide. Who is more scientific in their beliefs? The guy who says, "Science us that the creation of the universe went like this," or the guy who says "I don't know why science said the creation of the universe went like that, but it must be wrong and future scientists will vindicate me."

Here is the main problem I have. You ASSUME that "faith requires no reason." What you describe is blind faith, something else entirely. If God were a sponsor of Blind faith, he would not have sent Jesus or done miracles, at most jesus would have come and said, "I'm God, believe in me" then walked away. But faith can often be based on logic. For example, marriage is a commitment of faith. People believe that the other person cares about them and will try to make the marriage work. You can't prove that the marriage will work out, but that doesn't mean that you have no good reason to believe the marriage will work. So, there is a difference between faith and blind faith. Blind faith is just what you described, a decision with no basis. But decisions of faith can be reinforced by strong reasonings or strong logic.

[Burnova]

5) So, who made this story up. You argue that the church did. But you have clearly not done your research, or you would know that the account in the bible was written several years after his death by Jesus' closest companions.




Don't make me get involved. :-D

[daemun]

last post. this is getting into semantics, at which point an internet debate is over in my books.

the bit about the physical constants doesnt prove gods existance.

youre using the bible to prove itself. thats like me saying the events of beowulf actually happened because its in a book and its old.

alright, god is infallible, correct? the bible is the word of god is it not? so then the bible is infallible. if the bible is not infallible then at least parts of it must not be the word of god. you have to realize that you are making a choice to interepret the jesus story as being real and other parts as being meant to be taken figuratively, but thats an arbitrary decision.

about the church writing the bible, thats not what i claimed. the bible is an anthology of stories that were being commonly used in early christian churches. at some point a "committee" of sorts had to sit down together and decide what they wanted in their codex, and what they didnt. you can say that jesus' buddies wrote it, but no other historical reference corroborates that. i feel sorry for the poor suckers who wrote gospels and didnt make the cut :(


one other thing, and it may not be my place to say this, but dont feel you have to make excuses about your sexuality just because of the bible. seriously, its not a sin, if there is a god he doesnt care. you shouldnt have to feel guilty or call your sexuality a shortcoming just because you chose to be a christian. the verse in leviticus is bull****, just like a bunch of the other verses, some of which ive listed. if you take one thing away from our debate i hope its this paragraph :)

[RSnow]

last post. this is getting into semantics, at which point an internet debate is over in my books.

the bit about the physical constants doesnt prove gods existance.

youre using the bible to prove itself. thats like me saying the events of beowulf actually happened because its in a book and its old.

alright, god is infallible, correct? the bible is the word of god is it not? so then the bible is infallible. if the bible is not infallible then at least parts of it must not be the word of god. you have to realize that you are making a choice to interepret the jesus story as being real and other parts as being meant to be taken figuratively, but thats an arbitrary decision.

about the church writing the bible, thats not what i claimed. the bible is an anthology of stories that were being commonly used in early christian churches. at some point a "committee" of sorts had to sit down together and decide what they wanted in their codex, and what they didnt. you can say that jesus' buddies wrote it, but no other historical reference corroborates that. i feel sorry for the poor suckers who wrote gospels and didnt make the cut :(


one other thing, and it may not be my place to say this, but dont feel you have to make excuses about your sexuality just because of the bible. seriously, its not a sin, if there is a god he doesnt care. you shouldnt have to feel guilty or call your sexuality a shortcoming just because you chose to be a christian. the verse in leviticus is bull****, just like a bunch of the other verses, some of which ive listed. if you take one thing away from our debate i hope its this paragraph :)

1) I'll note you did not refute any of my points regarding scientific research. IF there's anything you take away from this, I hope it's the fact that science/logic and religion are not at odds. Just a vague statement "it doesn't prove the existence of God." You're right, it doesnt. It just sets the odds at about a trillion to one in my favor. Because, if you believe science, and I hope you do, the best of today's science says the odds of the universe existing at all without help are less than one in a trillion. If you think those are good odds, I'd suggest you go play the lottery with your life's savings.

2)Where did I use the bible to prove itself? I can assure you I had no intention of any such thing, so we must have a misunderstanding somewhere... All I said was that when cultural references are taken into account, the bible makes much more sense.

3) And by definition, the bible is an "anthology of stories." Nobody will argue there. But the question is whether the stories are true or not. I'm saying that the authors of these stories all died swearing the stories are true. The fact that some stories are left out is irrelevant. Consider the newspaper. They edit out hundreds of stories a day, but that doesn't make the stories they do write about false.

You are right tho that no other historian records Jesus' miracles, only that he claimed to be the son of god an was executed by the Romans somewhere around AD 36.

4) Ah yes, I thought someone would bring that up. This is America! Everyone is special in their own special ways. It's alright to be different and all that. Everyone's view is acceptable, as long as you're not christian, communist/facist, racist or sexist. All part of America's attempt at self-affirmation that they are in fact the freest and most civilized nation on earth. Not to mention the nation with the most self-esteem points. So we can all walk away feeling great about ourselves, just the way we are, is that it?

Sadly, this line of thought is quite flawed. For one thing, studies show that those with low self-esteem are actually more successful because on average they work much harder. And there are no known benefits to having good self-esteem. So, we have been conditioning ourselves and our children to NOT strive to be better, smarter or more knowledgeable. We're letting ourselves drink, drug, TV, and internet ourselves until our economy is shot, the environment is collapsing, and most of us can't compete with people outside our country. But we make ourselves feel good anyways by telling ourselves we are good.

Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses." I'm going to say that self-affirmation is the opiate of the masses. Welcome to the Matrix. So now, pick a pill. Walk back into a world where you can tell yourself that everything's OK and that you don't need to change. Or walk forward, see challenges for what they are, and maybe even see challenges where there aren't any, and fight them anyways, and perhaps become a better person for it. But until we admit that we are all imperfect, we're not going anywhere.

@ Burnova- Please share your opinion. I've been waiting for your quite educated opinion for some time now. It'll be good to have some new food for thought...

[Burnova]

I was just commenting on the statement you made about all the New Testament people being killed for something they wrote....

Most of the new testament's authorship is still debating about religious and secular scholars to this day, even to the point that many think the Gospels weren't written by those they are credited to, but rather came much later.

Besides that, I haven't really been interested in much that is being said, as it is basically semantic jabs at one another trying to wit another into some philosophical logic trap.

[phr34kboy]

Regarding your latest post:

1) On the matter of science, that the physical constants are what they are proves neither that there is nor isn't a God of any particular denomination. Least of all the Abrahamic God, who, if the scriptures have the slightest modicum of truth, is a bit hung up on micromanaging. Take a peep at the anthropic principle. There is nothing at all astonishing about our universe existing the way it is, simply because if it existed any other way, the conditions wouldn't be right for US to exist to ponder the matter.

2) No dispute. The switching back and forth between "loving thy neighbour as thyself" and "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him" makes a good deal more sense when you take into account the context in which it was written. However, taking all that and wrapping it up in the same book and basing one's morality on it pretty much justifies anything. I personally find the Humanist Manifesto from the American Humanist Association a lot more believable and robust as a basis for ethical behaviour.

3) The Bible most certainly is a collection of stories written by a lot of people swearing it's all true. But however much they swear, that doesn't change the fact that the Bible is self-contradictory, e.g. Where'd Eve come from? Which is the right account of Jesus' lineage? As such, every statement which hasn't already been proven blatantly wrong (e.g. value of pi, the entirety of Genesis, possibly most of Exodus, etc.) is of pretty dubious credibility.

4) Not from US. Can't really comment, but from the outside looking in, you people don't seem terribly short on self-esteem. Well, ignoring for a minute that little statistic I saw somewhere about the best selling book category in the US being self-help. Statistics, meh.

If you really want to test the strength of your basis for belief, I recommend taking a peep at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science forums. They are exceedingly civil, and it might be interesting for a believer to chat with a fundie turned atheist.

And by the way, just out of curiousity, are college students in the US particularly religious? Coz I was browsing through http://russellsteapot.com and found this little gem:

Jeremiah 25: 27 "Then tell them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you."

[Burnova]

... not for what you said or how you said it, but for providing me another bookmark to look at daily. I'm referring to the blog of course. It is not often that such a wonderful read can be found while cruising around the pox forums.

*Note: This does not mean I have read everything existing on your blog to date, or agree entirely with everything I've read thus far, just that I appreciate the new material.

[daemun]

hadnt heard of richard dawkins, thanks for mentioning his site. pulled this off the forums there.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23701

same debate, better debaters :P

[RSnow]

Regarding your latest post:

1) On the matter of science, that the physical constants are what they are proves neither that there is nor isn't a God of any particular denomination. Least of all the Abrahamic God, who, if the scriptures have the slightest modicum of truth, is a bit hung up on micromanaging. Take a peep at the anthropic principle. There is nothing at all astonishing about our universe existing the way it is, simply because if it existed any other way, the conditions wouldn't be right for US to exist to ponder the matter.

2) No dispute. The switching back and forth between "loving thy neighbour as thyself" and "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him" makes a good deal more sense when you take into account the context in which it was written. However, taking all that and wrapping it up in the same book and basing one's morality on it pretty much justifies anything. I personally find the Humanist Manifesto from the American Humanist Association a lot more believable and robust as a basis for ethical behaviour.

3) The Bible most certainly is a collection of stories written by a lot of people swearing it's all true. But however much they swear, that doesn't change the fact that the Bible is self-contradictory, e.g. Where'd Eve come from? Which is the right account of Jesus' lineage? As such, every statement which hasn't already been proven blatantly wrong (e.g. value of pi, the entirety of Genesis, possibly most of Exodus, etc.) is of pretty dubious credibility.

4) Not from US. Can't really comment, but from the outside looking in, you people don't seem terribly short on self-esteem. Well, ignoring for a minute that little statistic I saw somewhere about the best selling book category in the US being self-help. Statistics, meh.

If you really want to test the strength of your basis for belief, I recommend taking a peep at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science forums. They are exceedingly civil, and it might be interesting for a believer to chat with a fundie turned atheist.

And by the way, just out of curiousity, are college students in the US particularly religious? Coz I was browsing through http://russellsteapot.com and found this little gem:

Jeremiah 25: 27 "Then tell them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you."

1) Not quite. It's like I find a computer. I go to Dell and say, could you have built this computer, and they say "yes." Then I go to my kid brother and ask him the same question. He says, the chance of me doing so is about 1 in a trillion. So, who is more likely to have built the computer? Not a proof, but pretty close to one. Most people bypass this with the multiverse theory, which says that my brother may indeed have had a trillion tries. But as I explained, that theory is quite unscientific.

So of course you can say, "If the computer was not made, we could not ponder who made it," but that still doesn't solve your problem that, when asked what created the universe, physicists say "not physics"

2) Do you have context for that verse, please?

3) Did you honestly ask where eve came from? honestly? Have you ever read Genesis? Ever? Please actually read the verses you're quoting before you quote them to me.

Oh, and think over your points before you post them. The value of pi? Dude, you realize that you just requested an irrational number to be put into the bible, right? When you figure out how to do that, let me know. Particularly since Archimedes (The man who first came up with a good method to estimate pi), was born 800 years after Solomon. Great plan, you should patent that one.

Oh yeah, and for the Jesus lineage, I'm very glad you noticed that they carefully note that Jesus was NOT the son of Joseph. One of those lineages (the one in luke, I believe) traces MARY's line, to show that Jesus was descended from David BY BLOOD and therfore fulfilled the prophecy. The other lineage (Matthew), shows that his heritage (passed through the father, adopted or real) was of David, ie that he had some legal right to being of David's kingdom/heritage, also part of prophecy.

4) Self-help is, unfortunately, just a fancy version of self-affirmation. People get to say, well, of course I don't do _____ well, but that's just because I don't know the "tricks" yet. What self-help really says to people is "anyone can do this thing, you just need to know a few tricks." So I'm sitting on the couch with a beer in hand watching the game, and a commercial comes up saying, "buy this book, and it will tell you how to be successful." and you say, "oh, it's not because I'm lazy that my life sux, it's because I don't have the book." See, self-help books are just fancy shortcuts. They're for people who want to be good at computers without ACTUALLY knowing what they're doing, or want to be excellent with stocks without any experience OR any understanding of the economy.

5) The dawkins site is quite interesting. Unfortunately he makes the assumption that religion and science are at odds.

For any who believe such things, there is an excellent book, "The language of God." Written by Francis Collins. For those of you who don't know, he is quite unlike Mr. Dawkins in that he's one of the world's most widely recognized scientist, considered the world's foremost expert in biology. He is expected to win a Nobel Prize in Biology as the head of the Human Genome Project.

I'm sure that if you believe that science and God are clearly at odds, and no argument can be made for their unity, you'll have no trouble at all explaining how the world's best geneticist can believe in a God.

6) I love how people who don't understand religion make up so many straw dummies which they tear apart and claim to have proved that religion is flawed. I could say, "evolution is like saying that my computer built itself, which is impossible," but I would only be showcasing my own ignorance and stupidity, rather than that of evolution. A tip, if you're going to argue with me over the bible, I'd suggest you read the thing first, and then spend some time thinking about it or doing research. Or atleast read the chapter you're quoting. That way I won't have to answer questions like "Where'd Eve come from?"

Aside from the obvious fact that a God who created a universe, and a man, would have no trouble conjuring a woman out of mid-air, Genesis 2 says "Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man." As I said, please read the thing you're quoting before you do so, or you'll end up like those poor fools who stuck up posters of part of Psalms 53:1.

[Ominus]

1) Its more like you have found a computer, and then since computers cant make themselves you assume a God exists that must have made it from nothing.

Belief in God is just a way for people to claim to be all knowing. Science is the collection of things we know. Religion explains things we do not, or cannot know. Like I don't know how the universe came to being. Maybe one day science will have a more concrete explanation.

[Burnova]

1)

Oh, and think over your points before you post them. The value of pi? Dude, you realize that you just requested an irrational number to be put into the bible, right? When you figure out how to do that, let me know. Particularly since Archimedes (The man who first came up with a good method to estimate pi), was born 800 years after Solomon. Great plan, you should patent that one.



About every ancient culture around the time the number 3 was thought to be Pi by the Jews had a much closer estimation. I'd compiled a list for a class somewhere on my computer, but I am having trouble locating it. (Warning: Don't give your college papers witty names that you think you'll remember later on... you won't.)

If we want to look at contradictions that are uneasy to explain...

Compare
1) 2nd Kings 8:26 - 2 Chronicles 22:2

2) Gen 22:1 - James 1:13

Also
1) Whales are not fish: Matt 12:40

And one of my favorite that people don't seem to ever get...
1) Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

How exactly can this be done in any literal sense? The mountain would have to be super high, the world would have to be flat, and all the kindgoms of the world would have to be about 2 miles from the mountain...

Sounds like an allegory to me.

And Rsnow, i went back and read some of the discussion, and i have a very interesting explanation for why the writers of the Bible would kill themselves over something they "made up". I have to go to work now, but i'll give you a clue... Time Travel and alternate universes!!! (Don't think about the clue much, its a bit abstract)

[RSnow]

About every ancient culture around the time the number 3 was thought to be Pi by the Jews had a much closer estimation. I'd compiled a list for a class somewhere on my computer, but I am having trouble locating it. (Warning: Don't give your college papers witty names that you think you'll remember later on... you won't.)

If we want to look at contradictions that are uneasy to explain...

Compare
1) 2nd Kings 8:26 - 2 Chronicles 22:2

2) Gen 22:1 - James 1:13

Also
1) Whales are not fish: Matt 12:40

And one of my favorite that people don't seem to ever get...
1) Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

How exactly can this be done in any literal sense? The mountain would have to be super high, the world would have to be flat, and all the kindgoms of the world would have to be about 2 miles from the mountain...

Sounds like an allegory to me.

And Rsnow, i went back and read some of the discussion, and i have a very interesting explanation for why the writers of the Bible would kill themselves over something they "made up". I have to go to work now, but i'll give you a clue... Time Travel and alternate universes!!! (Don't think about the clue much, its a bit abstract)

Nice to hear from you burnova...

So, as to your verses:
1) 2 Chronicles-Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

2 Kings-Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in
Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.

Umm, I'm still on painkillers since I had some teeth and other stuff removed yesterday, but aren't these 2 verses virtually identical?

2) Genisis 22-"Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied."

James 1-"When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;"

Tempt and test are 2 different things. To tempt someone is to try to lead them astray. To test someone is to see what a person is willing/capable of doing. If God tested abraham to see if he was willing to follow him. If he had tempted Abraham not to follow him, he would have had to try to convince Abraham not to obey his own commandment, which did not happen here.

3) Matt 12-The destinction between fish and whales was created in modern times. There is no contradiction if the definitions of words was changed after the bible was written.

Furthermore, I may be mistaken, but I do not believe the bible ever says a whale swallows Jonah, in the same way it doesn't say that Eve ate an apple but rather a fruit. Artistic lisence on the part of children's bible illustrators.

4) Got me there with the devil's mountain. Although I would ask you this:

let's pretend that you believe the rest of the bible is true and that this contradiction is the only thing impedign your faith. It would seem to me that if you're willing to accept a demon endowed with supernatural powers, you would have no trouble at all believing that he could show a vision of the Kingdoms of Earth, mountain or no mountain.

5) You've got me hook, line, and sinker with your alternate universe theory. I could never miss a discussion as potentially interesting as that. I will however repeat my caution that multiverses and/or time travel are not scientific theories (time travel might be one day, but not today), and, while good for speculation, and quite fun topics for hypothesisng, are really not very convincing arguments at all.

[RSnow]

1) Its more like you have found a computer, and then since computers cant make themselves you assume a God exists that must have made it from nothing.

Belief in God is just a way for people to claim to be all knowing. Science is the collection of things we know. Religion explains things we do not, or cannot know. Like I don't know how the universe came to being. Maybe one day science will have a more concrete explanation.

There are 4 possibilities- someone made it, it always existed, it appeared from nowhere, or it created itself. (If you can think of another, please let me know)

Now, Science does not admit that the universe has always existed. Nor does religion. Therefore, I think it's safe to discard that option. The same goes for creating itself, neither science nor religion allows for a self-creator.

So that leaves 2 options: someone made the universe, and "It appeared from nowhere"

Now, scientists say that the probability of the universe creating itself is virtually zero. Religion does not disagree. So, that only leaves us one option, right?

So yes, I would say that the universe being created is the most likely option.

The thing I will argue is that it was not created from nothing. God, if he exists, clearly possesses an infinite amount of energy. Einstein tells us that energy and matter are interchangable, so I believe the universe is a part of God, converted from some type of energy into matter.

Scientists won't argue this point, in fact that's what they believe as well. The only question is whether this energy is sentient or not. However, science tells us that that if this energy were not sentient, the probability of it being stable rather than volatile is virtually zero. And if the energy were volatile by nature, the universe would not exist.

[Burnova]

Reading the versus you've replied with reminded me that don't use the original KJV... My apologies. The newer texts attempt to hide some of these contradictions by altering the text to match the intention of the modern church.

My text reads:
2 Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Genesis 22:1
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

And also, i told you not to think about the clue or take it literally, its VERY abstract. It has nothing to do with alternate universes or time travel. I unfortunately am heading out once again, but will edit this post later to include my explanation.

[phr34kboy]

Scientists won't argue this point, in fact that's what they believe as well. The only question is whether this energy is sentient or not. However, science tells us that that if this energy were not sentient, the probability of it being stable rather than volatile is virtually zero. And if the energy were volatile by nature, the universe would not exist.

I've a Masters degree in Physics that demands that I point out this palaver of "sentient energy" is absolute bollocks not even contemplated in pre-university physics. Unless of course, you could do a little reading on nucelosynthesis and point out to me at exactly what point sentience was required to get from quark to, say, titanium.

I pointed out previously that the Genesis version of creation is total tripe, with all the credibility of Athena popping out of Zeus' head, and you refute this with no more than an ad hominem attack, assuming that I haven't read Genesis and ignoring the simple fact that it's really not that hard to understand that Genesis is simply wrong about Creation. Here's a happy link summarising why:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13695-evolution-myths-the-theory-is-wrong-because-the-bible-is-inerrant.html

There are two points in which current science must concede ignorance and can only offer some plausible hypotheses. One is the birth of the universe. The other is abiogenesis.

For lack of a universe to observe being born, I'm not sure a solid answer will be found to the first, but I suppose that's what keeps cosmologists in employment. Stay tuned to the latest findings of the LHC. The second is the sexiest topic in modern biology, and whoever cracks it will be immortalised forever in the history of science. As such, one can expect competition to be fierce. Be that as it may, even this is one of those problems in science that can be solved with enough time and money.

I will not debate you on theological points because I simply have not the time to waste poring over a text failing even the most basic requirements of intellectual rigour. But I would ask that you exercise said rigour before putting words in the mouths of scientists.

[Geoscience]

Don't call the grammar police on me.

I'm currently studying law and it fits nicely with my views of religion.

Norms (unwritten rules in a society is the best explanation i can give as im not sure of the english word) exist everywhere. Different kinds, different shapes, for different purposes.

That being said, my belief is that religion was a way to control/lead masses. As stated earlier in this thread religion might've been a way of science to explain the unexplianable. That religion told people what to do and not to. If you were a pretty clever person and/or several of you disliked the savage nature of their kind, introducing such a thing as religion would be nice.

Those texts (and no, not every word or all) are in my opinion what we today consider a book filled with paragraphs telling us what's right or wrong. Hence, why i consider them political tools to improve human standards on a grand scale.

Control? Some religions tell you to worship your god, other to fear it. In my eyes it is all the same, only a different turn to it. Texts, songs, etc were a medium that spread these teachings across borders.

Bottom line is although religion was definetely a good thing happening to human beings hundreds of years ago (my opinion, keep it in mind), but has been abused quite a lot. In todays society we don't really need the teachings as we've got the knowledge of science, laws and unwritten rules (norms) that are what religion is, only better. Just like religion, law/rules/norms can and will continously be abused, but not as much as several religions have, that's for sure.

I do believe in something such as karma. The mysteries of big time luck, miracles etc etc. Desitny perhaps? But not in something as supersticious as gods and the like. I'm also not the kind of guy that refers to old texts on how to live my life. It rubs me the wrong way.

[RSnow]

I've a Masters degree in Physics that demands that I point out this palaver of "sentient energy" is absolute bollocks not even contemplated in pre-university physics. Unless of course, you could do a little reading on nucelosynthesis and point out to me at exactly what point sentience was required to get from quark to, say, titanium.

I pointed out previously that the Genesis version of creation is total tripe, with all the credibility of Athena popping out of Zeus' head, and you refute this with no more than an ad hominem attack, assuming that I haven't read Genesis and ignoring the simple fact that it's really not that hard to understand that Genesis is simply wrong about Creation. Here's a happy link summarising why:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13695-evolution-myths-the-theory-is-wrong-because-the-bible-is-inerrant.html

There are two points in which current science must concede ignorance and can only offer some plausible hypotheses. One is the birth of the universe. The other is abiogenesis.

For lack of a universe to observe being born, I'm not sure a solid answer will be found to the first, but I suppose that's what keeps cosmologists in employment. Stay tuned to the latest findings of the LHC. The second is the sexiest topic in modern biology, and whoever cracks it will be immortalised forever in the history of science. As such, one can expect competition to be fierce. Be that as it may, even this is one of those problems in science that can be solved with enough time and money.

I will not debate you on theological points because I simply have not the time to waste poring over a text failing even the most basic requirements of intellectual rigour. But I would ask that you exercise said rigour before putting words in the mouths of scientists.

You completely misinterpreted my statement. I said the question is whether the energy is Sentient (religion) or the energy is not (science). I did not say that scientists debate this question, I said that OUR debate is over this question. Unless you'd like to try to persuade me that the creation of the universe was NOT the product of a massive amount of energy?

What I did say is that scientists cannot currently explain why the universe exists. The physics of the big bang is beyond the ability of any scientist to explain, similarly, the existence of life is also beyond the ability of our science to explain. And sure, anyone can point to the "science of tomorrow," but that is really a pointless argument as there is no way to prove it either way.


"text failing even the most basic requirements of intellectual rigour"-

Very well, a challenge. I challenge you to, if you can, write a book on the creation of the universe which would be understandable by nomad farmers millenia before the birth of christ, today's scientists, and the scientists of millenia from today.

Can you do it? I think not.

Try saying to Moses "In the beginning, there was the big bang. At one point, the universe was really sub atomic size before it exploded outwards. And it was all composed of Hydrogen, which in the sun was transformed into Helium and other elements through nuclear fusion."

Or imagine talking to a scientist in the year 5000 AD. He would probably refer you back to his 3rd grade science teacher to put your pathetic scientific explanations in their place.

It is this same foolishness which gets people saying "OMG, the bible is wrong because Solomon's table says that pi is 3!!!" If the purpose of the bible were to record pi accurately, I'm sure that it could be expected to get the figure more or less correct. (although how you'd expect an irrational number to be written down is beyond me). Similarly, if the purpose of the bible were to be a science textbook, I'm sure your concerns about the bible's scientific accuracy would be relevant. But neither of those is the purpose of the bible.

[Zuraith]

O m n i c o r n

[19gerben91]

What I did say is that scientists cannot currently explain why the universe exists. The physics of the big bang is beyond the ability of any scientist to explain, similarly, the existence of life is also beyond the ability of our science to explain. And sure, anyone can point to the "science of tomorrow," but that is really a pointless argument as there is no way to prove it either way.

why does there have to be a "why" ?

why why ?

[Burnova]

(Not letting Gerb have last word)

Rsnow: Do you at all care to know my explanation?

[Jellybabe]

I'm a philosophy student and it really annoys me that as part of my course a have to study philosophy of religion. In my opinion religion is phobosopy not philosophy, and if you don't know what that means (which you probably don't because I made it up) I'll give you a clue Philo = love, Sophia = knowledge. I'm sure you can work the rest out..

[19gerben91]

(Not letting Gerb have last word)

Rsnow: Do you at all care to know my explanation?

What is wrong whit my words ?
do they stare at you ?
whit their i's ?

[Fallis]

Basicaly youtube semarins <<<< this will creep u out it explains relgion and what religion realy is !!! heres a link to 1 of the videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BToUxSi-QwA&feature=related (part 1 of 3 )

( i advize u to not watch this when ur high coz u will trip ur balls off )

[Andronidas]

and just so people know where i personally stand. im not sure whether or not some greater being exists. i think its fairly obvious that science shows an indisputable amount of proof that many claims, former and current, of various religions, are due to natural phenomenon and not divine intervention. if there is a greater being, i think its just as likely to be a flying spaghetti monster as an omni benevolent jesus god ghost, but even more likely is that there probably simply isnt.

The flying spaghetti monster is real, and anyone who says otherwise are going to hell. I, of course - a true believer - will go to heaven, where the benevolent fsm (flying spaghetti monster) created a beer volcano and a stripper factory.

RAmen

[RSnow]

(Not letting Gerb have last word)

Rsnow: Do you at all care to know my explanation?

Of course.

[Burnova]

There is a reason that these writers so adamantly and bravely died for their words, even if they didn't truly believe the words they were writing had a literal truth. Before I give you my idea, I want to ask you a related but seemingly trivial question; have you ever read "The Plague" by Albert Camus?

[daemun]

burnova, i want to hear what you have to say. im familiar with camus, but not "the plague".

[RSnow]

There is a reason that these writers so adamantly and bravely died for their words, even if they didn't truly believe the words they were writing had a literal truth. Before I give you my idea, I want to ask you a related but seemingly trivial question; have you ever read "The Plague" by Albert Camus?

I have read a summary, I have not read the whole thing. I believe I understand what you are saying.

You believe (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) that these witnesses are self-decieved, and that they cling to their faith to prevent the mental anrarchy which would inevitably follow the shattering of their core beliefs?

Ironic, as I used this argument earlier against people who refused to believe in a God.

This, however, does not fit the profile of these early apostles. If you'll remember, they had already allowed their fundamental beliefs to become shattered once already by accepting the "heretical" beliefs of the Christ. If anything, these people must normally have been less entrenched in their comfort zones than most.

Furthermore, Camus writes about how difficult it is to get people involved in a cause and disturbed from their daily routines. I'd say that it would therefore have taken a tremendous action on the part of Jesus to move those early believers. This action could not have been faked, as the disciples would have initially been privvy to any charlatin's trick and would therefore have remained unconvinced.

[Burnova]

It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone when they write my own (incorrectly, I might add) for me.

The Plague is a story about how lives are changed in response to a sickness that sweeps over a small population. Workers, doctors, criminals, everyone's life is affected as they attempt to live with this Plague around them.

Perhaps instead of this, I should have mentioned the Time Machine, something most people have read. The original time machine follows a Time Traveler into the distant future where he meets two races of humans, has an adventure, figures out some things about them, and then returns home.

The Time Machine story is more than just a fun adventure, but actually a commentary on how the working class will not always be victim to the oppressive nature of the upper class (Yes, Wells was a socialist). He did little to hide this interpretation, however; as he constantly makes reference to these ideas in the story.

The Plague, on the other hand, makes no reference to its potential as a metaphor for what life must have been like for those who lived under Nazi occupation.

What does all this have to do with the writers of the Bible?

I want to you to pretend you were a social activist in a time when anything you did that went against the state would immediately result in your death, especially if you were not of the state's religion. Now I want you to attempt to get your message across. The "Prophecies" of the end-times were not prophecies at all, they were stories much like "The Plague" and "Time Machine", they were complex metaphors that were actually about their own time. They disagreed with the social and political practices of those rulers and wrote about how those men were the overconfident dragons that would destroy the world when the spoke, and that only doing something else would save humanity.

So while their writings might not have been divinely inspired rooted in a supreme power, they will still be willing to die for them, because they do believe in them... just not the same way you do.

[Uccisore]

I'm a philosophy student and it really annoys me that as part of my course a have to study philosophy of religion. In my opinion religion is phobosopy not philosophy, and if you don't know what that means (which you probably don't because I made it up) I'll give you a clue Philo = love, Sophia = knowledge. I'm sure you can work the rest out..

You should get used to it, because atheistic philosophy has been slowly dying for the past 20 years. Heck, even Antony Flew converted. If you aren't studying the philosophy of believers, you're either stuck in the 19th century, or you're stuck in Post-Modern anti-philosophy. There's very little else left.

Anyways, as to the historicity of the New Testament, and the over all case for the truth of Christianity, it's very, very strong, and believers shouldn't have anything to feel bad about. This is the best time to be an intellectual Christian since...probably the 1700's. In fact, the very nature of the currently popular criticisms of the New Testament are proof that it's been pretty much validated. All that's left are people who won't believe in things like miracles no matter what you tell them, or what the evidence is, and there's no purpose in debating it with them. Or, the misinformed.

[Burnova]

Bump because i hate when teachers read a paper and don't write anything on it.

[RSnow]

It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone when they write my own (incorrectly, I might add) for me.

The Plague is a story about how lives are changed in response to a sickness that sweeps over a small population. Workers, doctors, criminals, everyone's life is affected as they attempt to live with this Plague around them.

Perhaps instead of this, I should have mentioned the Time Machine, something most people have read. The original time machine follows a Time Traveler into the distant future where he meets two races of humans, has an adventure, figures out some things about them, and then returns home.

The Time Machine story is more than just a fun adventure, but actually a commentary on how the working class will not always be victim to the oppressive nature of the upper class (Yes, Wells was a socialist). He did little to hide this interpretation, however; as he constantly makes reference to these ideas in the story.

The Plague, on the other hand, makes no reference to its potential as a metaphor for what life must have been like for those who lived under Nazi occupation.

What does all this have to do with the writers of the Bible?

I want to you to pretend you were a social activist in a time when anything you did that went against the state would immediately result in your death, especially if you were not of the state's religion. Now I want you to attempt to get your message across. The "Prophecies" of the end-times were not prophecies at all, they were stories much like "The Plague" and "Time Machine", they were complex metaphors that were actually about their own time. They disagreed with the social and political practices of those rulers and wrote about how those men were the overconfident dragons that would destroy the world when the spoke, and that only doing something else would save humanity.

So while their writings might not have been divinely inspired rooted in a supreme power, they will still be willing to die for them, because they do believe in them... just not the same way you do.

Aha. My sincere apology for the misinterpretation, and I actually thank you for it as it gave me a chance to think about something I would not have thought of had you not mentioned the plague.

In fact, your words ARE true for one of the disciples. That disciple (or I should write, ex-disciple), was one Judas Iscariot. You see, Judas believed (like most Jews of the time), that the foretold Messiah would be a military commander to drive the hated Romans out of Jewish land. And that is why he ultimately betrayed Jesus- because Jesus made it adamantly clear that he would NOT lead this rebellion against the Romans. He would not be Moses in the literal (or I should say physical) sense, but rather in the spiritual one.

Unfortunately, your story does not fly for some of the other disciples. For example, Matthew (and 1 other I believe) was a tax collector. Because of the ban on graven images, true Jews would not touch Roman coinage, so tax collectors were those who had abandoned Jewish Norms in favor of roman ones. Additionally, Tax collectors were further alienated from Jewish society because they were seen as being one with the oppressors. This does not fit the profile of a man who would later die painfully at the hands of the Romans while carrying a message of rebellion.

But in any case, none of the disciples of Jesus could be listed as "social activists" before they met him. They could all be considered as such after their meeting. So something profound happened between them and him to convert them to Jesus' social priority. I will say that if it had been faked with their knowledge, they would not be converted. An assistant to a stage magician, if he knows the secret to the tricks, does not believe the "magic." And even could this charlatan (somehow) deceive all of the crowds and his assistants as well, would he die for it?

Finally, your dates are slightly incorrect. All the gospels were written within a few years after the death of Jesus. Paul's letters were written a short time after that. But Revelations, the prophecies of John, were not written until approximately 76AD, nearly 40 years after the death of Jesus. By this time, all the original disciples of Jesus were dead, and therefore unable to carry John's apparent allegory to their deaths.


PS. Someone challenged me to find the names of the historians and historical records which mention Jesus.
The list I submit is as follows (all of whom lived within 100 years of Jesus):

Josephus
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian (greek)
Suetonius

Finally, (and most importantly), a Jewish historian by the name of Luke. His writings can be found in a book known as the bible. Of course, you could argue that he is biased. But you could also say that CNN is biased in favor of the theory that, on Sept 11, 2 planes flew into the twin towers in NY. I will say nothing about him except that ALL controversies between his and other histories which have been resolved, have been resolved in his favor. Additionally, there are NO known factual errors we have been able to find in his writing.

[RSnow]

It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone when they write my own (incorrectly, I might add) for me.

The Plague is a story about how lives are changed in response to a sickness that sweeps over a small population. Workers, doctors, criminals, everyone's life is affected as they attempt to live with this Plague around them.

Perhaps instead of this, I should have mentioned the Time Machine, something most people have read. The original time machine follows a Time Traveler into the distant future where he meets two races of humans, has an adventure, figures out some things about them, and then returns home.

The Time Machine story is more than just a fun adventure, but actually a commentary on how the working class will not always be victim to the oppressive nature of the upper class (Yes, Wells was a socialist). He did little to hide this interpretation, however; as he constantly makes reference to these ideas in the story.

The Plague, on the other hand, makes no reference to its potential as a metaphor for what life must have been like for those who lived under Nazi occupation.

What does all this have to do with the writers of the Bible?

I want to you to pretend you were a social activist in a time when anything you did that went against the state would immediately result in your death, especially if you were not of the state's religion. Now I want you to attempt to get your message across. The "Prophecies" of the end-times were not prophecies at all, they were stories much like "The Plague" and "Time Machine", they were complex metaphors that were actually about their own time. They disagreed with the social and political practices of those rulers and wrote about how those men were the overconfident dragons that would destroy the world when the spoke, and that only doing something else would save humanity.

So while their writings might not have been divinely inspired rooted in a supreme power, they will still be willing to die for them, because they do believe in them... just not the same way you do.

Aha. My sincere apology for the misinterpretation, and I actually thank you for it as it gave me a chance to think about something I would not have thought of had you not mentioned the plague.

In fact, your words ARE true for one of the disciples. That disciple (or I should write, ex-disciple), was one Judas Iscariot. You see, Judas believed (like most Jews of the time), that the foretold Messiah would be a military commander to drive the hated Romans out of Jewish land. And that is why he ultimately betrayed Jesus- because Jesus made it adamantly clear that he would NOT lead this rebellion against the Romans. He would not be Moses in the literal (or I should say physical) sense, but rather in the spiritual one.

Unfortunately, your story does not fly for some of the other disciples. For example, Matthew (and 1 other I believe) was a tax collector. Because of the ban on graven images, true Jews would not touch Roman coinage, so tax collectors were those who had abandoned Jewish Norms in favor of roman ones. Additionally, Tax collectors were further alienated from Jewish society because they were seen as being one with the oppressors. This does not fit the profile of a man who would later die painfully at the hands of the Romans while carrying a message of rebellion.

But in any case, none of the disciples of Jesus could be listed as "social activists" before they met him. They could all be considered as such after their meeting. So something profound happened between them and him to convert them to Jesus' social priority. I will say that if it had been faked with their knowledge, they would not be converted. An assistant to a stage magician, if he knows the secret to the tricks, does not believe the "magic." And even could this charlatan (somehow) deceive all of the crowds and his assistants as well, would he die for it?

Finally, your dates are slightly incorrect. All the gospels were written within a few years after the death of Jesus. Paul's letters were written a short time after that. But Revelations, the prophecies of John, were not written until approximately 76AD, nearly 40 years after the death of Jesus. By this time, all the original disciples of Jesus were dead, and therefore unable to carry John's apparent allegory to their deaths.


PS. Someone challenged me to find the names of the historians and historical records which mention Jesus.
The list I submit is as follows (all of whom lived within 100 years of Jesus):

Josephus
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian (greek)
Suetonius
Babylonian Talmud (Jewish Histories), which even admit that Jesus did miracles, though they attribute them to sorcery, or else they would have had to admit to killing the Messiah. BTW, for those wise enough to read these things for themselves, or distrusting of what I say, Yeshu is the hebrew word for Jesus. So you can search under the correct name...

Finally, (and most importantly), a Jewish historian by the name of Luke. His writings can be found in a book known as the bible. Of course, you could argue that he is biased. But you could also say that CNN is biased in favor of the theory that, on Sept 11, 2 planes flew into the twin towers in NY. I will say nothing about him except that ALL controversies between his and other histories which have been resolved, have been resolved in his favor. Additionally, there are NO known factual errors we have been able to find in his writing.



To give a taste of what historians of the time said about Jesus, let me refer to Josephus:

Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us [the Jews], had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

[Uccisore]

Just so you know, RSnow, most historians consider some of Paul's letters to predate the Gospels (as we have them), and just about all historians, Christian included, consider it likely that the Josephus quote is a pious forgery added in by the Church sometime later- at least the bits that refer to him as being a Messiah. Most take it as legitimate that he actually mentions Jesus, so he's fine for your list of historians, but I wouldn't use the quote you cited.


Burnova: Your description of Biblical prophecy is a pretty accurate way to portray Revelation especially, I think. However, the Gospels aren't prophecy, they're descriptions of historical events that actually took place. So you can't really extend to them.

[Jellybabe]

You should get used to it, because atheistic philosophy has been slowly dying for the past 20 years. Heck, even Antony Flew converted. If you aren't studying the philosophy of believers, you're either stuck in the 19th century, or you're stuck in Post-Modern anti-philosophy. There's very little else left.

Anyways, as to the historicity of the New Testament, and the over all case for the truth of Christianity, it's very, very strong, and believers shouldn't have anything to feel bad about. This is the best time to be an intellectual Christian since...probably the 1700's. In fact, the very nature of the currently popular criticisms of the New Testament are proof that it's been pretty much validated. All that's left are people who won't believe in things like miracles no matter what you tell them, or what the evidence is, and there's no purpose in debating it with them. Or, the misinformed.


I beg to differ in almost all respects of your response. Christianity on the whole is a dying religion, certainty within the UK. It is becoming replaced by more humanist ideologies, and as so far as I can see popular opinion veers toward deism rather than theism among those who would call themselves believers, despite what the census may tell you. The huge rise in "new age" religions, spiritualism etc. goes a long way to highlight this shift from typical christian indoctrination In this country (the UK) toward a more secular, humanist approach.

Secondly there are still a vast number of proponents for atheism/agnosticism For example the biologist Richard Dawkins and less recently Bertrand Russell and of course lets not forget the man who so plainly pointed out that "God is dead, and we have killed him" one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century Friedrich Nietzsche. The huge rise in existential thought throughout Europe, often attributed to Jean Paul Sartre (who's funeral was attended by no less than 50,000 mourners i might add) Has had massive impacts not only on the way people think but on legislation throughout Europe.

I'm afraid that your opinion on the validity of evidence from scripture is flawed. And through experience I would not like to get into a discussion as to why. Furthermore I was completely unaware that there was any "evidence" to positively support the existence of miracles however as a man of science and reason I would be more than willing to examine it and offer unbiased judgment on it's merits.

I am not a closed minded or prejudiced person and I would like to hear a reply from you. I do however ask that you extend the same said courtesy to me.

Yours sincerely, Tom

[RSnow]

Just so you know, RSnow, most historians consider some of Paul's letters to predate the Gospels (as we have them), and just about all historians, Christian included, consider it likely that the Josephus quote is a pious forgery added in by the Church sometime later- at least the bits that refer to him as being a Messiah. Most take it as legitimate that he actually mentions Jesus, so he's fine for your list of historians, but I wouldn't use the quote you cited.


Burnova: Your description of Biblical prophecy is a pretty accurate way to portray Revelation especially, I think. However, the Gospels aren't prophecy, they're descriptions of historical events that actually took place. So you can't really extend to them.

Upon further research, I have discovered that it is indeed a matter of debate currently among historians. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

I will, however, say that there is hardly anything written about Jesus which has not been suspected of being forged or edited by the church, so this passage is hardly exemplary. Short of actually finding said document, we are stuck in another deadlock. (of course, if you do have any strong evidence for or against, please don't hesitate to send it to me). I could argue "Well, historians are discovering more every day, and soon my evidence will be verified," but I would not make such a fool of myself.

[Uccisore]

Don't worry, I'm on your side when it comes to all this, I'm a Christian myself and I think the New Testament is very credible, and the case for us is all but sealed up. The Josephus quote is just an unnecessary controversy - there's no need to base anything on that shaky ground. :)

[RSnow]

You should get used to it, because atheistic philosophy has been slowly dying for the past 20 years. Heck, even Antony Flew converted. If you aren't studying the philosophy of believers, you're either stuck in the 19th century, or you're stuck in Post-Modern anti-philosophy. There's very little else left.

Anyways, as to the historicity of the New Testament, and the over all case for the truth of Christianity, it's very, very strong, and believers shouldn't have anything to feel bad about. This is the best time to be an intellectual Christian since...probably the 1700's. In fact, the very nature of the currently popular criticisms of the New Testament are proof that it's been pretty much validated. All that's left are people who won't believe in things like miracles no matter what you tell them, or what the evidence is, and there's no purpose in debating it with them. Or, the misinformed.

Please forgive me if I pry, but what do you follow?

you offer statements favoring christianity on one hand, athiestic philosophy on another, and your comments seem to be saying that there's a middle ground somewhere.


EDIT: I was posting this when you answered my question.

To respond to your statement, I suppose that athiestic philosophy is on the decline because philosophy itself is on the decline. The American Empire's "beer and circus" mentality encourages the "I'm willing to let you believe whatever you want so long as I don't have to think about it myself" school of thought. People who aren't reminded what they live for forget over time. If we were living during the time of the black plague or something, we'd perhaps all be a whole lot more religious, or philosophic.

[Uccisore]

I beg to differ in almost all respects of your response. Christianity on the whole is a dying religion, certainty within the UK. It is becoming replaced by more humanist ideologies, and as so far as I can see popular opinion veers toward deism rather than theism among those who would call themselves believers, despite what the census may tell you. The huge rise in "new age" religions, spiritualism etc. goes a long way to highlight this shift from typical christian indoctrination In this country (the UK) toward a more secular, humanist approach.

Secondly there are still a vast number of proponents for atheism/agnosticism For example the biologist Richard Dawkins and less recently Bertrand Russell and of course lets not forget the man who so plainly pointed out that "God is dead, and we have killed him" one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century Friedrich Nietzsche. The huge rise in existential thought throughout Europe, often attributed to Jean Paul Sartre (who's funeral was attended by no less than 50,000 mourners i might add) Has had massive impacts not only on the way people think but on legislation throughout Europe.

I'm afraid that your opinion on the validity of evidence from scripture is flawed. And through experience I would not like to get into a discussion as to why. Furthermore I was completely unaware that there was any "evidence" to positively support the existence of miracles however as a man of science and reason I would be more than willing to examine it and offer unbiased judgment on it's merits.

I am not a closed minded or prejudiced person and I would like to hear a reply from you. I do however ask that you extend the same said courtesy to me.

Yours sincerely, Tom

Jellybabe- I wasn't talking about the national census takers' results polling religious people in the general population. I was talking about professional philosophers. In professional philosophy, theism is making a huge comeback that's been picking up steam ever since logical positivism was shot down in the 80's. Like I said, if you aren't reading what theists have to say, you aren't reading some of the most modern, influential materials in the field. You can't DO epistemology without reading Plantinga, John Greco, Sosa. You can't DO modal logic without Saul Kripke. Yes, you're essentially correct about what sorts of ideologies are gaining strength among the masses, but the masses are simply behind the times.
Richard Dawkins is a great example of a voice among the masses, but as far as philosophers go, he's a hack and an anachronism. Bertrand Russell is a perfect example of a real philosopher of great quality, but he's also from that Enlightenment Rationalism atheistic age that's going extinct. The same thing applies to Sartre and Nietzsche. Yes, they are examples of a huge rise in atheistic thought- a huge rise that started about 150 years ago, and ended about 50 years ago, and has been going the other way since then. What you're seeing in common society is just a lesson in how long it takes these things to peculate down to people who don't actually read any philosophy.

If you don't want to talk about New Testament issues, that's fine. I got a feeling I'll end up posting my thoughts on the matter on somebody else's request soon enough. Thanks for your attention an input.

[Jellybabe]

Jellybabe- I wasn't talking about the national census takers' results polling religious people in the general population. I was talking about professional philosophers. In professional philosophy, theism is making a huge comeback that's been picking up steam ever since logical positivism was shot down in the 80's. Like I said, if you aren't reading what theists have to say, you aren't reading some of the most modern, influential materials in the field. You can't DO epistemology without reading Plantinga, John Greco, Sosa. You can't DO modal logic without Saul Kripke. Yes, you're essentially correct about what sorts of ideologies are gaining strength among the masses, but the masses are simply behind the times.
Richard Dawkins is a great example of a voice among the masses, but as far as philosophers go, he's a hack and an anachronism. Bertrand Russell is a perfect example of a real philosopher of great quality, but he's also from that Enlightenment Rationalism atheistic age that's going extinct. The same thing applies to Sartre and Nietzsche. Yes, they are examples of a huge rise in atheistic thought- a huge rise that started about 150 years ago, and ended about 50 years ago, and has been going the other way since then. What you're seeing in common society is just a lesson in how long it takes these things to peculate down to people who don't actually read any philosophy.

If you don't want to talk about New Testament issues, that's fine. I got a feeling I'll end up posting my thoughts on the matter on somebody else's request soon enough. Thanks for your attention an input.


I completely understand that it is necessary to read the works of theist philosophers to keep up with the times. As I have said I am not a prejudiced person and will examine each theory and make my decision as to its strength on a purely rational basis. For example (although not contemporary) I am a great admirer of the works of Kierkegaard (although it does raise certain dangerous fundamentalist issues). I take all ideas within context and will not be dismissive because of the views on which a philosopher chooses to base his/her work. To elaborate, I think the "leap to faith" is good for a christian But I do not think the "5 proofs for God" are good for an agnostic.

As for your description of the time differential between publishing and mainstream thought, I am in agreement. It raises the interesting point though that philosophy can only be born as an antithesis to the common-held views of society. As now theist philosophers flourish in a ever more secular society, in time the anti-theist philosophers will come out of the woodwork to challenge the next generation of thought. was Hegel right? And if so what will be our synthesis, or has it already arrived? Has the age of Aquarius truly dawned?

[Uccisore]

Jellybabe,
I don't think most current theistic philosophers take Aquinas' 5 ways to be very successful. Maybe one or two each, and they are usually heavily modified. But it's good that you're going to be open-minded about such things, you want to stay competitive if you want to be a part of the philosophical community!


As for your description of the time differential between publishing and mainstream thought, I am in agreement. It raises the interesting point though that philosophy can only be born as an antithesis to the common-held views of society.

Well, it's always possible that a philosophical trend lasts long enough for the mainstream to get on board while it's still dominant in academics. But yeah, if a new philosophy is going to be born, it's usually going to be in reaction to a dominant paradigm, and what's mainstream is what feels most dominant. Returning to Dawkins, that's exactly what he's doing- rebelling against the vocal nature of fundamentalist religious people int he world, and *also* rebelling against his peers, which are more and more coming around to theistic, or nihilistic perspectives.


As now theist philosophers flourish in a ever more secular society, in time the anti-theist philosophers will come out of the woodwork to challenge the next generation of thought.

Maaaybe. But right now, post-modernist philosophy is a little more popular than either one- people who hold that theism is true are simply the strongest faction of those who hold that ANYTHING is true. If I had to predict, I'd say that theists and atheists will get together as the rationalists they both are, and challenge post-modernism. I don't think anti-theists really have a place beyond pop-philosophy.

[Jellybabe]

Jellybabe,
I don't think most current theistic philosophers take Aquinas' 5 ways to be very successful. Maybe one or two each, and they are usually heavily modified. But it's good that you're going to be open-minded about such things, you want to stay competitive if you want to be a part of the philosophical community!

Quote:
As for your description of the time differential between publishing and mainstream thought, I am in agreement. It raises the interesting point though that philosophy can only be born as an antithesis to the common-held views of society.

Well, it's always possible that a philosophical trend lasts long enough for the mainstream to get on board while it's still dominant in academics. But yeah, if a new philosophy is going to be born, it's usually going to be in reaction to a dominant paradigm, and what's mainstream is what feels most dominant. Returning to Dawkins, that's exactly what he's doing- rebelling against the vocal nature of fundamentalist religious people int he world, and *also* rebelling against his peers, which are more and more coming around to theistic, or nihilistic perspectives.

Quote:
As now theist philosophers flourish in a ever more secular society, in time the anti-theist philosophers will come out of the woodwork to challenge the next generation of thought.



Maaaybe. But right now, post-modernist philosophy is a little more popular than either one- people who hold that theism is true are simply the strongest faction of those who hold that ANYTHING is true. If I had to predict, I'd say that theists and atheists will get together as the rationalists they both are, and challenge post-modernism. I don't think anti-theists really have a place beyond pop-philosophy.


The 5 proofs in their original form are perhaps not credited, however they are constantly being recycled. If I am correct Plantinga reworded the ontological argument and as I understand it has become reasonably popular among those wishing for "proof". And you seem to be forgetting the teleological argument, the argument from design or creationism? I believe that the bible's version of creation can be aptly described as teleological. Millions of people around the world are convinced by this so I believe it unfair to say it is not very successful. (In convincing people to believe that is. I do not believe it to be a successful argument logically or rationally)

As for Richard Dawkins, I recently attended a lecture he presented on "The God Delusion" and was almost saddened to find that he was simply a biologist praising the theory of evolution, and that he had attracted a lot of attention from creationists and was being forced to defend his position. (99% of the time from those people not as learned as yourself, and as I'm sure you are aware it is extremely difficult to defend a position that your opponent is ignorant of) In short I believe that Dawkins has been forced into an anti-theist position despite remaining openly agnostic.

Responding to your final point I do not believe it is really correct to call the atheists rationalists, rather I would describe them to be empiricists. No atheist would view the non-existence of god as a-priori, where as all theistic arguments revolve around the assumption that the existence of god is an a priori truth. Atheists are simply disregarding a conclusion that has no empirical evidence. Much as they would disregard the existence of a flying tea pot orbiting the moon.( to steal a famous example :D )

[Uccisore]

The 5 proofs in their original form are perhaps not credited, however they are constantly being recycled. If I am correct Plantinga reworded the ontological argument and as I understand it has become reasonably popular among those wishing for "proof".

Yeah, Plantinga re-did the ontological argument, and he does cite it as such. That was some years ago, I get the impression that he doesn't consider it proof, so much as a compelling reason to believe. That's how I used to see it too, but I haven't reviewed his version of the argument for a while. Strictly speaking, believing in Biblical Creation is completely different from the Teleological Argument, though certainly the creation myth is a teleology. The point of things like the cosmological, ontological, teleological arguments is that they are supposed to be based on things anyone can observe, and not on the acceptance of any sort of religious doctrine.

And yeah, I think your observation of Dawkins is spot on, in the sense that he's really just a biologist who's been caught up in a philosophical thing. I wouldn't say he's been 'forced to defend' anything, I get the impression he's pretty actively zealous in that kind of stuff.

You're also right that most atheists right now are 'empiricists', at least in the loose sense that they favor things that can be proven through the senses. When I say that they're rationalists, I didn't mean in the contra empiricism sense so much as to say that they aren't anti-rational, like your typical post-modern relativistic thinker. Theists and atheists both have a long tradition of wanting reasons, arguments, evidence and such for believing the things they do- after all, atheism in the west got that attitude from the Protestant Reformation. It's not true, though, that theistic arguments rely on the existence of God an a priori truth. None of the 5 ways we mentioned do, for example. Evidential arguments don't.

[Jellybabe]

It's not true, though, that theistic arguments rely on the existence of God an a priori truth. None of the 5 ways we mentioned do, for example. Evidential arguments don't.


How so? Take the teleological argument for example, I will use Paley's watchmaker analogy for descriptive ease on my half:

If one were to be walking through a field of thick bracken, grass and stone, and stumbled upon a brass pocket watch, one would not reasonably deduce that it became there naturally. One would more readily deduce to the existence of a watchmaker.

Please note that I am not using this example to highlight weaknesses in argument through analogy, but just to give other readers a quick idea of the 'teleological argument'. Which, to those said readers, can be translated loosely as argument from purpose/end point.

The problem I can see with this argument, once translated to the field=the universe. The watch=the earth/mankind/life. The watchmaker=God, is that proposition A does not necessitate conclusion B. Could one not replace conclusion B with any number of things such as an evil demon desired a plaything with which wreak evil upon etc. To me it seems that conclusion B was already the desired deduction. This is why I believe that the a-priori assumption that 'God exists' is present in all of these arguments.


Edit: Also, please excuse my ignorance, what are evidential arguments?

[Uccisore]

Great, I can answer all your questions at once. The teleological argument in the form you've described it IS an evidential argument. It's an argument of the sort that tries to show that something is likely enough that we should believe it, which is different than showing that it's true. An familiar example is the kind of thing you'd have in a courtroom. We found the fingerprints here, we got an eyewitness that says this, the alibi looks like this, therefore so-and-so probably stole the diamonds. In any evidential case, there's ALWAYS going to be other explanations for the evidence- there could always be some complicated Three-Stooges like string of coincidences that led to the suspect's fingerprints being on the display case, the witness seeing him at the scene of the crime, and his alibi not checking out. Just like for any evidence of God, it could ALWAYS be the case that it was actually extremely bizarre aliens doing things for reasons that don't make any sense to us.

So. It's not so much that the teleological argument you described assumes the existence of God, it assumes that the audience will find God to be the most likely thing to fill in the blank with- namely because they were 13th century Europeans. Today, the argument has less weight. Just like a body of evidence in a courtroom might have less weight if fingerprint-forging devices were cheap and widespread, or if we lived in a world in which invisible Moga commonly stole diamonds and framed innocent bystandards for it.

In case you're wondering, a NON evidential argument would usually be a deductive one. Like,

1.) All cats are three weeks long,
2.) Socrates was a cat,
3.) Socrates was three weeks long.

In that case, the argument works if the premises are true, because "All A's are B, C is A, therefore C is B," is a valid deductive form. In a case like this, you'd either have to take 1 and 2 a priori, or provide some other argument for them, and so on,

[Jellybabe]

Great, I can answer all your questions at once. The teleological argument in the form you've described it IS an evidential argument. It's an argument of the sort that tries to show that something is likely enough that we should believe it, which is different than showing that it's true. An familiar example is the kind of thing you'd have in a courtroom. We found the fingerprints here, we got an eyewitness that says this, the alibi looks like this, therefore so-and-so probably stole the diamonds. In any evidential case, there's ALWAYS going to be other explanations for the evidence- there could always be some complicated Three-Stooges like string of coincidences that led to the suspect's fingerprints being on the display case, the witness seeing him at the scene of the crime, and his alibi not checking out. Just like for any evidence of God, it could ALWAYS be the case that it was actually extremely bizarre aliens doing things for reasons that don't make any sense to us.

So. It's not so much that the teleological argument you described assumes the existence of God, it assumes that the audience will find God to be the most likely thing to fill in the blank with- namely because they were 13th century Europeans. Today, the argument has less weight. Just like a body of evidence in a courtroom might have less weight if fingerprint-forging devices were cheap and widespread, or if we lived in a world in which invisible Moga commonly stole diamonds and framed innocent bystandards for it.

In case you're wondering, a NON evidential argument would usually be a deductive one. Like,

1.) All cats are three weeks long,
2.) Socrates was a cat,
3.) Socrates was three weeks long.

In that case, the argument works if the premises are true, because "All A's are B, C is A, therefore C is B," is a valid deductive form. In a case like this, you'd either have to take 1 and 2 a priori, or provide some other argument for them, and so on,



Aah I see, so it's not meant to be a "proof" in the classical sense. Move of a logical progression. This is all good stuff. It will be very helpful in my next year of study :) It's nice to have a debate in this form, where each party has time to properly put their argument into the right words. It's much more effective than a two hour seminar where everyones trying to get their point across at once :/

So lets continue then :)

As i suggested in my previous post, there do appear to be inherent weaknesses in argument by analogy, like the one you have used above to provide further credence for your position. In my opinion are they used to often mask the holes in a position, to fill in the gaps if you will. In this case you have made use of humour for example QUOTE: if we lived in a world in which invisible Moga commonly stole diamonds and framed innocent bystandards for it. to distract attention and make the reader (myself) feel more engaged with your position.

I am by no means accusing you of any deception here as I fully understand how you, as I in the previous post, were simply trying to animate your point of view in such a way that I, and others, could understand.


I am very interested in the idea that:

QUOTE: the audience will find God to be the most likely thing to fill in the blank with

At this point, for myself, the boundaries of philosophy and religion come together with those of psychology and sociology (fields in which I unfortunately am relatively ignorant) However
you have certainly offered me some new 'ammunition' with which to defend your point of view and for that I am grateful. I hope we will be able to continue our conversation but I get the feeling we're kind of hogging this thread. So how about we let everyone else have a go, but feel free to keep posting to me because I really need to get my brain back into gear
before term starts again :D

[daemun]

first off dont worry about hogging the thread, its all relevant to the subject and im enjoying reading what you guys have to say :)

my formal understanding of philosophy stops at about a first year university level, hence my sometimes incoherent arguments. but as for your comment that at a certain point religion and philosophy merging with psychology and sociology, i think thats definitely true and fairly obvious if you look at recent history.

in many societies belief in a particular ideology is reinforced socially to a very large degree. alternatively, disbelief can be punished, sometimes severely. it seems to me that whatever conclusion a person comes to about the watchmaker problem is only a matter of social and behavioral learning.

[Jellybabe]

first off dont worry about hogging the thread, its all relevant to the subject and im enjoying reading what you guys have to say :)

my formal understanding of philosophy stops at about a first year university level, hence my sometimes incoherent arguments. but as for your comment that at a certain point religion and philosophy merging with psychology and sociology, i think thats definitely true and fairly obvious if you look at recent history.

in many societies belief in a particular ideology is reinforced socially to a very large degree. alternatively, disbelief can be punished, sometimes severely. it seems to me that whatever conclusion a person comes to about the watchmaker problem is only a matter of social and behavioral learning.

Hello :)

As a philosopher I am seeking the "truth" (whatever that may be) which is why I must try to discard all social/behavioral conditioning and rely on that one thing that separates us humans from animals; the capacity of REASON. It is my hope that I never appear bias or prejudiced although unfortunately I think my natural view point shines through at times. I only hope this is a result of reason, and not of any random variables I could not hope to understand.

Anyway I'm glad to have another opinion on the matter, who knows this thread could get huge!! :)

[Uccisore]

Sure, arguments from analogy always have holes, because the analogy isn't perfect. But I was just trying to show you what an evidential argument is, and how the teleological one has the same weaknesses as any other- just as you can say that "God" isn't necessarily what teleological evidence points to, someone can say that X isn't necessarily what any body of evidence points to. That's just how evidence is.

It's interesting that things went this angle, I was all set to toss out my argument for the truth of the central Christian claims - which is an evidential argument, itself. I think you might like it, because it specifically addresses some of the social/psychological issues you seem interested in.

[Jellybabe]

Well I'm really interested to hear it :) Just to let you know this will be my last post tonight because I'm off to bed now. So goodnight everyone I'll look forward to checking the forums tomorrow :)

[daemun]

Hello :)

As a philosopher I am seeking the "truth" (whatever that may be) which is why I must try to discard all social/behavioral conditioning and rely on that one thing that separates us humans from animals; the capacity of REASON. It is my hope that I never appear bias or prejudiced although unfortunately I think my natural view point shines through at times. I only hope this is a result of reason, and not of any random variables I could not hope to understand.

Anyway I'm glad to have another opinion on the matter, who knows this thread could get huge!! :)

agreed 100%. i was going to elaborate more on this, but ive already said my piece in this thread and i dont want to repeat myself :P

[Burnova]

...and rely on that one thing that separates us humans from animals; the capacity of REASON.

I read through everything, saw someone comment about psychology (my main field of study) and then saw this quote.

Seems you are forgetting that most birds, several primates, dolphins, and a few species of whales have the ability to solve puzzles, logically deduce outcomes, predict future events, distinguish themselves from others, and understand the consequences of their actions.

It is things like that, as well as many other things I've studied, that show a very clear pattern in almost all of human history. Regardless of the philosophy or religion, the main things humans attempt to do is separate themselves from other animals.

[Jellybabe]

I read through everything, saw someone comment about psychology (my main field of study) and then saw this quote.

Seems you are forgetting that most birds, several primates, dolphins, and a few species of whales have the ability to solve puzzles, logically deduce outcomes, predict future events, distinguish themselves from others, and understand the consequences of their actions.

It is things like that, as well as many other things I've studied, that show a very clear pattern in almost all of human history. Regardless of the philosophy or religion, the main things humans attempt to do is separate themselves from other animals.


Can we safely regard this as a result of animals being able to reason? Or is it possible for them to achieve those results through instinct? Or is there even a difference between the two? Can these animals reflect on events outside of direct experience, can they form complex ideas? Can a bird that has experienced the colour blue and the physical form of 'oak tree', form in it's mind the idea of a blue oak tree?

Do animals have morals? Can the deduce through reason what is right and wrong? If you can help answer any of these questions for me I'd be very grateful, as I said this really isn't my field of expertise but I'm willing to learn :)

[Burnova]

Can these animals reflect on events outside of direct experience, can they form complex ideas? Can a bird that has experienced the colour blue and the physical form of 'oak tree', form in it's mind the idea of a blue oak tree?


The first thing here is the concept of "Displacement", being able to reference something that is not immediately present. While no species other than humans (that we know of, I have a feeling about Dolphins, as they've been found capable of planning ahead in groups) has been found capable of such. Then again, Displacement is a characteristic of language, and therefore it is difficult to test. What we do know is that many of the aforementioned animals are capable of recognizing an object regardless of its color, and distinguishing other objects of similar shape and color from the one they need.

Can we safely regard this as a result of animals being able to reason? Or is it possible for them to achieve those results through instinct? Or is there even a difference between the two?

Do animals have morals? Can the deduce through reason what is right and wrong? If you can help answer any of these questions for me I'd be very grateful, as I said this really isn't my field of expertise but I'm willing to learn :)

I am not able to remember the exact terminology a specific type of learning, but it basically involves sitting and examining a problem, coming up with solutions, and solving the problem then and there. Chimpanzees have demonstrated that ability multiple times (I saw a video, but it doesnt seem to be on Youtube)

As for animal morality, birds cheat on their husbands, hide the affair, trick the other partner into raising the offspring that isn't his, etc. Dolphins use **** as a method of reproduction when they are otherwise incapable of securing a partner. Male chimps engage in infanticide or pre-sex fighting over females to gain rights to them, and the female chimps put out to the whole group to avoid both problems.... So in that regard, Humans and animals behave quite similarly. XD

In all honesty though, all social animals have systems of behavior that need to be followed by the members of the tribe. In a chimp tribe, I've seen older females uphold many rules. When younger chimps aren't sharing food or helping one another, the older female goes over and nudges them and sits near they youth until the proper behavior is performed. Many things like this exist within the animal world.

I mentioned the cheating birds not only to be funny, but also to bring about another point. Why does the cheating member hide their affair? Is it because of some metaphysical moral code that has been imparted to them by a divine force? Is it because they simply feel it isn't fair for the other member to go through that type of pain? Or is it because over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, cheating species only survived by hiding their affairs? Had the male bird found out, he would have gone crazy (this is an AWESOME video, i will try to find it). They flap madly around the nest, taking it apart, I've even seen them shove their beak through the eggs that they just found out weren't theirs, and then the fly off leaving a cheating wife with no place to stay, no kids, and no male support.

The main of idea of this semi-organized rant is that too often we try to lift ourselves higher than animals, as I said before. When you ask "Do animals have morality? Can they reason right and wrong?" I'd rather ask if humans truly possess these abilities. We exhibit identical social behavior to animals, identical mating strategies, etc. We just happen to have a better capacity for language than other species, something that allows us to describe and explain our behavior. And despite the overwhelming similarities, we consider ourselves superior and capable of so much more.

[RSnow]

The first thing here is the concept of "Displacement", being able to reference something that is not immediately present. While no species other than humans (that we know of, I have a feeling about Dolphins, as they've been found capable of planning ahead in groups) has been found capable of such. Then again, Displacement is a characteristic of language, and therefore it is difficult to test. What we do know is that many of the aforementioned animals are capable of recognizing an object regardless of its color, and distinguishing other objects of similar shape and color from the one they need.



I am not able to remember the exact terminology a specific type of learning, but it basically involves sitting and examining a problem, coming up with solutions, and solving the problem then and there. Chimpanzees have demonstrated that ability multiple times (I saw a video, but it doesnt seem to be on Youtube)

As for animal morality, birds cheat on their husbands, hide the affair, trick the other partner into raising the offspring that isn't his, etc. Dolphins use **** as a method of reproduction when they are otherwise incapable of securing a partner. Male chimps engage in infanticide or pre-sex fighting over females to gain rights to them, and the female chimps put out to the whole group to avoid both problems.... So in that regard, Humans and animals behave quite similarly. XD

In all honesty though, all social animals have systems of behavior that need to be followed by the members of the tribe. In a chimp tribe, I've seen older females uphold many rules. When younger chimps aren't sharing food or helping one another, the older female goes over and nudges them and sits near they youth until the proper behavior is performed. Many things like this exist within the animal world.

I mentioned the cheating birds not only to be funny, but also to bring about another point. Why does the cheating member hide their affair? Is it because of some metaphysical moral code that has been imparted to them by a divine force? Is it because they simply feel it isn't fair for the other member to go through that type of pain? Or is it because over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, cheating species only survived by hiding their affairs? Had the male bird found out, he would have gone crazy (this is an AWESOME video, i will try to find it). They flap madly around the nest, taking it apart, I've even seen them shove their beak through the eggs that they just found out weren't theirs, and then the fly off leaving a cheating wife with no place to stay, no kids, and no male support.

The main of idea of this semi-organized rant is that too often we try to lift ourselves higher than animals, as I said before. When you ask "Do animals have morality? Can they reason right and wrong?" I'd rather ask if humans truly possess these abilities. We exhibit identical social behavior to animals, identical mating strategies, etc. We just happen to have a better capacity for language than other species, something that allows us to describe and explain our behavior. And despite the overwhelming similarities, we consider ourselves superior and capable of so much more.

This is quite facinating. I think you've just tempted me to change my major...

However, I have a question. Do animals sacrifice themselves for "moral" or philosophical purposes? I'm not referring something like throwing oneself onto the grenade to save your buddies next to you. I'm referring to a Franz Jagerstatter-esque behavior. Would an animal go against it's society and it's survival instincts for no outwardly discernable reason?

BTW, this is a sincere question, not an argument...

[Burnova]

This is quite facinating. I think you've just tempted me to change my major...

However, I have a question. Do animals sacrifice themselves for "moral" or philosophical purposes? I'm not referring something like throwing oneself onto the grenade to save your buddies next to you. I'm referring to a Franz Jagerstatter-esque behavior. Would an animal go against it's society and it's survival instincts for no outwardly discernable reason?

BTW, this is a sincere question, not an argument...

This is actually a very difficult question to answer, mainly because of the limits of observation as well as some semantic problems.

First, if there is no "outwardly discernible" evidence, science would have no right to make assumptions as to the inherent nature of the animal's decision.

As for animal sacrificing, large packs of animals (Elephants for example) when encountered by a serious predatory threat that could ultimately damage the herd have an interesting defense against this. The weakest (or eldest or infertile females) generally kamikaze themselves at the hunters, resulting in the herds survival but their guaranteed death. As for completely abandoning society for a philosophical purpose, I'm not sure we can affirmatively say, "That Chimp decided society had flaws and decided to abandon it," but there are many animals that decide to 'hermit' themselves away from others of their species in similar ways that humans do. The difference is that when humans do it, we consider them either crazy or brilliant, when animals do it, we think their ******ed.

[Uccisore]

Well I'm really interested to hear it :) Just to let you know this will be my last post tonight because I'm off to bed now. So goodnight everyone I'll look forward to checking the forums tomorrow :)

Alright. Let me give my argument for the reasonableness of Christianity. I haven't heard anyone else make the argument, and I don't have a title for it.

Suppose the year is 1850, and we're discussing the truth of God, Christianity, and the Church's central claims about both. We look over the information in front of us, and being two young people in reasonably good health, we resolve to wait until 2008, to see what new information has come to light, how society has changed, and so on. Here's a survey of some of the things that have happened since then:

The Social Enlightenment Failed. In 1850, the common prediction would be that man would become more and more rational, which meant, doing away with the supernatural from their lives, realizing the falsehood of religion, and generally getting on with a more scientific, 'modern' way of looking at the world. This has decidedly *not* happened. There have been brief trends like that, several of them in the past 150 years, but they're always followed by a Great Awakening of one sort or another. God didn't die, He's as with us as He ever was. Dawkins isn't typical- he's a strange exception fighting for a minority view of what he thinks is right. Nobody would have supposed that.

Rational Atheism Failed. In 1850, the argument was that either the terms "God" and "supernatural" didn't mean anything at all, or that if they did, things like "The Problem of Evil" defeated a classical understanding of them. The first view, logical positivism, was completely defeated in the 1970's or so, only a couple hold outs still believe it. The Problem of evil in it's deductive form is also destroyed- there is no logical problem with the compatibility between evil and a good God, and there never was. The people who still propose this problem put it forward as an odds-based or emotion-based argument, and it's much, much weaker than it was thought to be 100 years ago.
More to the point, rationalism itself seems to be dying out among atheists. The most common view among professional philosophers who don't believe in God is that there is NO such things as truth- so theism only isn't true as an extension of the fact that nothing is true. Or, that truth is 'what works' or 'what my colleagues let me get away with saying' (Dennet)- various version of nihilistic pragmatism. Theism is close to winning the 'what's true' war by default, in another decade the believers may be the only ones claiming their ideas ARE true.

The Universe Began! 1850 years ago, scientists almost universally thought that the universe had been going on, basically like it is now, forever back in time. A steady state universe, it was called. The idea of a Creation was preposterous, and surely one of the most silly aspects of biblical mythology. Since then, we discovered, completely independent of Scripture, that the universe actually had a beginning. It's important not to let this point be taken for granted. The single biggest, most impactful claim of theism, that the Universe came into being from nothing, is now the scientific mainstream. Anyone who says there's no scientific evidence for the existence of God is obviously just living in modern times where the Big Bang is taken for granted, and is asking 'Yeah, but what have you done for me lately'? The only reason this isn't more massive than it is, is because humans don't live long enough to experience life both before and after such massive paradigm shifts.

Saving the best for last:

New Testament Criticism has completely failed. In the 19th century, the prevailing view of the New Testament was that Jesus was a made up figure similar to Horus, was brought together from a series of pagan myths that predated him, and that the figures who surrounded him, such as Paul, James, and so on, were zodiac-type figures. The Gospels were written in the late 2nd century, if not later, and the entire thing was most likely cobbled together by Constantine.
Despite what you may read on the internet from time to time, those views have COMPLETELY fallen through. In scholarly circles, the believe that Jesus never existed rates somewhere between the claims of The da Vinci Code and the belief that reptilian aliens secretly run the world's governments. IOW, extremist, unscholarly, bias-driven nonsense. The dominant SKEPTICAL view of the claims of the New Testament, is that Jesus actually existed, was actually widely-known as a healer and miracle worker, that He was in fact crucified, and died, and that Peter, James, and Paul (at least) had experiences after His death that they sincerely believed to be encounters with a resurrected Christ. Again, that's the majority of skeptics.
Now skepticism is all about things similar to what Burnova seems to suggest - making commentary about extremely bizarre feats of psychological strangeness, and in general coming up with ideas about what the mental states of people who died 2,000 years ago must have been like. That's the only wiggle room left, really: Once it's conceded that witnesses actually wrote the accounts, and that witnesses actually believed what they wrote, the only option the skeptic has left is to attack the credibility of the witnesses! In other words, anything that can actually be proven, anything that history could possibly reveal, has been conceded to the Christian. The skeptic is left operating on faith alone- they won't ever believe in the miraculous account, so...you've heard of God of the Gaps? Well, this is skepticism of the gaps. When the facts are against you, find the place where we don't have any facts (in this case, what was going on in people's minds 2000 years ago), and build your entire case within that fog, so nobody can ever say you're wrong. In other words, the skeptic's case is unfalsifiable. Any empiricist should know the importance of falsification.

That leaves skepticism as a purely social phenomenon- there's always going to be doubters, and some of them are going to seek to be intellectually fulfilled. Anyone can say 'no', and to any body of evidence, a person can respond, "Yeah, but what ELSE do you have?". I submit that the body of evidence we have for the truth of Christianity is not only strong, it is much, much stronger than anybody could have reasonably expected it to be in the 19th century. Somebody who lived from then until now would almost certainly wind up being a Christian if they looked at all the facts fairly, if they lived through all the utter defeats of skeptical thought that I described. But then, a person like that would surely have a stonger perspective than us- it is to our detriment that we haven't experienced what they would have. So it should be our stance as well.

Conclusion: Not only is Christianity very reasonable to believe, it's more reasonable now than it has been in centuries.

[Burnova]

I typed a huge response.... didnt realize i wasn't logged in... and closed the window.....


I will type later.

Good bye.

[myAlt1]

As an agnostic, I probably view things a bit differently than an atheist or a theist would.

My question is this, if there were a god, or no god, would your behavior or life change?

Many of the principles of religion are universal and necessary for society to function. Many of the oddball "rules" are generally considered as such. Don't wear clothing of mixed fabric, yeah it's in the old testament. Don't eat shellfish, yeah old testament again. Anyone thinks god cares, at all?

Most religions hold that following such religion over just being a good person holds particular benefits. Anyone remember the good Samaritan? You know where the poor heathens were closer to god than a priest? Yeah, that's right out of Jesus's mouth. Guess what, if god exists he probably doesn't care if you pray or go to church or believe in him. Being a good person is all that matters, at least that's what Jesus said. It benefits you to be a good person anyway, no need for a god or religion to tell you that. If there is a heaven and you get there, don't be pissed if you see gandhi.

The afterlife. What is life without struggle and challenge? If there were a heaven and you could experience eternal bliss, would you want to? If there were a hell with eternal damnation, what purpose would it serve god to send people there? Get this, we probably have plenty of time on earth and there really isn't any need for an afterlife. If there is a god, he wants us to pursue justice on earth and not allow our fellow man to suffer. You can learn to enjoy the life you have now, you don't need heaven anyway. God would probably appreciate it if you did.

Is there a god? Maybe. If so, does it change anything? Probably not. If believing in a god makes you happy go for it, if believing religious people are stupid makes you happy go for it, either way there is no way of knowing and it would change nothing anyway.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter does it? If you need religion take it, if not let it be. God, if he exists, probably doesn't care anyway, and there probably isn't an afterlife.

[Uccisore]

Burnova - I truly feel your pain on that one.

[daemun]

dont have a lot of time, but as for rsnow's question on animals sacrificing themselves...

altruism is observable in many species other than humans. i have to run but i'll post about some studies later.

[Jellybabe]

(Good evening! :) I apologize for the delay, I have been playing golf.)

You are perhaps too quick to so avidly characterize the enlightenment as a failure. Though I suppose that depends on your view of what it set out to achieve. One could undoubtedly
say that it has had extraordinary effects on the world we live in today. If the purpose of the enlightenment was to move society away from belief in superstitions and to question the authority of traditional institutions, I think that history itself would praise it's success. This seems to completely contradict your opinion though. From what I can conclude from your response you seem to believe that the world has remained equally or become less of a rational place than before the enlightenment?

The Social Enlightenment Failed. In 1850, the common prediction would be that man would become more and more rational, which meant, doing away with the supernatural from their lives, realizing the falsehood of religion, and generally getting on with a more scientific, 'modern' way of looking at the world. This has decidedly *not* happened.

As for one of your aforementioned observers, would they not have observed huge changes in the power of the church leaning toward a more empirically based governing power? Certainly freedom and democracy have flourished in the wake of the enlightenment, or would you disagree?

As for rational atheism, I think here would be a good time to expose my personal feelings on this whole subject. To me, theists and atheists are as bad as each other. Arguing over a unanswerable question. I often get accused of 'sitting on the fence' when concerning religion, and to those accusations I always respond the same: "What fence?" I am being accused of refusing to take a stance on an impossible question. No one would expect me to
comment on the validity of the existence of a flying tea pot, would they? In short, I don't believe that reason can guide us to an answer. And as I have made clear, reason is my only guide. And to your opinon that;

The most common view among professional philosophers who don't believe in God is that there is NO such things as truth

I am in great disagreement.


The following paragraph:

The Universe Began! 1850 years ago, scientists almost universally thought that the universe had been going on, basically like it is now, forever back in time. A steady state universe, it was called. The idea of a Creation was preposterous, and surely one of the most silly aspects of biblical mythology. Since then, we discovered, completely independent of Scripture, that the universe actually had a beginning. It's important not to let this point be taken for granted. The single biggest, most impactful claim of theism, that the Universe came into being from nothing, is now the scientific mainstream. Anyone who says there's no scientific evidence for the existence of God is obviously just living in modern times where the Big Bang is taken for granted, and is asking 'Yeah, but what have you done for me lately'? The only reason this isn't more massive than it is, is because humans don't live long enough to experience life both before and after such massive paradigm shifts.

I feel is another example of proposition A not necessitating conclusion B. However this we have discussed and am more concerned with a more psychological/sociological explanation rather than a philosophical argument from first principals.

In response to your final point, I agree with you that those people who don't believe that Jesus existed are ignoring evidence from scripture. However as to those those who do no believe in the miracles he performed etc. I am among.

New Testament Criticism has completely failed. In the 19th century, the prevailing view of the New Testament was that Jesus was a made up figure similar to Horus, was brought together from a series of pagan myths that predated him, and that the figures who surrounded him, such as Paul, James, and so on, were zodiac-type figures. The Gospels were written in the late 2nd century, if not later, and the entire thing was most likely cobbled together by Constantine.
Despite what you may read on the internet from time to time, those views have COMPLETELY fallen through

I am unaware of any credible counter evidence to support your claim here, in light of the vast amounts of evidence to confirm your oppositions position, perhaps you might elaborate? Also the internet is by no means the only place one can find such claims. For example earlier this evening I listened to Stephen Fry describe the uncanny similarities between Jesus and the greek god Mithras. (and Stephen Fry is probably the only other man after Patrick Stewart I'd blindly obey :P )


was actually widely-known as a healer and miracle worker

It is highly accepted among many historical scholars that the miraculous healing properties described in the bible can only be attributed to his use of medicinal marijuana. Healing the blind; marijuana cures glaucoma. Healing the infirm; marijuana cures ME. Healing leprosy; marijuana is an excellent cure for skin conditions (the lepers of Ben Hur are dramatically over exaggerated) And healing those suffering chronic arthritis; as you may be aware marijuana is a great pain reliever.

My point here being that the miracles described in the bible all have more reasonable explanations other than Jesus somehow being able to manipulate the laws of nature.

Conclusion: Not only is Christianity very reasonable to believe, it's more reasonable now than it has been in centuries.

As you may have guessed by this point I hold the stance completely contrary to your own, the reasons for which I have describe above but only a few.

In conclusion I am agnostic on the subject until I am presented with real evidence either way.


Whew, there we go. Right I'm gonna have a bottle of Hen's Tooth then I'm off to bed for another evening. Cya all tomorrow and happy poxing :)

Night night.

(P.S apparently I cant post more than 10000 characters, so I removed the original quote, which is a bit of a pain in the arse if its on another page)

[Uccisore]

No more than 1000 characters? Ok, thanks for the warning!


From what I can conclude from your response you seem to believe that the world has remained equally or become less of a rational place than before the enlightenment?

I think that the supernatural was 'on it's way out' and the dawning of a new age was predicted by Nietzsche, and then it resurged around the turn of the century. I think that we were entering an 'age of enlightened materialism' in the 20's, and then had a religious awakening in the 60's. I think we're in a materialistic period right now, and once again, some people are calling it a harbinger of a permanent state of affairs, when we've able reason to believe that since the 19th century, these things just come in cycles. In other words, religion does just fine in the 'modern age' after all.


I am unaware of any credible counter evidence to support your claim here, in light of the vast amounts of evidence to confirm your oppositions position, perhaps you might elaborate?

I'm not sure what it is you want me to elaborate on. Poke around a little, you'll find that the "Jesus never existed" crowd are hacks now. 100 years ago, it was common wisdom among the scholarly.


For example earlier this evening I listened to Stephen Fry describe the uncanny similarities between Jesus and the greek god Mithras.

Sure, you see that from time to time. The problem with skepticism is, it doesn't have to actually construct a coherent worldview, it just picks things apart. Like in this case, the argument is a complete anachronism. Stephen Fry can't say Jesus didn't exist, or else he loses all credibility. He can't say the earliest of Paul's letters came about more than, say, 10 years after the death of Christ, in which all the central teachings of Christianity are present...so what's his point? Well, to make people 'feel doubtful', I'm sure. I'm also sure there's uncanny similarities between the greek god Mithras and several former US presidents, as well.
Simply put, the 'pagan paralells' arguments are from a time when people were trying to figure out where the whole 'Jesus myth' came from. Now that the consensus is that the Jesus myth came from the stuff that Jesus actually said and did, there's not really a significance to it.
As a side note, you can't find any written descriptions of the mythology of Mithras that pre-date Christ anyway.


It is highly accepted among many historical scholars that the miraculous healing properties described in the bible can only be attributed to his use of medicinal marijuana. Healing the blind; marijuana cures glaucoma. Healing the infirm; marijuana cures ME. Healing leprosy; marijuana is an excellent cure for skin conditions (the lepers of Ben Hur are dramatically over exaggerated) And healing those suffering chronic arthritis; as you may be aware marijuana is a great pain reliever.

I'm totally certain that that's not a mainstream view, but even taking it for granted as one, it completely verifies with the point I'm making, which is- 100 years ago, skeptics were saying He didn't exist. Now they're left saying "Um, maybe He was a proto-rastafarian??" I mean seriously, when does it end? It's obvious that anyone reaching for such an answer isn't going to believe in the miracle stories no matter what the evidence says or they would have already. If the 'pot' theory was disproven, then the same people would be saying Jesus was a time-traveller or an alien, I'm sure. And that's my point- if the entirety of the "Historical Jesus" debate took place between two people over 150 years, and the skeptic had so utterly retreated from "Jesus didn't exist" to "maybe he healed people with weed", then theist would be giving up and walking away in disgust, wouldn't he? Anyone impartial observers judging such a debate would rule in a landslide for the theist, wouldn't they?

[Burnova]

Ok, I'm not going to bother typing out all the quote/response things I did before, sorry if it sounds choppy, but I'm just writing down what I wrote at work. I shall begin.

I can't really agree with your first argument, it basically sounds like you are saying "We still believe in the Christian story, so therefore it must be true."

As for the Problem of Evil that you discussed in the second paragraph, I strongly agree that it is NOT a problem for Christian theology. Not only have do other religions include it within their core beliefs (Allah created both good AND evil), but the problem has been dealt with by Christian philosophers as well (St. Augustine and Aquinas). However, I do not see what you consider the failure of rational atheism to be a credit to Theism. It seems to me that the problem of truth just continues to move through stages. People as a whole tend to desire a universal concept of truth, or at least something that holds true all over various conditions. It not only makes life and decisions easier, but it also removes doubt and calms fears. Unfortunately, there is no way of having this without some sort of Universal authority biased in specific ways that can make these decisions for us. It is because of these reason that i feel theistic truth-based philosophy is more prevalent again.

Ok, science...

The Universe began. Check.

Animals appeared on earth fully evolved in their current appearances within a span of 7 days. Hmmm, seems that science has not confirmed this one. Claiming that science is affirming Christian beliefs and mythology is like <insert a witty comment here that belittles your claim>

Don't get me wrong, I love when archeology finds lost cities and goes, "Oh these were melted from the top down! It must be Sodom and Gomorrah!" Because its just as fun a few months later when they find out they were near an active fault line and volcano that just happened to erupt around that time. Or how every one of the plagues as well as the water parting can be explained with science... (I have something to add to this, so pause any response you might have)...

The first thing you mentioned in New Testament criticism sounds an awful lot like a book from the late 1800's called "The World's 16 Crucified Saviors." This book was widely criticized by scholars of its time and was never the prevailing view. I think the most successful period it ever had came within the past few years when much of its theories were spotlighted in Zeitgiest, which despite your condescension towards the theories about it, you must admit was a hell of a conspiracy theory film.

Your opinion that the current New Testament criticism has fallen to the level of 2000 year old he-said she-said sounds like you are the victim of an (sorry for bringing Psychology into this) Availability Heuristic. You are incorrectly estimating the type of and number of skeptics based on the fact you are part of a philosophical community that reverberates the information you presented to me, and that you only rarely hear people like myself.

There is a film called "The God that Wasn't There" that highlights one type of skepticism that exists and has a strong, strong following. The only true criticism about the film was its length vs cost (20 bucks for 45 minutes..... ok that was just my problem with it :-D), its lack of 'proper scholars' (a criticism from Christian circles) and the fact it uses propaganda-esque (thank you RSnow for reminding me of this suffix) presentation techniques.

Back to the thing i said i would bring back. If you are as quick thinking as I think you are, you will probably respond with, "Great, so science figured out how God did it."

This is the main point where true intellectual theists and intellectual atheists differ. We both can look at the same body of evidence and attribute it to different things. The debate will ultimately come down to "God did it." "No it didn't." Regardless of the amount of accumulated evidence, both sides can point to a different answer. The only true defining moment would be if God yelled at us, "Don't make me come down there." Otherwise, both sides are left to painfully point at the answer they feel is so obvious while the other party looks elsewhere.

There is one difference with me and most atheists, one that annoys the hell out of me, even more than nerf threads. Most atheists are content is saying "No, there isn't a God." And when this happens, I turn into the same person I do when someone tries to blast Christianity just for the sake of being an ass. I become the practicing Baptist i was for 16 years and challenge them on what they know. Truth be told, I might be responsible for more conversions to Christianity than most people in this thread. I said this in the original forums' religion thread. My personal philosophy is a mix, something like Existential behavioristic atheism. Its not really a perfect match to any of those, but it contains elements of the three that are recognizable. When people say, "I am an atheist," i generally respond with, "So then what do you believe?" When they comment, "Well, there is no God," I quip, "That's what you don't believe... What do you believe?" The often give me a blank stare and shrug their shoulders. It is people like this that I do not like (in the intellectual sense). Christians that actually know what is in the Bible, some philosophers, etc, can believe in God and Jesus and the stories, debate with me for hours, whatever, but when we get bored, lets go to the driving range or play some Pox, I'd be glad to associate with you. If you are content in blindly living a life where you know nothing about who you are or what you believe, then I'd probably be a bit more difficult to hang out with.

In case you were wondering, I attempt to incorporate psychology of all kinds with philosophy and religion to get an understanding of the human condition, and thats my perspective on life. As a great comedian Red Green (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJrjDI5xSQ) said,

"I'm pulling for ya, we're all in this together."

PS: Was at 13107 with all the characters from your quote :-D

[Uccisore]

I can't really agree with your first argument, it basically sounds like you are saying "We still believe in the Christian story, so therefore it must be true."

I didn't say anything like that. I said, in short, that 150 years ago, all the big atheist brains predicted that 'the modern age' would be the death of religion, and it wasn't. Religious ideas thrive just fine with all our modern advancements and ideas.

It not only makes life and decisions easier, but it also removes doubt and calms fears. Unfortunately, there is no way of having this without some sort of Universal authority biased in specific ways that can make these decisions for us. It is because of these reason that i feel theistic truth-based philosophy is more prevalent again.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but I don't see why that's a problem for theism. Yes, believing in universal truth does make just about everything we do easier, and yes, universal truth makes more sense if there is a God. Sounds like theists 2, atheists 0 at this point.


Animals appeared on earth fully evolved in their current appearances within a span of 7 days. Hmmm, seems that science has not confirmed this one. Claiming that science is affirming Christian beliefs and mythology is like <insert a witty comment here that belittles your claim>

You mentioned Augustine above. Augustine didn't believe animals appeared on the earth within a span of 7 days- he thought taking the Creation accounts literally was ridiculous, and that's a 1000 years before Darwin. There's a long standing tradition of seeing those stories as poems and theological messages.
Again, this sounds like 'what have you done for me lately'. Discovering that the universe began is a HUGE point in favor of theism. We've just had 50 years as a culture to adjust to it, so it doesn't seem like a big deal.

Again, science trying to figure out how the plagues happened? 100 years ago, no scientist would seriously consider the proposition that they happened at all. Still a movement towards theism.

Zeitgeist? In the first 5 minutes of the section on religion, it
1.) Makes much of the connection between Sun gods and the Son of God, completely forgetting that the words 'Sun' and 'Son' sound nothing alike in the languages of Jesus' times.
2.) It uses "Born on December 25th" as a parallel despite every minister on earth being able to tell you that Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25th, that the Church never, ever claimed that He was, and that the date was chosen to celebrate His birth specifically because it WAS already a pagan festival, and they didn't want to rock the people's boat too much. To this day, when the Church assigns feast days for their saints, it seldom if ever is actually assigned to the day that they were born/martyred/whatever.
3.) It does the exact same thing with The Three Wise Men, basing a criticism of the Jesus myth on the song lyrics from 'We Three Kings"!!! Not only do the Gospels NOT say how many visited the newborn Christ, but they weren't even kings, they were magicians.

It's not 'good', it's so bad the people made it should be ashamed of their lack of research, IF that is, they weren't misleading people on purpose. All I can say is, I hope the religion section was done by high school students.

It's not about my 'condescension', it's about these theories being very poorly thought out. Zeitgeist being the highlight of their presentation just underlines that fact with how bad it is.


You are incorrectly estimating the type of and number of skeptics based on the fact you are part of a philosophical community that reverberates the information you presented to me, and that you only rarely hear people like myself.

It might seem that way, but check it out for yourself. You've cited Zeitgeist, and next your going to cite "The God Who Wasn't There", because they're the very popular, internetty "Jesus as Myth" presentations that every joe-skeptic knows. However, it remains a fact that majority scholarship abandoned the position ages ago, because it's a very weak position. Your psychological profiling isn't applicable to me- I've done the research, I know where the academics lie. I do worry about you though, if you think the stuff you're sighting rises above, say, Loose Change in it's academic credentials.

The only thing you haven't done yet to convince me you're caught up in a teeny-tiny circle, is quote Robert Price. I bet it's coming though, isn't it? :)

Trust me, Robert Price -> Dawkins -> Zeitgeist -> The God Who Wasn't There don't represent solid scholarship in these fields, they represent an atheistic circle jerk that nobody outside the circle takes seriously. You're definitely stuck in one of your 'Availability Heuristic' situations if you think they have any baring on what modern scholarship things of Jesus' life and teachings. But, you don't have to take my word for it, I KNOW that if you do any unbiased research (say, outside of infidels.org), you'll discover the same thing.


This is the main point where true intellectual theists and intellectual atheists differ. We both can look at the same body of evidence and attribute it to different things. The debate will ultimately come down to "God did it." "No it didn't." Regardless of the amount of accumulated evidence, both sides can point to a different answer.

Yeah, you're basically proving me right, here. The fact that an atheist is just a person who's going to say "No He didn't" for any body of accumulated evidence, is precisely why I think Christianity has laid out it's case as well as can be expected.

Jesus existed, the universe began, theism thrives under philosophical, intellectual rigor, and Christianity isn't failing as a social movement any time soon. That's way more evidence than the skeptic of 1850 would have dreamed to ask for. All that's left is people who will not accept theism under any circumstances.

[Burnova]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but I don't see why that's a problem for theism. Yes, believing in universal truth does make just about everything we do easier, and yes, universal truth makes more sense if there is a God. Sounds like theists 2, atheists 0 at this point.

You mentioned Augustine above. Augustine didn't believe animals appeared on the earth within a span of 7 days- he thought taking the Creation accounts literally was ridiculous, and that's a 1000 years before Darwin. There's a long standing tradition of seeing those stories as poems and theological messages.
Again, this sounds like 'what have you done for me lately'. Discovering that the universe began is a HUGE point in favor of theism. We've just had 50 years as a culture to adjust to it, so it doesn't seem like a big deal.

Again, science trying to figure out how the plagues happened? 100 years ago, no scientist would seriously consider the proposition that they happened at all. Still a movement towards theism.

Zeitgeist? In the first 5 minutes of the section on religion, it
1.) Makes much of the connection between Sun gods and the Son of God, completely forgetting that the words 'Sun' and 'Son' sound nothing alike in the languages of Jesus' times.
2.) It uses "Born on December 25th" as a parallel despite every minister on earth being able to tell you that Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25th, that the Church never, ever claimed that He was, and that the date was chosen to celebrate His birth specifically because it WAS already a pagan festival, and they didn't want to rock the people's boat too much. To this day, when the Church assigns feast days for their saints, it seldom if ever is actually assigned to the day that they were born/martyred/whatever.
3.) It does the exact same thing with The Three Wise Men, basing a criticism of the Jesus myth on the song lyrics from 'We Three Kings"!!! Not only do the Gospels NOT say how many visited the newborn Christ, but they weren't even kings, they were magicians.

It's not 'good', it's so bad the people made it should be ashamed of their lack of research, IF that is, they weren't misleading people on purpose. All I can say is, I hope the religion section was done by high school students.

It's not about my 'condescension', it's about these theories being very poorly thought out. Zeitgeist being the highlight of their presentation just underlines that fact with how bad it is.

It might seem that way, but check it out for yourself. You've cited Zeitgeist, and next your going to cite "The God Who Wasn't There", because they're the very popular, internetty "Jesus as Myth" presentations that every joe-skeptic knows. However, it remains a fact that majority scholarship abandoned the position ages ago, because it's a very weak position. Your psychological profiling isn't applicable to me- I've done the research, I know where the academics lie. I do worry about you though, if you think the stuff you're sighting rises above, say, Loose Change in it's academic credentials.

The only thing you haven't done yet to convince me you're caught up in a teeny-tiny circle, is quote Robert Price. I bet it's coming though, isn't it? :)

Trust me, Robert Price -> Dawkins -> Zeitgeist -> The God Who Wasn't There don't represent solid scholarship in these fields, they represent an atheistic circle jerk that nobody outside the circle takes seriously. You're definitely stuck in one of your 'Availability Heuristic' situations if you think they have any baring on what modern scholarship things of Jesus' life and teachings. But, you don't have to take my word for it, I KNOW that if you do any unbiased research (say, outside of infidels.org), you'll discover the same thing.

Yeah, you're basically proving me right, here. The fact that an atheist is just a person who's going to say "No He didn't" for any body of accumulated evidence, is precisely why I think Christianity has laid out it's case as well as can be expected.

Jesus existed, the universe began, theism thrives under philosophical, intellectual rigor, and Christianity isn't failing as a social movement any time soon. That's way more evidence than the skeptic of 1850 would have dreamed to ask for. All that's left is people who will not accept theism under any circumstances.

Maybe you should re-read my words again and see that I was laughing at Zeitgeist and comparing it something that was widely criticized in the 1800s.... while mentioning that you were incorrect on the prevailing ideas of the late 1800s.... but it seems I misjudged you as a person who likes having intellectual conversations, instead it seems by the way you responded, you are more of an antagonistic debater. I mean really, I called the damn thing an awesome conspiracy theory film, and you still assume i believe its content?

Also, with the whole "What have you done for me lately?" thing, why do you think that the science is searching for ways to explain the Bible? Actually, the explanation of the plagues came by accident when many of the same things happened in some small town in some country i cant remember. You can look it up online, its quite a read. Furthermore, the discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah came when scientists were exploring the salinity of the Dead Sea.

One thing about Christianity that bothers me is the capacity for denial of certain parts of the Bible as truth (Creation was just a myth, Revelations was probably politically motivated, as were much of the old Testament prophecies), but the adamant demand that the rest is completely the truth the must be followed and believed.

And once again you misread me (seems to be intentional at this point) when i said neither side is willing to accept the other's position. You twisted it into saying that only atheists are the stubborn ones.

There is only one thing left to remind you of... I'm not an 1850 skeptic.

[Uccisore]

Burnova - I'm sorry you don't like my attitude, it's not terribly different on any other section of the forums. Sorry I misunderstood you on the Zeitgeist thing. But yeah, I don't see where you did anything to criticize the argument I laid out- skepticism claimed a series of very strong, negative things about Christianity and theism, and they've all been completely shot down. The skeptical arguments that still exist are a shadow of their former selves, and more a product of the 'will to disbelieve' than anything that should be taken seriously. That's the argument.

I don't understand what your issue is here, though:


One thing about Christianity that bothers me is the capacity for denial of certain parts of the Bible as truth (Creation was just a myth, Revelations was probably politically motivated, as were much of the old Testament prophecies), but the adamant demand that the rest is completely the truth the must be followed and believed.

What exactly is the problem with that? Are you saying that a Christian HAS to believe that there's actually going to be giant locust horses with swords in their mouths during the end times, or they're 'doin it wrong', or they aren't allowed to claim that Jesus really meant what He said, or existed or whatever?

[Burnova]

Burnova - I'm sorry you don't like my attitude, it's not terribly different on any other section of the forums. Sorry I misunderstood you on the Zeitgeist thing. But yeah, I don't see where you did anything to criticize the argument I laid out- skepticism claimed a series of very strong, negative things about Christianity and theism, and they've all been completely shot down. The skeptical arguments that still exist are a shadow of their former selves, and more a product of the 'will to disbelieve' than anything that should be taken seriously. That's the argument.



This is the main point where true intellectual theists and intellectual atheists differ. We both can look at the same body of evidence and attribute it to different things. The debate will ultimately come down to "God did it." "No it didn't." Regardless of the amount of accumulated evidence, both sides can point to a different answer. The only true defining moment would be if God yelled at us, "Don't make me come down there." Otherwise, both sides are left to painfully point at the answer they feel is so obvious while the other party looks elsewhere.



I went searching for this for a particular reason. We basically have the EXACT same argument, just from different sides of the table.

I could type your sentence as follows
But yeah, I don't see where you did anything to criticize the argument I laid out- theism claimed a series of very strong, positive things about Christianity and theism, and they've all been completely shot down. The theistic arguments that still exist are a shadow their former selves, and more a product of the 'will to believe' than anything that should be taken seriously. That's the argument.

Both sides can say that exact thing with just a few changes and get across the same point. Which is why I delved a bit into my personal philosophy rather than attempting to firmly place myself on one side of the fence (as Jelly put it).

PS. Going back to read my thing and find this quote made me realize that I have more commas than <insert witty comment here about how many commas I had per sentence>. I shall get some rest and hope to write more clearly in the morning.

[Uccisore]

Burnova - I don't think you could retype my sentence that way. Or rather, I suppose you COULD, but it wouldn't actually be true. Historical discoveries really have brought the skeptics dramatically closer to the traditional views, scientific discoveries really have made theism much easier to accept in recent times, and philosophy really has lost most of it's good arguments against the theistic position. Other than a sort of...wish for a pluralistic view of things, I guess I'd really need to see some examples of what you're talking about.

[Jellybabe]

I'm totally certain that that's not a mainstream view, but even taking it for granted as one, it completely verifies with the point I'm making, which is- 100 years ago, skeptics were saying He didn't exist. Now they're left saying "Um, maybe He was a proto-rastafarian??" I mean seriously, when does it end? It's obvious that anyone reaching for such an answer isn't going to believe in the miracle stories no matter what the evidence says or they would have already. If the 'pot' theory was disproven, then the same people would be saying Jesus was a time-traveller or an alien, I'm sure. And that's my point- if the entirety of the "Historical Jesus" debate took place between two people over 150 years, and the skeptic had so utterly retreated from "Jesus didn't exist" to "maybe he healed people with weed", then theist would be giving up and walking away in disgust, wouldn't he? Anyone impartial observers judging such a debate would rule in a landslide for the theist, wouldn't they?


I think it is far more likely that Jesus used medicine to cure illness than divine powers. Try to understand that there probably wasn't the stigma attached to hemp and cannabis 2000 years ago that there is today. And new 'miracle' cures could easily be seen as divine power to a people simply ignorant of the true scientific explanation.

And myself being an impartial observer would give the more likely explanation the more weight, so I don't think it's fair to say it would be a landslide to the theist. The cannabis explanation is not an attack on Jesus' character, like I said the stigma it relatively new. For example during the reign of Henry VIII it was illegal not to grow hemp, because of its incredible versatility. It is only in recent times people have frowned on it's recreational uses, which is a huge shame considering the plethora of other, less questionable uses.

[Jellybabe]

Burnova - I don't think you could retype my sentence that way. Or rather, I suppose you COULD, but it wouldn't actually be true. Historical discoveries really have brought the skeptics dramatically closer to the traditional views, scientific discoveries really have made theism much easier to accept in recent times, and philosophy really has lost most of it's good arguments against the theistic position. Other than a sort of...wish for a pluralistic view of things, I guess I'd really need to see some examples of what you're talking about.



Would the scientific discovery of the healing properties of cannabis and it's widespread availability at the time help or hinder the theistic position? I cannot see your logic in asserting that science has has made theism easier to accept. As I see it science has only ever offered evidence against theism (Darwin, for example), or evidence neutral to the argument (the big bang)

Also the Bible itself contains a recipe for preparing a cannabis based anointing oil. Providing one translates Keneh Bosom as the blossom of the cannabis plant.

The uses of this oil I have previously described. (healing)
Jesus covered himself in this oil when he was baptized at which time he had visions of the heavens tearing open. It appears Jesus experienced an intense psychological experience, more than what one would expect from a simple submersion in water.

[Burnova]

Would the scientific discovery of the healing properties of cannabis and it's widespread availability at the time help or hinder the theistic position? I cannot see your logic in asserting that science has has made theism easier to accept. As I see it science has only ever offered evidence against theism (Darwin, for example), or evidence neutral to the argument (the big bang)


This is what I was trying to get across earlier. The scientific evidence accumulates in a massive pile. Theists take it and go, "Oh look, its saying God is real and yadda yadda yadda." The Atheists take it and go, "Oh look, its saying it was all just a nice book and yadda yadda yadda."

When you look at and go, "Jesus healed by cannabis, not by miracles." The theist responds, "To them, it was a miracle! And it worked! Case closed."

Its funny, now that I think about it, this basing of ideas and beliefs on solid scientific evidence reminds me failed philosophical time....

[Jellybabe]

This is what I was trying to get across earlier. The scientific evidence accumulates in a massive pile. Theists take it and go, "Oh look, its saying God is real and yadda yadda yadda." The Atheists take it and go, "Oh look, its saying it was all just a nice book and yadda yadda yadda."

When you look at and go, "Jesus healed by cannabis, not by miracles." The theist responds, "To them, it was a miracle! And it worked! Case closed."

Its funny, now that I think about it, this basing of ideas and beliefs on solid scientific evidence reminds me failed philosophical time....


Do you recall the post on evidential arguments?

If we use the evidence that:

1. The bible describes miraculous events of healing performed by Jesus.
2. These included healing the blind, the infirm, the lepers, and the arthritic.
3. Cannabis has been proven empirically to help cure/ease symptoms of; glaucoma, multiple scleroses, various skin disorders and arthritis.
4. Cannabis was widely available to people in that era and location.
5. There is no empirical evidence that anyone has ever violated the laws of nature.


Now I offer two conclusions:

1. Jesus had the ability to break the laws of nature and perform miraculous healing.
2. Jesus made use of native, natural, remedies to perform healing.

To any rational person the answer is conclusion 2. There is no reason to pick conclusion 1 as the available evidence either contradicts it or is irrelevant.

[Burnova]

Do you recall the post on evidential arguments?

If we use the evidence that:

1. The bible describes miraculous events of healing performed by Jesus.
2. These included healing the blind, the infirm, the lepers, and the arthritic.
3. Cannabis has been proven empirically to help cure/ease symptoms of; glaucoma, multiple scleroses, various skin disorders and arthritis.
4. Cannabis was widely available to people in that era and location.
5. There is no empirical evidence that anyone has ever violated the laws of nature.


Now I offer two conclusions:

1. Jesus had the ability to break the laws of nature and perform miraculous healing.
2. Jesus made use of native, natural, remedies to perform healing.

To any rational person the answer is conclusion 2. There is no reason to pick conclusion 1 as the available evidence either contradicts it or is irrelevant.

I cannot recall if during my sleep deprived state I made a comment on how Theists can pick and chose the parts of the Bible they want to read literally, while letting others be read metaphorically or whatnot.

I've seen explanations for almost all 'miracles' in the old and new testament, and am whole heartedly convinced that the Bible is merely folklore combined with historical characters, but as I tried to convey before, my biggest thing is that people believe something, know why they believe, and strive to understand it more.

EDIT: Any psychology questions???? :-D

[Jellybabe]

EDIT: Any psychology questions???? :-D


Why are there people that jump to conclusion 1 despite the evidence suggesting that conclusion 2 is far more likely.

[Burnova]

I've done alot of research on related concepts, and the ultimate answer to why people believe that I've found...

It makes them feel better.

[Jellybabe]

Sometimes I wish I could abandon reason just so I can feel what they feel. Even if it was just for a few minutes

[Burnova]

Sometimes I wish I could abandon reason just so I can feel what they feel. Even if it was just for a few minutes

I lived like that for 16 years. I believed wholeheartedly in a God, a Heaven, the resurrection, and let me tell you, as safe as I felt, as loved as I felt, it was just all the more disappointing when I realized that the church I belonged to knew nothing of any arguments that had hid me from. When it came down to it, once I questioned contradictions, their disbelief of evolution and a natural start for the universe, their ideas of other religions, it made me realize that even if they were right, they didn't deserve to be.

I really think I'm done in this thread, I might start another one titled "Psychology" with nothing in it just to see what brews.

[Jellybabe]

I dunno, there's still life in this debate yet, Uccisore will be around soon I reckon. And I'm sure he'll have some interesting opinions on what we've said :)

Definitely start up a psychology thread though, I'd be interested to see what that grows into.

[Uccisore]

I think it is far more likely that Jesus used medicine to cure illness than divine powers.

Of course you do. Check out this quote of yours.


It is highly accepted among many historical scholars that the miraculous healing properties described in the bible can only be attributed to his use of medicinal marijuana.

'Can only be'? Like I've been arguing all along, the 'medicinal marijuana' argument, and other arguments come from people who decided FIRST

1.) The miracles in the New Testament can't actually be considered miracles, no matter what, and then

2.) Let's see what other explanation we can come up with.

Note that there's no text describing Jesus as using cannabis. No quotes, no research, no citation. No reference to it being an early Christian practice. No iconography of Christ depicting Him smoking. Nothing in the Gospels or anywhere else extolling the virtues of weed. No sign at all that marijuana had anything at all to do with his ministry. Zero evidence. I can't disprove it. I can't discredit it, because there's no positive evidence to criticize! The only thing that you have going for you is that a bunch of the miracles Jesus performed are the curing of things that marijuana is said to treat. And if Jesus performed a bunch of miracles that have nothing to to with weed (feeding of the 5,000, walking on water, being raised from the dead), then you're always free to say those ones just didn't really happen.
The entire case of it is built around two things:

1.) Accepting the accounts of the miraculous is not an option no matter what, and
2.) This is something I can say instead, and keep a straight face.

So yeah, this is an example of what I'm talking about. Anything that could actually be decided with evidence, has already been decided in favor of the Christian. There's very little work left for the Christian to do, who wants to demonstrate the reality of the New Testament claims. But people can always make stuff up.

Also, this doesn't address my main point, which is that 100 years ago, skeptics would have found no need to explain Jesus' miracles with pot, because they would have assumed nothing in the Gospels actually happened in the first place. This really is exactly what I'm talking about- the critics have been forced to accept that the accounts are essentially true, and are left trying to come up with conspiracy theories that are outside the evidence, and have no evidence to support them.

So yeah, my point isn't so much that 'many skeptics' don't have cheeseball theories with no evidence to back them that allows them to no accept miracles. I know they do. I'm up on it. My point is that over the past century, the need for the theories has evolved from asserting that Jesus never existed, to giving the Christian almost 100% of the factual ground, and beginning with the assertion that Jesus was a real, miraculous-seeming healer who founded the Christian faith. You can't ignore that.

Burnova: I get this sneaking suspicion that you're talking about me to Jelly like I'm a Joe-Churchpew religious follower who hasn't thought about his beliefs, and it's familiar with arguments/evidence on both sides on a graduate-student level of fluency. I would prefer not being brushed off as 'he believes because it makes him feel better', by somebody who doesn't know me well enough to make that sort of claim.

[Jellybabe]

Good evening uccisore, well it's evening here anyway :)

When you make your point:

'Can only be'? Like I've been arguing all along, the 'medicinal marijuana' argument, and other arguments come from people who decided FIRST

1.) The miracles in the New Testament can't actually be considered miracles, no matter what, and then

2.) Let's see what other explanation we can come up with.

I don't think that people have already decided. If they were already decided what good would it serve them to keep arguing? People looking for alternative explanations are generally those who are undecided. People like myself.

Note that there's no text describing Jesus as using cannabis. No quotes, no research, no citation. No reference to it being an early Christian practice. No iconography of Christ depicting Him smoking. Nothing in the Gospels or anywhere else extolling the virtues of weed. No sign at all that marijuana had anything at all to do with his ministry. Zero evidence.

There is actually vast amounts of research focusing on the use of entheogens within religion (literally meaning: the divine within plants) My girlfriend is currently working on her dissertation on that same subject.

I can't disprove it. I can't discredit it, because there's no positive evidence to criticize!



If we use the evidence that:

1. The bible describes miraculous events of healing performed by Jesus.
2. These included healing the blind, the infirm, the lepers, and the arthritic.
3. Cannabis has been proven empirically to help cure/ease symptoms of; glaucoma, multiple scleroses, various skin disorders and arthritis.
4. Cannabis was widely available to people in that era and location.
5. There is no empirical evidence that anyone has ever violated the laws of nature.


Now I offer two conclusions:

1. Jesus had the ability to break the laws of nature and perform miraculous healing.
2. Jesus made use of native, natural, remedies to perform healing.

To any rational person the answer is conclusion 2. There is no reason to pick conclusion 1 as the available evidence either contradicts it or is irrelevant.

Do you not hold my evidence as sound?


Anything that could actually be decided with evidence, has already been decided in favor of the Christian.

Could you link me to some information on this.

Burnova: I get this sneaking suspicion that you're talking about me to Jelly like I'm a Joe-Churchpew religious follower who hasn't thought about his beliefs, and it's familiar with arguments/evidence on both sides on a graduate-student level of fluency. I would prefer not being brushed off as 'he believes because it makes him feel better', by somebody who doesn't know me well enough to make that sort of claim.


I'm sure burnova doesn't feel that way about you. And I think your both lovely people anyway :)

[RSnow]

As an agnostic, I probably view things a bit differently than an atheist or a theist would.

My question is this, if there were a god, or no god, would your behavior or life change?

Many of the principles of religion are universal and necessary for society to function. Many of the oddball "rules" are generally considered as such. Don't wear clothing of mixed fabric, yeah it's in the old testament. Don't eat shellfish, yeah old testament again. Anyone thinks god cares, at all?

Most religions hold that following such religion over just being a good person holds particular benefits. Anyone remember the good Samaritan? You know where the poor heathens were closer to god than a priest? Yeah, that's right out of Jesus's mouth. Guess what, if god exists he probably doesn't care if you pray or go to church or believe in him. Being a good person is all that matters, at least that's what Jesus said. It benefits you to be a good person anyway, no need for a god or religion to tell you that. If there is a heaven and you get there, don't be pissed if you see gandhi.

The afterlife. What is life without struggle and challenge? If there were a heaven and you could experience eternal bliss, would you want to? If there were a hell with eternal damnation, what purpose would it serve god to send people there? Get this, we probably have plenty of time on earth and there really isn't any need for an afterlife. If there is a god, he wants us to pursue justice on earth and not allow our fellow man to suffer. You can learn to enjoy the life you have now, you don't need heaven anyway. God would probably appreciate it if you did.

Is there a god? Maybe. If so, does it change anything? Probably not. If believing in a god makes you happy go for it, if believing religious people are stupid makes you happy go for it, either way there is no way of knowing and it would change nothing anyway.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter does it? If you need religion take it, if not let it be. God, if he exists, probably doesn't care anyway, and there probably isn't an afterlife.

OK I'm going to leave most of the historical philosophic arguments to Ussicore now, as he's clearly done more research than any of us (pardon Burnova, I'd say you're a close second) on this topic.

But this is something I can answer.

1) The "bible is contradictory/outdated" argument is very common among people who have not done the research. That is NOT to say that your posts are illogical, foolish, or not based on evidence, but rather that they are a manifestation of the "straw dummy" Rhetorical argument. In other words, they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible. For example, people who argue that the creation of the Universe should be literally interpreted (on both sides), miss the point in the same manner as people who complain about solomon's table. 3 is the APPROXIMATION for pi. If I were writing the bible, I wouldn't have time for the exact value either. Same for the creation of the universe. Since it is impossible to write a complete history of the science of the creation of the Universe to an infinite degree, let alone explain it to a nomad shepherd, I would take as little space as is physically possible while still getting the process more or less correct. So the cloths and shellfish argument would make more sense if you lived in Moses' society. So that I may not be a hypocrite, I will not describe said society, because I trust you can look it up yourself.

2) Being a good person is NOT enough. I will use Lewis' analogy of the navy. You are a captain of a naval ship. There are 3 things that will cause your mission to fail.
a)Your ship sinks- an analogy for poor spiritual/moral condition
b)Your ship hits the other ships-so people have to get along with each other
c)Your ship sails the wrong direction
In this case, "good enough" is not good enough, if you follow me. If heaven exists, people need to be PERFECT, or it would collapse on itself. Since nobody can achieve this, it takes Jesus.

3) If there's one thing you take from this, please hear me. hell is NOT a torture room. Heaven is NOT a palace alone. Hell and heaven are merely natural consequences.

Consider this- our souls are immortal. So how could any heaven exist if a Hitler were allowed to enter it? People who are kind and forgiving would constantly fall prey to this Hitler. Even people who are good people- nice families and good spouses still have arguments. How then could a heaven exist if people were to ever disagree and cause strife amongst themselves? Therefore, this very earth could be a paradise, if everyone were perfect. If we worked together, by now we could have cured all disease and solved hunger and drought. We put a man on the moon, do you not believe we could, with time, do these things as well?

So now, consider hell. Imagine I have a bad temper. Imagine that it's slowly be getting worse. By the time I die, I might be a bit snappy, but I could still be a good person. But imagine how bad it could get if I were to live forever. Now imagine everyone on earth had the same problem and were also immortal. I think Hell would be a pretty good description of what this world would be in a million years.

So, humans have been given the greatest gift and the greatest curse: free will. God will not take it away. So, he gave us a choice, we could choose to ascend or to descend. Since nobody can be perfect without his help, he sent his son to die for us so that we might know that he will do anything to help us, short of choosing for us. So, there is your choice.



OK. Somebody said: "When I say I'm not an athiest OR religious, I get accused of sitting on the fence. I say 'what fence'? You can't answer an impossible question"


In response: Better make up your mind soon. Cause you'll die eventually, and then we'll know who's right. So the fence will appear some time in the future. Beware lest you be caught on the wrong side of it...

[RSnow]

Do you recall the post on evidential arguments?

If we use the evidence that:

1. The bible describes miraculous events of healing performed by Jesus.
2. These included healing the blind, the infirm, the lepers, and the arthritic.
3. Cannabis has been proven empirically to help cure/ease symptoms of; glaucoma, multiple scleroses, various skin disorders and arthritis.
4. Cannabis was widely available to people in that era and location.
5. There is no empirical evidence that anyone has ever violated the laws of nature.


Now I offer two conclusions:

1. Jesus had the ability to break the laws of nature and perform miraculous healing.
2. Jesus made use of native, natural, remedies to perform healing.

To any rational person the answer is conclusion 2. There is no reason to pick conclusion 1 as the available evidence either contradicts it or is irrelevant.

OOOH. I get it now...

Jesus walked on water because of the Cannabis oil in his shoes ;)

Man, I gotta get me some of this stuff if it can bring back people who've already died.

Or makes people hear mystical voices.

Or cures madness.

Or makes bad weather go away

But, sarcasm aside, we don't know how Jesus did his miracles. Really, I don't see the difference between Cannabis oil and the hand of God. Really, it's a question of whether God heals them directly or heals them indirectly. I mean, if God exists, he's the God of Science as well as of miracles. The one miracle I'm not going to concede tho is the fact that he rose from the dead, but I think if you're going to explain that one to me, you're going to need something a whole lot more potent than Cannabis Oil.

EDIT: BTW, if Cannabis was so commonly used, I think it would have been tried already... Or do you intend us to believe that this commonly used medicine, which was widely known at the time to help with these things, was simply never used on the people with those ailments? I see...

[Uccisore]

RSnow_ I wouldn't get too worked up about the cannabis thing. The word they're translating as cannabis literally means 'fragrant reed', so it could be almost anything. You'll find it listed as galbanum in just about every biblical translation. The pot thing is a politically motivated suggestion that you'll find referred to in places like High Times magazine.

[Uccisore]

I don't think that people have already decided. If they were already decided what good would it serve them to keep arguing? People looking for alternative explanations are generally those who are undecided. People like myself.

But the 'weed' argument doesn't have a single thing to recommend it, other than your own admission that 'anything is better than admitting to a miracle!' How is that undecided? I know you aren't sure about the pot thing, but you ARE sure that you'll take any old explanation that comes along as long as it isn't miraculous, or at least it seems so to me. That's my point. 100 years ago, it was asked, "What evidence do you have, Christian?" and we provided more evidence than anybody could have dared imagine. It's not our fault that some people are going to be skeptics no matter what.


There is actually vast amounts of research focusing on the use of entheogens within religion (literally meaning: the divine within plants) My girlfriend is currently working on her dissertation on that same subject.

I didn't say anything about 'the use of entheogens within religion'. I said, 'there's no evidence that Jesus used weed'. And there isn't.

Do you not hold my evidence as sound?

Definitely not. I'll show you why.


1. The bible describes miraculous events of healing performed by Jesus.
2. These included healing the blind, the infirm, the lepers, and the arthritic.
3. Cannabis has been proven empirically to help cure/ease symptoms of; glaucoma, multiple scleroses, various skin disorders and arthritis.
4. Cannabis was widely available to people in that era and location.
5. There is no empirical evidence that anyone has ever violated the laws of nature.


1.) True.
2.) True, but misleading- the miracles also included many things not like those. In fact, the most dramatic, repeated, and significant miracles to His ministry (resurrection, feeding of the 5,000, raising of Lazarus) were nothing like those. You're building your case around the miracles we know the least about- see my references to 'skepticism of the gaps'.
3.) Equivocation- 'help cure/ease symptoms of' is weasley-wording on your part, because you know full well that Jesus blowing pot smoke in someone's face, or anointing them with cannabis oil, isn't going to ease their multiple sclerosis or leprosy in any degree dramatic enough that people would call it 'miraculous', or even really be impressed at all. When the blind man's glaucoma eased up a tiny bit for a few hours, and then was just as bad the following morning, you really think Jesus would have ended His ministry with a reptutation as a miracle worker?
4.) True- but notice this isn't an evidential connection, this is just an opportunity. It would be like saying "Many people own hammers!" when trying to prove that a particular person committed a particular crime with a hammer.
5.) Every example of somebody saying they witnessed a miracle, including the Gospels themselves, is 'empirical evidence that someone has violated the laws of nature' to the person witnessing it. All this line of your argument amounts to is, "Jellybabe hasn't seen any miracles", and I don't know why that should be important. Obviously, tons of people claim to.

What you've got isn't evidence that Jesus used pot, because there isn't any. What you've got is a case that we can't say for sure He didn't. That's the weakest of cases. It also doesn't address the Resurrection at all.

Could you link me to some information on this.

I'm not sure what you're after- it's all right here in this thread. The very fact that you're trying to tell me Jesus was a teacher who healed people using pot, instead of telling me he was a fantasy figure based on Horus proves where the historical case has been decided. I mean heck, google up the Wikipedia entry on Jesus, and read through the 'Historical Views' section just to get you started. All that stuff about being Baptised by John the Baptist, crucified under Pilate, etc. etc.? No non-Christian believed that a century ago. That all represents major victories for a Christian view of Jesus.

[Jellybabe]

EDIT: While I was composing this the previous post was published.

Although I am not surprised the conversion has turned to sarcastic attacks on my position, I am disappointed. I have shown the greatest of respect in all aspects of my responses throughout this thread and I asked at the start that the same courtesy would be extended to myself. It became evident as time went on that there were large parts of my arguments you were simply ignoring whilst picking out weak points/poor word choices, to launch counter attacks at.

With the cannabis example I was merely trying to highlight a way in which miracles could be explained in other means. You have however obviously taken this as a personal attack on your faith, something I hoped after a few days of correspondence you would see I was not interested in doing. Also just to be clear I said that Cannabis was widely available to people in that era and location not that it was commonly used.

I think the reason we have clashed in this way is because I am only making observations based on evidence and reason where as you are holding some points as a priori truths. At this point our arguments are simply incompatible. For example, whilst you make a mockery of my rational, evidential argument based on fact. You seem to hold high esteem to the fact that Jesus walked on water.

You may find this familiar:
I can't disprove it. I can't discredit it, because there's no positive evidence to criticize!

It is at times like this you feel you have won the argument, yet in reality haven't actually added anything to it.

As far as my "fundamental misunderstandings of the bible" go I am somewhat confused. Exactly which parts are literal? You seem to believe the miraculous healing is true, yet when presented with a counter argument, of your own design i might add, you mock me. Some people believed the story of creation was true at one point. Who's to say other parts of the bible wont be discredited?

And as far as the fence is concerned, seriously it isn't there, it's a figment of your imagination.

As I said I am disappointed it had to come to this but I would like to thank you for all the efforts you have made to answering my questions. As a man of science new points of view are always welcome. I think this thread has just about reached the limits of what it can achieve so I think I might move on to something else, unless of course you wish to further discuss some of the undiscussed topics I have brought up. But failing that I guess I'll see you around.

Yours sincerely, Jelly.

[Jellybabe]

In response to Uccisore's post:

you'll take any old explanation that comes along as long as it isn't miraculous

I will favor any explanation that adheres to the laws of nature/physics. Explanations that do not adhere to these laws hold as much water as any other explanation that does not adhere to the laws of nature/physics. I won't even insult you by making one up. If you could prove to me EMPIRICALLY the truth of your claim I would be more than acceptant of it.


Quote:
1. The bible describes miraculous events of healing performed by Jesus.
2. These included healing the blind, the infirm, the lepers, and the arthritic.
3. Cannabis has been proven empirically to help cure/ease symptoms of; glaucoma, multiple scleroses, various skin disorders and arthritis.
4. Cannabis was widely available to people in that era and location.
5. There is no empirical evidence that anyone has ever violated the laws of nature.
1.) True.
2.) True, but misleading- the miracles also included many things not like those. In fact, the most dramatic, repeated, and significant miracles to His ministry (resurrection, feeding of the 5,000, raising of Lazarus) were nothing like those. You're building your case around the miracles we know the least about- see my references to 'skepticism of the gaps'.
3.) Equivocation- 'help cure/ease symptoms of' is weasley-wording on your part, because you know full well that Jesus blowing pot smoke in someone's face, or anointing them with cannabis oil, isn't going to ease their multiple sclerosis or leprosy in any degree dramatic enough that people would call it 'miraculous', or even really be impressed at all. When the blind man's glaucoma eased up a tiny bit for a few hours, and then was just as bad the following morning, you really think Jesus would have ended His ministry with a reptutation as a miracle worker?
4.) True- but notice this isn't an evidential connection, this is just an opportunity. It would be like saying "Many people own hammers!" when trying to prove that a particular person committed a particular crime with a hammer.
5.) Every example of somebody saying they witnessed a miracle, including the Gospels themselves, is 'empirical evidence that someone has violated the laws of nature' to the person witnessing it. All this line of your argument amounts to is, "Jellybabe hasn't seen any miracles", and I don't know why that should be important. Obviously, tons of people claim to.

What you've got isn't evidence that Jesus used pot, because there isn't any. What you've got is a case that we can't say for sure He didn't. That's the weakest of cases. It also doesn't address the Resurrection at all.

1. Is true.
2. The "miracles" you are referring to are irrelevant to this case.
3. There are many Americans out there who think that those so called religious "healers" are actually curing them of serious medical conditions. I hope you realize they are clearly frauds. However in a society without mass media showing the preposterousness of their claims it is easy to see how someone who was [i]actually[i/] doing some good could gain such stature. (Jesus would only need to cure a few people for rumor to spread)
4. In what way is having the means to perform an act irrelevant? I believe that is a staple condition in todays legal system.
5. So if I say that the Devil came to me and told me that God is dead, then that is evidence that God is dead? I didn't think so.

As for the truth about Jesus I took your advice and looked at wikipedia. This is what I have found out about him.

"Jesus is said to have performed various miracles, including healings, exorcisms, walking on water, turning water into wine, and raising several people, such as Lazarus, from the dead"

History does not claim he did any of these things, only that people say he has.

"academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, religious orientation, or the reason for his crucifixion"

So history hasn't portrayed him like you have has it?

[Uccisore]

I will favor any explanation that adheres to the laws of nature/physics. Explanations that do not adhere to these laws hold as much water as any other explanation that does not adhere to the laws of nature/physics. I won't even insult you by making one up. If you could prove to me EMPIRICALLY the truth of your claim I would be more than acceptant of it.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what there is left for us to talk about, you seem to agree with me on every point of my discussion- you refuse to accept the miraculous definition no matter what, and if I put a bunch of energy into defeating this 'pot' absurdity, you'll just embrace another one- that's exactly why I'm saying Christianity has won the debate, insofar as it's a debate about facts. I mean look at this:


If you could prove to me EMPIRICALLY the truth of your claim I would be more than acceptant of it.

You don't have anything even remotely close to 'empirical proof' of the pot theory, and yet from what I can tell, it seems very reasonable to you. More to the point, if you know anything about empiricism, you know that events of the past CAN'T be proven empirically because they can't be observed. So you're knowingly asking me to meet an impossible standard. That's exactly the kind of smokescreen that skeptics are forced to engage in.

Back when it seemed as though the Gospels were written in the 3rd century, and Jesus probably didn't exist, and the universe didn't begin, and etc, back then skeptics had some very good, solid ground to stand on. Now all they have is wild speculation, crackpot theories, and the frank admission that they aren't going to accept the miracle accounts no matter what you do, so you may as well stop.

Regarding wikipedia, you really need to read more than the first 2 paragraphs of the introduction. You'd do yourself well to actually read the History section like I told you. Yes, we are talking about skeptical scholars here, and if you think your quote refutes my point, you haven't been listening. ;) I gave you that source as a beginner's reference because you apparently don't have any real experience. There's no point in trying to turn it back around on me- use it as a jumping off point to do your own research!


EDIT: Reading your other "I'm dissappointed" post. I'm sorry that you're leaping to conclusions, but it's nothing really new to me. I don't take anything you've said as a personal attack on my faith- I'm a professional, and this is a video game forum. The cannabis example is so very important because it's central to my entire argument- that skeptics are embracing theories that have absolutely no evidence to back them, because they lost all the good arguments before we were born. You should be able to see pretty easily that the cannabis theory is a perfect example of that.

And then there's this:


I think the reason we have clashed in this way is because I am only making observations based on evidence and reason where as you are holding some points as a priori truths. At this point our arguments are simply incompatible.

You were perfectly willing to take instruction from me on what an evidential argument is, and how people do some of the basic things in philosophy, and saw me as a reasonable person. But now you're trotting out this whole thing that because I'm religious, I must be using something other than 'evidence and reason', as opposed to you, who gets to be the reasonable one. Yeah, my attitude has been a little sarcastic, talking about this stuff on the net for 10 years will do that to you. But I've never been anything less than reasonable. It just gets tiring having people accuse you of being a blind-faith moron when they themselves are just getting started in researching this stuff. Like this for example:


For example, whilst you make a mockery of my rational, evidential argument based on fact. You seem to hold high esteem to the fact that Jesus walked on water.


NOwhere have I actually said that I even BELIEVE Jesus walked on water. The only reason I brought it up was to show that the pot theory was addressing some of his miracles, while completely ignoring others, even though they come from the same sources. That makes it an incomplete theory (among it's other flaws). And yet, because I'm defending the Christian position, words are being put in my mouth.

As far as my "fundamental misunderstandings of the bible" go I am somewhat confused. Exactly which parts are literal?

Is this a rhetorical question, or am I supposed to actually survey the entire Bible when I'm not allowed to exceed 10,000 characters? The point of raising the Creation issue was again, not to show that it's been 'discredited', but to show that Church Fathers such as St. Augustine never believed the Creation story to be literal in the first place- it was *always* understood as an allegory. Let me say that one more time, because it's important- experts on the Bible had already decided that the Creation story was a metaphor a thousand years before science gave them any reason to doubt it. See how that's completely different from 'discredited'?

[Jellybabe]

You don't have anything even remotely close to 'empirical proof' of the pot theory, and yet from what I can tell, it seems very reasonable to you

I have evidential proof which you told me your whole position was based on. You must accept its validity. Furthermore I do not believe the pot theory, I merely suggest it is the more likely theory.

And again, as I expected you have avoided the most important points I have made. Presumably because you cannot refute them.

[Jellybabe]

Responding to your edit:

That post was not actually aimed at you, I'm sorry if it appeared that way.

[Uccisore]

I have evidential proof which you told me your whole position was based on. You must accept its validity. Furthermore I do not believe the pot theory, I merely suggest it is the more likely theory.

And again, as I expected you have avoided the most important points I have made. Presumably because you cannot refute them.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing which points you're considering the most important ones. I thought I addressed everything that had serious impact- God knows I never get tired of talking about this stuff. Can you quote the crucial issue that I presumably can't refute? If you don't believe the cannabis theory, let's drop it; though I am mildly curious how you can claim to have evidential proof for something that you don't think is true. But that's besides the point!

[Jellybabe]

Final post:

I have huge amounts of respect for you, your opinions everything you have taught me over the last few days. I sincerely hope we don't have to fall out over this. So can we agree to disagree?

Oh and never talk about this again. :P

Hope we can keep in touch, and hey maybe even get round to a game one day :)

[Uccisore]

Ha! Agreed on all points. That's better than how most of my conversations about this subject turn out.

[Jellybabe]

I'm so relieved to hear you say that. Honestly I actually sighed in relief. So i put you on my friends list, we'll organize a bout some time :) I hope you play protectorate, cos I'm wrath lol :P

[Uccisore]

Nah, strictly Wrath here. I WANT to be the good guys, but I hate elves and dwarves, and FS is OPed. Plus, I just like the playstyle of most stereotypically evil races- the swarming of the moga, the personal, supernatural resiliance of the Draksar. If either one of those races were considered 'good guys', I'd like them both more.

[19gerben91]

RSnow thinks too black and white .... so black and white ....where is the colour RSnow ? why is everything you say so 2 dimensional and black and white ?

why RSnow ?

.....why ? ......


run around in circle RSnow ....thinks will be clearer if you run fast enough ...trust me on this one

[Jellybabe]

I play SL myself. I like lizards :) With your permission I'd like to print out our whole conversation so I can reference it for future use. Hope you don't mind, I mean to be honest what you have said is by far the most convincing argument I've ever heard from that "side of the fence" (sorry :P)
But seriously it could really help me. So is that ok?

[Uccisore]

Oh jeez, print it if you like, but um...if you really think it was something special, you'd want to see my more refined presentations here

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=158262&st=0&sk=t&sd=a and

here

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=159975

Which both contain examinations and rebuttals from lotsa atheists and skeptics of various stripes. The thing I presented in this forum was kind of a lark. :)

[Burnova]

Before I begin, I want to clarify that I do not think of you as a blind-follower. I am just getting the feel I am talking to a brick wall

That's my point. 100 years ago, it was asked, "What evidence do you have, Christian?" and we provided more evidence than anybody could have dared imagine. It's not our fault that some people are going to be skeptics no matter what.



Christians have not provided any evidence to support their claim. They have presented the lack of evidence to dismiss it.




I'm not sure what you're after- it's all right here in this thread. The very fact that you're trying to tell me Jesus was a teacher who healed people using pot, instead of telling me he was a fantasy figure based on Horus proves where the historical case has been decided. I mean heck, google up the Wikipedia entry on Jesus, and read through the 'Historical Views' section just to get you started. All that stuff about being Baptised by John the Baptist, crucified under Pilate, etc. etc.? No non-Christian believed that a century ago. That all represents major victories for a Christian view of Jesus.

I said it a few times already; the Horus relationship was not the prevailing view at the time.

Also, I decided to take you up on the Wikipedia thing, partly because I thought, "Wow, he said Christians are right because Wikipedia said Jesus is real," but I think you should have reconsidered, because it reminded me of a few things, as well as prompted a joke, which i will put in italics so that everyone realizes it is a joke and does not get offended.... (I might have just ruined the joke...)


The first thing I present:

Some scholars draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and Jesus as understood through a theological point of view, while other scholars hold that a theological Jesus represents a historical figure.

Basically, Jesus might have been a real person, and he might have been divine, but its all still up for grabs. This is not as case closed as you suggest.

It seems that Wikipedia even confirms the idea that the gospels were not written until up to 30 years after the crucifixion, meaning all the stories about Jesus had to be passed down a generation or remembered for over 2 decades before being written for the first time. Remembering specific events after such a time can result in miscommunication of actual events or alter them completely. And aren't we all aware of Cannabis' effect on memory? No? No lols? Oh well.

ALSO: I responded to this before reading the remainder of the thread.


EDIT: It seems I should have read the rest of the thread.

[Uccisore]

Burnova
Christians have not provided any evidence to support their claim. They have presented the lack of evidence to dismiss it.

Incorrect. In the past hundred years, Christians have provided evidence that a great many things discussed in the New Testament actually occurred, to the extent that most skeptical scholars accept that they have occurred. This was done mainly through finding older manuscripts, and improving methods of textual criticism. That's positive evidence to support the Christian claims.
You are right that they have also presented 'a lack of evidence to dismiss it', in the sense that many of the reasons to dismiss Christianity that were popular 100 years ago (the problem of Evil, the steady-state universe) have been utterly defeated. Both are important.

I said it a few times already; the Horus relationship was not the prevailing view at the time.

Well, sure. The prevailing view at the time was that Jesus was the crucified and risen Son of God, and that Christianity was true. The prevailing view among skeptics was that Jesus never existed at all, and that the whole story was a myth, similar to the trials of Hercules or whatever. The Horus thing is just an example, I suppose the most popular view would be that Jesus was an amalgam of all sorts of pre-Christian myths.


Also, I decided to take you up on the Wikipedia thing, partly because I thought, "Wow, he said Christians are right because Wikipedia said Jesus is real,"

Are you going to continue to misconstrue my words in the worst possible light? I didn't say anything vaguely like that. I pointed somebody in the direction of Wikipedia because apparently they wanted a citation that modern scholarship accepted the existence of Jesus as a healer and alleged miracle worker.


Basically, Jesus might have been a real person, and he might have been divine, but its all still up for grabs. This is not as case closed as you suggest.

You may have noticed my repeated usage of the term 'skeptical scholars'. That is to say, scholars who aren't Christians, and don't think Jesus came back from the dead. Pointing out to me that not all scholars are Christians seems kind of moot. My point is and has ever been, that skeptical Christian scholars accept much much more of the traditional Jesus story than they did 100 years ago, to the extent that the skeptical theories of today are unfalsifiable speculation.


It seems that Wikipedia even confirms the idea that the gospels were not written until up to 30 years after the crucifixion,

Correct. A century ago, leading scholarly opinion was that they were written 100 or more years after the crucifixion.


meaning all the stories about Jesus had to be passed down a generation or remembered for over 2 decades before being written for the first time.

Of course, I don't need to tell you that a writing within 30 years of the events in question beats out any other record of antiquity by centuries, right? For example, everything we know about Alexander the Great comes from sources like Plutarch, who wrote 500 years after Alexander died (and of course, the oldest copies we have of what Plutarch wrote are more than a century after he died). Historians studying events that long ago would KILL to get sources within a single generation of the events in question. I can accept you thinking the New Testament is unreliable because of these 30 years, if you are being consistent and claiming that EVERYTHING we know about ancient history is much, much less reliable than even that.
All of that said, Paul's letter to the Thessalonians is thought to be within 15-20 years Christ's death, and it recounts all the essential elements (tried and crucified before Pilate, risen son of God who appeared before Peter, John, etc. etc. after his Resurrection, etc.). So you can shave another 10 off that, even.

[RSnow]

First off, My sincerest Apologies for the rather tactless sarcasm earlier.

RSnow thinks too black and white .... so black and white ....where is the colour RSnow ? why is everything you say so 2 dimensional and black and white ?

why RSnow ?

.....why ? ......


run around in circle RSnow ....thinks will be clearer if you run fast enough ...trust me on this one

Hmmm.

You are right, I am being more black and white than perhaps I need to be. But sometimes that's the way things are...

It's like a function limit in math. People can criticize me by saying "you're too black and white. For you, either the function escapes or it doesn't." But this is exactly my point. Or in history, either Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo or he didn't.

I won't claim to know the most here, Ussicore and Burnova both put my meager knowledge of the subject to shame. I CAN say, however, that I have spent a rather significant amount of time reading and thinking. But even had I not, my position on this would still be black and white, because it's a matter of truth.

Of course, one could say "truth doesn't exist." But then why are you on this thread at all? Trying to convince people that the statement "There's no such thing as truth" is true?

In this case, Jesus claimed to be the son of God. Now, either he was right or he was not. If he was telling the truth, then, by default, the rest of the bible must be true.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

anyways, onwards...

There are several statements I disagree with:

"There has been no proof offered that God exists"-On the contrary, I believe there is no proof offered that he does not exist. All people have done is shoot at the argument that he does exist. Take the bible argument, for example. If the bible is true, then God must exist. If not, he MAY still exist. Therefore we are arguing over a piece of evidence IN FAVOR of the existence of God.

Also consider my big bang argument (Which nobody has yet refuted). If true, God exists. If false, God MAY STILL exist. Therefore we are again arguing over evidence IN FAVOR of God's existence.


"I will favor any explanation that adheres to the laws of nature/physics. Explanations that do not adhere to these laws hold as much water as any other explanation that does not adhere to the laws of nature/physics. I won't even insult you by making one up. If you could prove to me EMPIRICALLY the truth of your claim I would be more than acceptant of it."

1) The laws of physics are based on observations made by human beings. Therefore to ignore the Gospels and the witnesses to these events is the worst form of poor science.

After all, the basic premise of science is that it's only an estimate/extrapolation. That's why science is constantly being revised, edited, and modified. To ignore the testimony of the Bible, one of the most highly verified texts on earth, is to be the same as the Church which imprisoned Galileo for DARING to suggest that the scientific knowledge of the day was, in fact, wrong.

2) If God exists, he could suspend the laws of physics. Or rather, if God exists, we'd need to add him into the laws of physics. Ever hear the phrase "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic?" Well, it's true. So if you'd prefer to think of God's actions as a rediculously advanced scientific phenomenon, be my guest.

3) Prove to me that the dollar tomorrow will be worth any more than 2 seconds of firewood. Do you work at your job, or do you quit right now? Actions speak louder than words. Prove to me EMPIRICALLY that the stock market is stable and won't crash, or else sell all your stocks. Prove to me EMPIRICALLY that we won't go into a nuclear holocaust, or else sell all your belongings and build a bunker stocked with canned foods.

Go on, I dare you. Perhaps science can afford to be "proven." But life can't. Life requires a little pragmatism.

[Uccisore]

Rsnow makes a good point here. Skeptics are known to frequently say "There's no evidence that God exists!", but nearly everything discussed in the field is evidence- the 5 Ways are evidence, The Bible is evidence, the Church is evidence. The Big Bang is certainly evidence, etc. etc. etc. Just because someone disputes them doesn't erase their status as evidence- people are always going to dispute stuff.

[19gerben91]

3) Prove to me that the dollar tomorrow will be worth any more than 2 seconds of firewood.

I sure hope not ....we use euro's here ^^


I dont present arguments ...that be pointless .... I dont believe in a god and you do and no matter what either of us says we cant change the other

and providing evidence of something not existing is even more pointless , since you can just say that god still does it but in some other mysterioes way , In most cases gods starts to hide in the spaces wich are yet unknown to us , and then the space gets smaller

[Jellybabe]

R_Snow is there a reason why you are ignoring me and refusing to accept I have added any sort of intellectual debate to this conversation? You even apologized to someone else to something you said to me. I don't get it. Is it because I have a purple mohawk?

[Jellybabe]

Oh jeez, print it if you like, but um...if you really think it was something special, you'd want to see my more refined presentations here

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=158262&st=0&sk=t&sd=a and

here

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=159975

Which both contain examinations and rebuttals from lotsa atheists and skeptics of various stripes. The thing I presented in this forum was kind of a lark. :)


Cheers, these are much more structured. I like how you have the same username there, does it mean something?

[Fellhanded]

Well I'm christian of the non brainwashed kind. Mine comes from faith, choice and belief. I'll be honest though I've met with the zealots and the tamberine clan (when exploring my own question of faith), and they scare me. If they were more organised and militant we'd have our own fanatics to rival those who profess to be of the muslim faith. So reading some of these answers are interesting but what I've notice with this thread the same as the last is that its christianity based, is this because poxnora doesn't attract many of differing faith (if so, why?) or is it becasue christianity is properly the best well known religion and therefore people find it easier to comment on it?

[Shadyguy1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[Shadyguy1]

Well I'm christian of the non brainwashed kind. Mine comes from faith, choice and belief. I'll be honest though I've met with the zealots and the tamberine clan (when exploring my own question of faith), and they scare me. If they were more organised and militant we'd have our own fanatics to rival those who profess to be of the muslim faith. So reading some of these answers are interesting but what I've notice with this thread the same as the last is that its christianity based, is this because poxnora doesn't attract many of differing faith (if so, why?) or is it becasue christianity is properly the best well known religion and therefore people find it easier to comment on it?

It's because Christian's (generally) are much more outspoken and zealous about their religion than other people, and people of other religions don't really feel comfortable speaking up sometimes due to said Christian zealotry.

[Uccisore]

It's because Christian's (generally) are much more outspoken and zealous about their religion than other people, and people of other religions don't really feel comfortable speaking up sometimes due to said Christian zealotry.

Don't be a jerk. It's really just because the forum is in English. Christianity is about 30% of the world's population, and about 90% of the English speaking population. Most of the other 10% don't have a different religion, they have no religion at all, and so you won't find them talking about it.
If the forum was in Chinese, for example, bam: No Christians.

[Jellybabe]

It's because Christian's (generally) are much more outspoken and zealous about their religion than other people, and people of other religions don't really feel comfortable speaking up sometimes due to said Christian zealotry.

Thats a rather sweeping generalization. You'll need to be a bit more impartial (and accurate) to get anywhere on this thread, or you will just get shot down :/

[Shadyguy1]

Thats a rather sweeping generalization. You'll need to be a bit more impartial (and accurate) to get anywhere on this thread, or you will just get shot down :/

Don't worry. I was done with the thread after about 50 posts on the old forum.

[19gerben91]

is this because poxnora doesn't attract many of differing faith (if so, why?) or is it becasue christianity is properly the best well known religion and therefore people find it easier to comment on it?

it is because pox is american based so more american people go there and americans are christian because when the migrated they lost their comunities in their country of origin and the church replaced that wich had an effect that lasts even today ..... and the other people who said zealot and english are right too ...so its those 3 factors

[Atlam]

Don't be a jerk. It's really just because the forum is in English. Christianity is about 30% of the world's population, and about 90% of the English speaking population. Most of the other 10% don't have a different religion, they have no religion at all, and so you won't find them talking about it.
If the forum was in Chinese, for example, bam: No Christians.

Well, not exactly. The country is officially Atheist but there are religious groups living within the country.

[daemun]

Why are there people that jump to conclusion 1 despite the evidence suggesting that conclusion 2 is far more likely.

confirmatory hypothesis testing ftl :( we're all guilty of it. in terms of the whole which side is more rational thing, the point that i would probably argue is that at some point, a theist has to make a faith based argument. but like everything else, i guess thats debatable too.

[Uccisore]

confirmatory hypothesis testing ftl :( we're all guilty of it. in terms of the whole which side is more rational thing, the point that i would probably argue is that at some point, a theist has to make a faith based argument. but like everything else, i guess thats debatable too.

The only person who doesn't have to make a 'faith based argument' is a critic. As long as you only ever tear people's positions down, and never put one forward of your own, you can avoid the risks.

[RSnow]

The only person who doesn't have to make a 'faith based argument' is a critic. As long as you only ever tear people's positions down, and never put one forward of your own, you can avoid the risks.

QFT...

@ Jellybabe- The apology was meant for you. Sorry if it was unduly ambiguous...

@ gerben- you say "neither of us can convince the other." I respectfully disagree. I have switched my position once before (in the face of what I viewed to be overwhelming evidence). I wasn't always religious. Not only that, but a good friend of mine has, while not dissuading me from faith, changed a number of my beliefs on such subjects as homosexuals and free will.

Furthermore, I believe that even if someone else is wrong, you can still learn from them. For example, I believe fantasy books can be just as informative as nonfiction, depending on the light in which they are read. After all, possibilities are as important as certainties.

Finally, I have already learned a lot about history from Burnova and philosophy from Ussicore. Seems to be time well spent.

[Svxji]

QFT...

@ Jellybabe- The apology was meant for you. Sorry if it was unduly ambiguous...

@ gerben- you say "neither of us can convince the other." I respectfully disagree. I have switched my position once before (in the face of what I viewed to be overwhelming evidence). I wasn't always religious. Not only that, but a good friend of mine has, while not dissuading me from faith, changed a number of my beliefs on such subjects as homosexuals and free will.

Furthermore, I believe that even if someone else is wrong, you can still learn from them. For example, I believe fantasy books can be just as informative as nonfiction, depending on the light in which they are read. After all, possibilities are as important as certainties.

Finally, I have already learned a lot about history from Burnova and philosophy from Ussicore. Seems to be time well spent.

man what does QFT means? =O
ive imagined its "Quit F***ing talking"

[daemun]

The only person who doesn't have to make a 'faith based argument' is a critic. As long as you only ever tear people's positions down, and never put one forward of your own, you can avoid the risks.

ok maybe i should have been more specific. i really dont wanna open up a can of worms here, since we've had this debate and its more or less burnt itself out.

if someone makes the assertion that believing in a given religion is as rational as believing in science, and then makes a faith based argument to support that assertion, then the argument is invalid. it gets back to the burden of proof as well, which ive already mentioned.

as for putting forward a position, ive put mine forward in this thread several times, and id welcome anyone who would like to criticize it, as thats the best way to make sure im not leading myself away from the truth :)

im biased as hell and i'll admit it, but my bias comes from hours and hours of thinking and reasoning and then arriving at my conclusions.

[Uccisore]

ok maybe i should have been more specific. i really dont wanna open up a can of worms here, since we've had this debate and its more or less burnt itself out.

if someone makes the assertion that believing in a given religion is as rational as believing in science, and then makes a faith based argument to support that assertion, then the argument is invalid. it gets back to the burden of proof as well, which ive already mentioned.

as for putting forward a position, ive put mine forward in this thread several times, and id welcome anyone who would like to criticize it, as thats the best way to make sure im not leading myself away from the truth :)

im biased as hell and i'll admit it, but my bias comes from hours and hours of thinking and reasoning and then arriving at my conclusions.

Hours of thinking and reasoning doesn't make you special, it's more or less the "Price of Admission", and plenty of religious people have done it as well. Keep that in mind when you're justifying your biases- plenty of people who have studied this subject longer than either one of us manage to discuss it without being 'biased as hell' in their presentation. Anyways, I'm not sure what you mean by a 'faith based argument' in the above. I also don't know what you mean by 'believing in science', since science is a process, not a collection of beliefs. "The Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun" isn't science, for example- but the way we found that out, might be. Sure, I believe in a particular religion, and I think it's as rational as believing in the deliverances of science- for example, I think believing in Christianity is as rational as believing in evolution. I already put forward my argument for why, and I don't think of it as being particularly 'faith based', but like I said, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

[daemun]

Hours of thinking and reasoning doesn't make you special, it's more or less the "Price of Admission", and plenty of religious people have done it as well. Keep that in mind when you're justifying your biases- plenty of people who have studied this subject longer than either one of us manage to discuss it without being 'biased as hell' in their presentation. Anyways, I'm not sure what you mean by a 'faith based argument' in the above. I also don't know what you mean by 'believing in science', since science is a process, not a collection of beliefs. "The Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun" isn't science, for example- but the way we found that out, might be. Sure, I believe in a particular religion, and I think it's as rational as believing in the deliverances of science- for example, I think believing in Christianity is as rational as believing in evolution. I already put forward my argument for why, and I don't think of it as being particularly 'faith based', but like I said, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

theres really no need for pot shots, i never claimed to be special because of my beliefs, nor did i state that religious people dont think critically about what they believe. lets try to keep the ad hominems to a minimum since they dont contribute to the strength of the argument anyways.

when i say i believe in science, what i mean is that i believe in the scientific process. im not going to insult your intelligence by explaining the scientific method, or the validity of various types of evidence. suffice to say that if an assertion or theory doesnt follow scientific reasoning then i cant as a rational person accept it as anything more than a novelty at best, or culturally spawned propaganda at worst.

a faith based argument is one which requires an un-scientifically-justifiable belief in a given claim. a faith based argument is impossible to defeat with a rational argument, because it shifts the burden of proof onto the non-believer, which is unscientific in itself. boy am i getting tired of semantics :(

im not going to list commonly held faith based arguments, nor am i going to pick apart the bible. its been done and its incredibly easy to do, but any rational assertion made can be easily deflected with a faith based argument, such as "interpreting the bible in the spirit that it was written" or combining faith with circular reasoning such as "the bible says jesus was the son of god, the son of god wouldnt lie, therefore the gospels are true".

quick note on observer bias - its pretty much inescapable. all people are biased, regardless of how well theyve done their research. in fact, sometimes information can contribute to a bias. theres nothing wrong with being biased, so long as youre willing do your best to put that bias aside when it comes time to critically analyze new information. like i said, im biased as hell (and most of the people posting in this thread probably are as well, but i wont speak for anyone else), otherwise all my posts would be completely neutral. i feel, however, that since my bias is a result of informed learning and not blind acceptance, that its justified.


burnova can you start up that thread on psychology? im getting really tired of talking about religion.

[Uccisore]

when i say i believe in science, what i mean is that i believe in the scientific process. im not going to insult your intelligence by explaining the scientific method, or the validity of various types of evidence. suffice to say that if an assertion or theory doesnt follow scientific reasoning then i cant as a rational person accept it as anything more than a novelty at best, or culturally spawned propaganda at worst.

Maybe you SHOULD explain the scientific method, because as I understand it, the assertions of mathematics, history, philosophy, and your own claims in this conversation don't follow any sort of 'scientific reasoning', and I doubt that you consider them to be novelty or culturally spawned propaganda.


a faith based argument is one which requires an un-scientifically-justifiable belief in a given claim. a faith based argument is impossible to defeat with a rational argument, because it shifts the burden of proof onto the non-believer, which is unscientific in itself.

So far, that would include everything you've said in this thread to date. And everybody else, I'd be quick to add.


I'm not going to list commonly held faith based arguments, nor am i going to pick apart the bible. its been done and its incredibly easy to do,

Sorry, that's an invalid, faith-based argument, and unlike your others, I'm NOT willing to accept it. I think the bible stands just fine on it's own, and is easy to defend, and that most of the arguments against it are crap. If you aren't willing to defend your assertion above, then don't expect it to count for anything- by your own rules.

[daemun]

i had my response written up when i accidentally kicked my power bar, and thus no more response :(

i'll post later tonight, i hate typing the same thing twice in a row.

[Sepulcher8]

Sorry guys, didn't want to wade through 11 pages of back-and-forthness, so I started on this page. :P

I'll just start by saying I'm a non-denominational Christian. I had some weird things happen where I questioned my faith and actually joined a coven just to be rebellious. I've seen some pretty bizarre stuff that would definitely convince me that there is a heaven and hell, as well as spiritual beings that inhabit them. I was enrolled in a Christian school in tenth grade, and hated my first year because I was tired of hypocritical Christians. Through that school though, I took Apologetics and Systematic Theology courses and met some pretty genuine peope that definitely strengthened my faith. Since then, I've been to a lot of religious discussions and debates, and read a lot of ones online. (I usually try to stay out of them, which is something I'm attempting to break.) As far as my beliefs, I'm convinced that the Bible is the Holy Word of God, that Jesus Christ died for all the world's sins and that Heaven is open to anyone who accepts the invite, regardless of works.

Sorry if I butted in on a conversation of some sort. :P

[RSnow]

theres really no need for pot shots, i never claimed to be special because of my beliefs, nor did i state that religious people dont think critically about what they believe. lets try to keep the ad hominems to a minimum since they dont contribute to the strength of the argument anyways.
I Don't think that's what he meant.


when i say i believe in science, what i mean is that i believe in the scientific process. im not going to insult your intelligence by explaining the scientific method, or the validity of various types of evidence. suffice to say that if an assertion or theory doesnt follow scientific reasoning then i cant as a rational person accept it as anything more than a novelty at best, or culturally spawned propaganda at worst.

The words "scientific method" are being tossed around a little to frequently and improperly. There are 2 halves to a scientific method. The first is an experiment-based method. But people always forget the second kind: examination of evidence. In that case, I must protest that our debate has NOT been over faith-based arguments. For example, like it or not, the bible IS evidence. You can't arbitrarily define evidence to be whatever you want it to be. The bible is the most-verified document older than 1000 years, and contains not one but 4 eyewitness accounts. Saying that the bible's evidence is "unscientific" is a form of "posioning the well" a very flawed logical argument.

Finally, there are truths which can be proved without the scientific method. There are also logical and mathematical proofs. For example, my big bang argument is a logical argument based on evidence.


a faith based argument is one which requires an un-scientifically-justifiable belief in a given claim. a faith based argument is impossible to defeat with a rational argument, because it shifts the burden of proof onto the non-believer, which is unscientific in itself. boy am i getting tired of semantics :(
There is no non-believer. We BOTH have burden of proof here, and, aside from some halfhearted attempts to catch the bible in contradiction with itself, I've seen NO proof whatsoever that God does not exist. Of course, you could argue that it is impossible to prove a nonentity. In that case, it is equally impossible to disprove a nonentity, and I will promptly use Pascal's Wager (a perfect example of a logical argument) to shred your argument to bits.


im not going to list commonly held faith based arguments, nor am i going to pick apart the bible. its been done and its incredibly easy to do, but any rational assertion made can be easily deflected with a faith based argument, such as "interpreting the bible in the spirit that it was written" or combining faith with circular reasoning such as "the bible says jesus was the son of god, the son of god wouldnt lie, therefore the gospels are true".
Please tell me then, how should ANY literary work be interpreted if not in the spirit it was written in? Clearly you've never taken a course in English Literature. Using your logic, we should interpret metaphors literally in all novels, which would leave not only all known literature, but also our very language in tatters. You will say that metaphors are commonly accepted uses of speech, but I will say that such a destinction is completely arbitrary. The fact remains that the people who actually read the bible beyond the petty desire to find loopholes will find that it's actually rather hard to misinterpret. It's this kind of thinking which gets people to complain about Solomon's table. Clearly the bible should list every digit of pi, or else it's flawed.

You only stated HALF of the last argument (straw dummy logical fallacy). The full argument is as follows. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and claimed to be the ONLY way too be saved. Either he was a liar or he spoke the truth; he was a wise man or a charlatan. If the former, he must indeed be the son of God. If the latter, he is a liar and a fake. This is the argument used against the statement "Jesus was a good man, but not the Son of God."


quick note on observer bias - its pretty much inescapable. all people are biased, regardless of how well theyve done their research. in fact, sometimes information can contribute to a bias. theres nothing wrong with being biased, so long as youre willing do your best to put that bias aside when it comes time to critically analyze new information. like i said, im biased as hell (and most of the people posting in this thread probably are as well, but i wont speak for anyone else), otherwise all my posts would be completely neutral. i feel, however, that since my bias is a result of informed learning and not blind acceptance, that its justified.

There you go again with the blind acceptance. You ASSUME that all men of faith "blindly accept." You ASSUME that faith and logic must be opposites rather than partners.

Listen carefully, wiser scientific minds than you have been strong religious members. If you think it's just an open-and-shut case of science against Religion, think again. I'd love to hear you explain how the likes of Francis Collins could be so mistaken in the fields they are experts in. Please go on to tell me exactly how the world's foremost expert in genetics (cough, and evolution, cough) could make such an obvious blunder in his field.

Faith and logic/science can go hand in hand. Scientists tell us that there are 10^21 stars in the universe. Alright, that could be true. Faith tells us that we are not living in the matrix, or that life tomorrow will be much the same as life today. And both of them tell us that Gravity exists and that when we jump, we fall back down.

Or, in this case, Faith tells me that the universe is too spectacular to exist on it's own, and science agrees ;) Even scientists admit that the existence of the universe at all is in itself a miracle of the highest nature.

[Uccisore]

Sorry guys, didn't want to wade through 11 pages of back-and-forthness, so I started on this page. :P

I'll just start by saying I'm a non-denominational Christian. I had some weird things happen where I questioned my faith and actually joined a coven just to be rebellious. I've seen some pretty bizarre stuff that would definitely convince me that there is a heaven and hell, as well as spiritual beings that inhabit them. I was enrolled in a Christian school in tenth grade, and hated my first year because I was tired of hypocritical Christians. Through that school though, I took Apologetics and Systematic Theology courses and met some pretty genuine peope that definitely strengthened my faith. Since then, I've been to a lot of religious discussions and debates, and read a lot of ones online. (I usually try to stay out of them, which is something I'm attempting to break.) As far as my beliefs, I'm convinced that the Bible is the Holy Word of God, that Jesus Christ died for all the world's sins and that Heaven is open to anyone who accepts the invite, regardless of works.

Sorry if I butted in on a conversation of some sort. :P

Nice to hear from you. I've got a pretty similar background to you, I didn't go so far as to joining a coven, but I was definitely at a point in my life where I would have if something like that had been around in my place and time. I spent a lot of time as a non-denominational Christian seeker like you seem to be, with the arguments and the research and stuff. Past year or so, I actually fell in love with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and I'm looking to become a member as soon as I move for college, to a more populous area that actually has an Orthodox parish.

[Jellybabe]

I will promptly use Pascal's Wager (a perfect example of a logical argument) to shred your argument to bits.


Pascal's wager is a terrible argument. It's by no means logical. I've written quite a detailed essay on this, I can look it out for you if you'd like?

[RSnow]

Pascal's wager is a terrible argument. It's by no means logical. I've written quite a detailed essay on this, I can look it out for you if you'd like?

Really? Send me the article. I don't see how it could work, as his logic is very sound, but if it does then I'll have learned something big ;)

But in any case, failing at the wager just causes me to fallback to certain well-verified historical documents, and to pretty much all of modern physics to prove my point.

[Uccisore]

I'd like to see it too. Most commentators miss the point of Pascal's argument entirely- it's not the kind of thing that you present atheists with in order to convince them there's a God, there's tons of holes in it if you go that way.

[Jellybabe]

Yeah my essays not aimed at the arguments strength to convince an atheist, more at the flaws in the logic. I'll look it out now and condense it down to my main points :)

EDIT: just going the shop, should have the post up in about an hour or so :)

[daemun]

wikipedia: The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a belief about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.

While mathematics isn't a science strictly speaking, it does follow the method in that new theories are made to be falsifiable, and in that repeated trials must give the same result for a theory or conjecture to be considered valid. As for my own statements, most of what I would deem unscientific is just social commentary, you can discard that if you want since its only there to make reading my posts a bit more palatable.

I would argue that most of what philosophers past and present have come out with falls somewhere on the spectrum of novelty <---> culturally spawned propaganda. And while some of it is entertaining, engaging, thought provoking or a combination thereof, none of it is scientifically testable, so the "truth" becomes a matter of personal preference and relativity. The biggest problem I have with philosophy is the existential paralysis it can evoke.

As for history, the validity of evidence is based on the number of sources corroborating a specific event. It's important to remember the source when reading history and maybe take it with a grain of salt. History is not really within my field of interests; anthropology is much closer and adheres more to the scientific method.

In short, if it couldnt get published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it probably isnt scientific.

The evidence for my last statement is buried in this thread, and all over the interenet, among other places. I'm not going to type it all out again.

The claim that religion is as rational as science is dangerous. I was going to write more here, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself.


There is no non-believer. We BOTH have burden of proof here, and, aside from some halfhearted attempts to catch the bible in contradiction with itself, I've seen NO proof whatsoever that God does not exist. Of course, you could argue that it is impossible to prove a nonentity. In that case, it is equally impossible to disprove a nonentity, and I will promptly use Pascal's Wager (a perfect example of a logical argument) to shred your argument to bits.

This is probably the most un-scientific statement in this thread, and is a perfect example of the flawed reasoning of people claiming the rationality of religion. YOU are the one claiming an invisible all powerful entity, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that such an incredible claim is true, and you better have some equally incredible evidence to back it up. I'm sorry, but in science that line of reasoning is invalid.

Of course you havent seen any evidence that god doesnt exist, its impossible to disprove his existence! In order for a theory to be considered valid, it must be falsifiable. I think this thread shows pretty clearly that god is not falsifiable. We're getting back to the invisible pink unicorn.

I've already explained to you why I dont buy into pascal's wager, you can re-read my old posts if you like.

I also dont understand how a book can be a historical document, the infallible word of god, and a piece of literature that is subject to interpretation at the same time. Other than a few good quotes, the bible is a book that advocates murder, descrimination, and hate.

Also I never accused all men of faith of blind acceptance. I'm not exactly sure why you chose to read it that way.

[Jellybabe]

Note: As it turns out the essay wasn't centered on Pascal's wager, there was just a bit about it in the middle. It was a long time ago though.

The form of the wager is as follows: Man is incapable of knowing what God is or if he exists. So there are two possible outcomes; ‘God exists’ or ‘God does not exist’
“Heads or tails will turn up” (Pascal, 1954, pg 66) According to Pascal neither proposition is defendable therefore we cannot make a rational decision as to either of the two outcomes. We are in a dilemma. So we are offered an answer. He states that there is “…an equal chance of gain and loss” (Pascal, 1954, pg 67) and so encourages us to examine and compare the relative risks. If we believe and God exists we have gained everything, if we believe and God does not exist we have lost little. However if we do not believe and God exists we have lost everything, if we do not believe and god does not exist we have lost little. The idea of infinite gain versus finite loss is at the heart of Pascal’s argument and although it seems sensible to have faith, as though the odds make it worthwhile, the argument is not as solid as it, on the surface, appears.


So what are the real odds on this gamble? Pascal’s argument is misleading in that when he offers us two choices ‘God exists’ and ‘God does not exist’ he states explicitly that there is a 50/50 chance either way. “…an equal chance of gain and loss” (Pascal, 1954, pg 67) This logic is completely flawed. If I were to offer the statement “My friend Sally lives on the moon” The same two choices arise ‘Sally lives on the moon’ or ‘Sally does not live on the moon’ is there an equal chance? Is it a game of heads or tails? It is not.

The second problem with the wager is Pascal’s use of the infinite versus the finite. Again on the surface it seems, even if we ignore his misuse of probability, that no matter how small the chances of God existing are, the fact that there is a chance and with that chance comes an infinite gain, “…an eternity of life and happiness” (Pascal, 1954, pg 67) No finite loss could compare to this and would become zero in the shadow of infinity. The flaw here is that a finite amount and an infinite amount are not comparably compatible. It is as if to say that, for example, time is infinite. The problem arises in that if time is infinite, one second becomes a portion of an infinite scale, and therefore has an infinite number of parts. Now if a second had an infinite number of parts, no matter how small each part was, it would take an infinite time for one second to pass. Thus lies the problem of using the concept of infinity in comparison to a finite amount. One is a measurable, discernable quantity whilst the other is an abstract concept.

The third point to mention concerns not so much the form of the argument but the way in which it is meant to be understood. Pascal writes, of the decision between believing and not believing in God, that 'reason can decide nothing here'. Let us then accept this statement. A paradox occurs; if reason can conclude nothing on the subject of God and believing in God, then all attempts to gain a conclusion are unreasonable. This undermines Pascal's argument as he himself is trying to conclude, through reason, one way or the other. We are left with two possibilities. Either Pascal is asking us to accept an unreasonable argument, or he is asking us to accept a reasonable argument on unreasonable subject matter.

[Uccisore]

daemun - you're still classifying your own words as irrelevant. Even if I agreed with your descriptions of mathematics and history, the things you're saying in this thread are certainly neither one of those. You're doing philosophy right now- novelty, social propaganda, etc. Are you admitting that there's no truth or strength in your own words, or is you doing philosophy somehow special an exempt from when most people do it?

This for example:

The claim that religion is as rational as science is dangerous.

Isn't scientific or mathematic or anything. Even as far as philosophy goes, it's just a bald assertion with nothing to back it up. I believe it, and I'm not in any danger as far as I can tell. It seems to me you enjoy condemning other people's patterns and beliefs as being irrational, while falling into the exact same traps and tendencies that you condemn in others.

Also, RSnow is right that both sides have a burden of proof; if you aren't interested in proving anything, why are you tossing all these words around? Burden of Proof is a function of choosing to enter a conversation with the goal of persuading people to respect your point of view, not a function of what the point of view is. Atheists have been hiding behind the 'burden of proof' nonsense for far too long, and it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Jellybabe, I'll give you a seperate answer, sorry to others for the double post.

[Uccisore]

JellyBabe,

Thank you very much for sharing your writing with us. I liked your argument, and agree with most of the points you've made as far as they go. One thing I would like to point out is that in the beginning of Pascal's writing on the subject, he gives a description of his intended audience that is absolutely key. He is writing not to believers to give them an argument to beat atheists over the head with, or even to combative atheists in an attempt to 'defeat' them. Rather, he's addressing doubters who live in Christian communities, see their friends participating in and benefiting from the Christian way of life, and want to take part in it, but find their own doubts to be a stumbling block. A person that was contemplating Christianity as one religion among dozens of possibilities wouldn't respond to Pascal's argument in the way he would like, but he wasn't writing to them, either.
It's unfortunate that so many theists have taken "Pascal's Wager" to be some rigorous argument meant to beat atheism, when it was never intended as such, because now atheists are responding to it as if that's what it was, too. Most commonly, arguments about the Wager are between two people who not only haven't read Pascal, but don't have the foggiest idea what the original argument intended to say!

There is a weakness in your 'compatibility of the finite to the infinite' criticism, though it's a second-order weakness. The point you've made does shoot down Pascal's phrasing of his argument in particular. The trouble is, if he was alive to respond he'd probably just eliminate the term 'infinite' and describe Heaven as a finite gain that is nonetheless obviously greater than any possible loss we could experience in this life. With that subtle change of wording, he'd be back on track. Also, your argument has an intuitive failing even if it's technically correct- if someone asked you if you would rather have 5 dollars, or an infinite amount of dollars, I doubt very much you'd have trouble comparing them. Why is that?

The 'reason can decide nothing here' goes back to his first point. Remember that Pascal was the first existentialist- this all came at the end of arguing that man's wisdom was folly, and that we've really failed to answer any of the big questions. But, because of society and our finite life spans, we're forced to choose anyway- we're either going to live as a religious person, or we aren't, even if it's impossible to come to a rational conclusion, as you rightly point out his argument suggests. You WILL choose, whether you like it or not, you can't live and fail to make this choice. Inaction is even a choice. That's why it's important not to treat Pascal's Wager as a rigorous argument like Aquinas' 5 Ways or whatever. It begins as a rejection of those. Summarize it this way;

"Look, I know you're confused. The philosophers and theologians aren't going to be able to help you- they've been working on this for a thousand years and they aren't any closer to an answer than when they started. So, forget all the technical arguments and just consider this- the believers don't seem to be missing out on anything in this life, and if they're right, they stand to gain much in the next. So why not give it a shot? You've nothing to lose."

See how that's presented? It's not the kind of thing that's going to convince Dawkins or whatever, but it should be clear that that's not what it's for, either.

[Jellybabe]

I always understood who's Pascal's intended audience were, like I said before it's more a critique of his logic as opposed to the argument as a whole. I have to say though I don't like the advice he gives to those who can accept his argument but not faith itself. If I recall correctly he says that we should immerse ourselves in the ritual and dogma of religion until we come to accept it as true.(I can find a quote if you like) It's like he's telling his audience to actively seek out people who will brainwash them into believing, just because they cant find it within themselves to make that leap on their own. What are your thoughts on the rest of the Pensees?

[Jellybabe]

he'd probably just eliminate the term 'infinite' and describe Heaven as a finite gain.

Thats a good point actually. The only trouble for him then, is that for the amended argument to stand he has to fall back on his "probabilities" which as I pointed out are seriously questionable, well just wrong. And it seems you agreed with me on that point.

Also, your argument has an intuitive failing even if it's technically correct- if someone asked you if you would rather have 5 dollars, or an infinite amount of dollars, I doubt very much you'd have trouble comparing them. Why is that?

Well this just gets a bit silly. Other than the massive economic problems giving me infinite money would bring, I think the universe would fall in on itself and God would get the 'blue screen of death'. Fatal error; You forgot to set peramiter: Cash < Infinity. tut tut, silly God

[Sepulcher8]

I have to say, one of the reasons I am a Christian is sadly due to Pascal's Wager.

I'd LOVE to sit here and say that I'm a Christian because I love God, or I'm a Christian because Jesus has changed my life, etc. And both of those are definitely true, so I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. But they are not the entire reason I'm a Christian. One of the things that helped in finally convincing my skeptical mind was Pascal's Wager. It just "made sense" to believe in the Bible, I suppose.

I read your essay, Jellybabe. I'm no expert on this type of thing by any means, but it seems to me like you said (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1) There is not a 50/50 chance of God existing or not existing.
2) A finite loss and infinite gain are not comparable.
3) If you cannot use reason to determine whether God exists or not, then the Wager is also unreasonable.

I fail to see what relevance these three points have to the actual Wager. :\

If God exists and we believe, something good happens.
If God doesn't exist and we do/don't believe, nothing happens.
If God exists and we don't believe, something bad happens.

Looking at it like that, I just don't see why you would not choose the first. Nothing to lose, right? There just doesn't seem to be any room for any exceptions.

[Uccisore]

I always understood who's Pascal's intended audience were, like I said before it's more a critique of his logic as opposed to the argument as a whole. I have to say though I don't like the advice he gives to those who can accept his argument but not faith itself. If I recall correctly he says that we should immerse ourselves in the ritual and dogma of religion until we come to accept it as true.(I can find a quote if you like) It's like he's telling his audience to actively seek out people who will brainwash them into believing, just because they cant find it within themselves to make that leap on their own. What are your thoughts on the rest of the Pensees?

I think the idea of immersing oneself in the faith in order to start 'thinking like a believer' is one of the most difficult parts of what he wrote for the modern ear. It does sound a lot like brainwashing, doesn't it? I think what Pascal would say is that since (as he believed) merely sitting and thinking about it is never going to get you a rational answer one way or the other, the idea of staying outside the Church until you 'figure it out' would be a form of self-deception as well. In other words, a person who resolves to wait until he knows for sure that God exists before they participate in religion will simply spend the rest of their lives waiting, for reasons that have nothing to do with the facts, or whether or not God exists. Spending the rest of your life waiting is a choice to live as a defacto atheist...and since his target audience isn't any more sure of atheism than they are of theism, the end result is them being just as irrational as if they had jumped into a religion despite their uncertainty. I hope I explained that well.
And yeah, I agree with you that his probabilities are wrong (I mean, I think the likelihood of God existing is quite a bit higher than 50%, so clearly I disagree with him. :) ) I think he uses the coin flip as an analogy to what it feels like to be completely uncertain- stuck between two positions. Not a rigorous probability.

[sokolov]

I have to say, one of the reasons I am a Christian is sadly due to Pascal's Wager.

I'd LOVE to sit here and say that I'm a Christian because I love God, or I'm a Christian because Jesus has changed my life, etc. And both of those are definitely true, so I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. But they are not the entire reason I'm a Christian. One of the things that helped in finally convincing my skeptical mind was Pascal's Wager. It just "made sense" to believe in the Bible, I suppose.

I read your essay, Jellybabe. I'm no expert on this type of thing by any means, but it seems to me like you said (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1) There is not a 50/50 chance of God existing or not existing.
2) A finite loss and infinite gain are not comparable.
3) If you cannot use reason to determine whether God exists or not, then the Wager is also unreasonable.

I fail to see what relevance these three points have to the actual Wager. :\

If God exists and we believe, something good happens.
If God doesn't exist and we do/don't believe, nothing happens.
If God exists and we don't believe, something bad happens.

Looking at it like that, I just don't see why you would not choose the first. Nothing to lose, right? There just doesn't seem to be any room for any exceptions.

For me, the fundamental problem with Pascal's Wager is that it presumes not only that there is but one God, but that it is the God that he believes in.

On the other hand, isn't that the very nature of faith?

[sokolov]

I think the idea of immersing oneself in the faith in order to start 'thinking like a believer' is one of the most difficult parts of what he wrote for the modern ear. It does sound a lot like brainwashing, doesn't it? I think what Pascal would say is that since (as he believed) merely sitting and thinking about it is never going to get you a rational answer one way or the other, the idea of staying outside the Church until you 'figure it out' would be a form of self-deception as well. In other words, a person who resolves to wait until he knows for sure that God exists before they participate in religion will simply spend the rest of their lives waiting, for reasons that have nothing to do with the facts, or whether or not God exists. Spending the rest of your life waiting is a choice to live as a defacto atheist...and since his target audience isn't any more sure of atheism than they are of theism, the end result is them being just as irrational as if they had jumped into a religion despite their uncertainty. I hope I explained that well.

Which is why I, despite never having really experienced faith in a diety, except on the level of "imaginary friend," did give several organized religions a try. I met a lot of great people, and came to understand how much religion does for many people, and how community-building it can be, even in today's segmented society.

At the end of the day, it has little to do with whether God exists or not at all, ironically, I think, as organized religion certainly works for some people, and whether God REALLY exists wouldn't change that fact. Either way though, it just wasn't for me, but the fact that I don't subscribe to any specific religion has nothing to do with whether I believe in the existence of a God (although one could argue if I fully believed, I'd be religious... I'd contend then that I'd be a different person altogether).

[Jellybabe]

I have to say, one of the reasons I am a Christian is sadly due to Pascal's Wager.

I'd LOVE to sit here and say that I'm a Christian because I love God, or I'm a Christian because Jesus has changed my life, etc. And both of those are definitely true, so I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. But they are not the entire reason I'm a Christian. One of the things that helped in finally convincing my skeptical mind was Pascal's Wager. It just "made sense" to believe in the Bible, I suppose.

I read your essay, Jellybabe. I'm no expert on this type of thing by any means, but it seems to me like you said (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1) There is not a 50/50 chance of God existing or not existing.
2) A finite loss and infinite gain are not comparable.
3) If you cannot use reason to determine whether God exists or not, then the Wager is also unreasonable.

I fail to see what relevance these three points have to the actual Wager. :\

Because the wager is based on on those said values being true. Its like saying that you should buy a lottery ticket because you have an infinatley better chance of winning than if you don't buy one. It's misleading because you still have basically no chance.

If God exists and we believe, something good happens.
If God doesn't exist and we do/don't believe, nothing happens.
If God exists and we don't believe, something bad happens.

Looking at it like that, I just don't see why you would not choose the first. Nothing to lose, right? There just doesn't seem to be any room for any exceptions.

You would be right but "nothing to lose" is where your argument falls down. Not to mention
that your argument relies on the wager being valid. My point is that I think you do lose something by being a member of a religion. Thats only my opinion though so please don't call me on that. And I do understand that there is a lot to gain too. It worries me though that if you were turned by Pascal, wouldn't God look less kindly on you for being christian out of self preservation than me for being agnostic out of the inability to embrace religion no matter how hard I try?

[Uccisore]

Which is why I, despite never having really experienced faith in a diety, except on the level of "imaginary friend," did give several organized religions a try. I met a lot of great people, and came to understand how much religion does for many people, and how community-building it can be, even in today's segmented society.

At the end of the day, it has little to do with whether God exists or not at all, ironically, I think, as organized religion certainly works for some people, and whether God REALLY exists wouldn't change that fact. Either way though, it just wasn't for me, but the fact that I don't subscribe to any specific religion has nothing to do with whether I believe in the existence of a God (although one could argue if I fully believed, I'd be religious... I'd contend then that I'd be a different person altogether).

it's interesting, the religion I'm flirting with these days, the common response to people saying they want to join is to tell them to visit a couple services, then go away and think about it for a year or two, to make sure it isn't a 'fad' or a 'phase'.

[Jellybabe]

I think the idea of immersing oneself in the faith in order to start 'thinking like a believer' is one of the most difficult parts of what he wrote for the modern ear. It does sound a lot like brainwashing, doesn't it? I think what Pascal would say is that since (as he believed) merely sitting and thinking about it is never going to get you a rational answer one way or the other, the idea of staying outside the Church until you 'figure it out' would be a form of self-deception as well. In other words, a person who resolves to wait until he knows for sure that God exists before they participate in religion will simply spend the rest of their lives waiting, for reasons that have nothing to do with the facts, or whether or not God exists. Spending the rest of your life waiting is a choice to live as a defacto atheist...and since his target audience isn't any more sure of atheism than they are of theism, the end result is them being just as irrational as if they had jumped into a religion despite their uncertainty. I hope I explained that well.
And yeah, I agree with you that his probabilities are wrong (I mean, I think the likelihood of God existing is quite a bit higher than 50%, so clearly I disagree with him. :) ) I think he uses the coin flip as an analogy to what it feels like to be completely uncertain- stuck between two positions. Not a rigorous probability.



I respect what Pascal was trying to do, I honestly do. He was reaching out to those who simply couldn't make the leap by themselves and even tried to give them a good reason for doing so. And you have to respect that. I only hope he brought some happiness into at least a few peoples lives. Soren Kierkegaard's leap of faith might have done the trick too but it lacked the motivation of a wager style argument to back i up. All in all I'm not even sure if Pascal believed in the wager, but I am sure he believed in God. And he wanted other people to do the same. So he did what he could.

To clarify, he does clearly state that there is a 50/50 chance of God existing. You could read it differently but if he didn't mean that then he was really crap at writing.

[sokolov]

it's interesting, the religion I'm flirting with these days, the common response to people saying they want to join is to tell them to visit a couple services, then go away and think about it for a year or two, to make sure it isn't a 'fad' or a 'phase'.

Not really on point perhaps, but just to talk more... isn't it a phase for most of us? I don't know anyone truly needs religion or faith ALL through their lives. They may still attend services and go through the motions, but it's unlikely that it serves them equally well through all stages of their life, even if they believe it to be so.

But I think part of the problem is that as humans, we believe that if we believe (pardon the language structure) in something, we must always believe it, or it isn't true. This is most evident in two things I find to have striking similarities: religion and love. These are realms where intangible concepts like the afterlife, eternity, forever, all come into play as justifications. If you love someone, you are supposed to love them forever. If you believe in God, what use is your belief if you are only a "Sunday Christian?"

Believing in the concept of a soulmate, as far as I can see, is not so different than believing in God.

This is why I've always considered that the faith of a person is far more important than the existence or non-existence of the target of that faith, in terms of what belief does for a given individual.

[Uccisore]

Well, sure, but then that's a product of the Protestant Reformation in general, maybe with a slice of American consumerism. It's only been a generation or so that people entered into religion with the idea that it's something that should 'serve them'. If I was looking to serve myself, I think I would have gone on as a vaguely Protestant non-denominational Christian who's only rules were self-set. I mean, does a monk really meditate because it happens to fit with his goals in life, intending fully to drop it if his attitudes shift? It seems to me that a good religion would have a core to it that's bigger than the individual and his or her needs; there's a pretty fundamental difference between a religion and a group-therapy session, or series of self-help seminars.

I think you're right in the 'believe it forever or it's not true'. I see it especially in love- a break up occurs, and one or both parties goes back through past events to try to find 'proof' that 'he never really loved me' or whatever. Not so sure how it applies in religion, though- presumably if a person went from being a Christian to being an atheist, for example, the new atheist would think that Christianity was never true, and that they were just previously mistaken. The idea of a Sunday Christian not being a real Christian are just sort of residual echos of what the faith used to be (and still is in some sects)- an actual life-changing paradigm that you dedicate everything to, and become a different person. In the present day, a religion is becoming more like a pharmacy, where you drop by if you're feeling blue, the priest or whomever says some magic words to make you feel ok, and you vanish until you need to be treated again. The ideas DO clash, but it's the 'take it or leave it' approach that's the new thing.

[Sepulcher8]

It worries me though that if you were turned by Pascal, wouldn't God look less kindly on you for being christian out of self preservation than me for being agnostic out of the inability to embrace religion no matter how hard I try?

I was afraid you might think that, so I'll elaborate. It's not that I was "turned" by Pascal. Pascal's Wager is not the reason that I became a Christian.

BUT it is what settled the skeptic in me. That's what I meant. :) I'm still skeptical about pretty much everything, but it's comforting to know that even if I'm wrong about everything, and the Bible is made up, God doesn't exist, etc. that I was "better safe than sorry". I'm not saying it's why I chose Christianity (because that's kind of an unreliable method.) but it is what ultimately shut me up, I guess you could say. If that makes sense.

[RSnow]

1) Jellybabe- Thanks for that explanation. I found it to be very well prepared. I would, however, like to say that you don't have "virtually no chance of winning." What we don't have is any complete assurance of winning, which, while it sounds similar, isn't quite the same.

2)
Which is why I, despite never having really experienced faith in a diety, except on the level of "imaginary friend," did give several organized religions a try. I met a lot of great people, and came to understand how much religion does for many people, and how community-building it can be, even in today's segmented society.

At the end of the day, it has little to do with whether God exists or not at all, ironically, I think, as organized religion certainly works for some people, and whether God REALLY exists wouldn't change that fact. Either way though, it just wasn't for me, but the fact that I don't subscribe to any specific religion has nothing to do with whether I believe in the existence of a God (although one could argue if I fully believed, I'd be religious... I'd contend then that I'd be a different person altogether).

Good point. Personally, I'd like it very much if I could convince someone to be a christian. However, failing at that, convincing someone to act like one is a close second. I think we'd all agree that if everyone lived by the biblical standard (love your neighbor, yada yada), the world would be a much better place for it.

Also, I'd like to suggest that everyone try out different religions etc. There's really not too much to lose, and a potentially infinite gain (here we go again...). IDK, it worked out for me when I left athiesm fr christianity.

3) Anyone who is in the category that Pascal addresses (you want to believe in something, but just have a hard time with the few doubts, should read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. Heck, even if you think you want nothing to do with religion, it makes a great read from a philosopher's point of view.

[RSnow]

It worries me though that if you were turned by Pascal, wouldn't God look less kindly on you for being christian out of self preservation than me for being agnostic out of the inability to embrace religion no matter how hard I try?

Actually, I respectfully disagree. I don't think God looks less kindly on us for preserving our interests. After all, it's mainly our interests which define who we are.

If anything, I think God would look less kindly one the people who DON'T look out for themselves a bit. I mean, who's more admirable, the guy who checks his parachute 3x before going skydiving, or the guy who doesn't check at all? IF someone's in a burning building and they struggle to get out of it, should God hate them for that? Or would he facepalm when somebody stays in that building because he thinks that there should be a better motivation than the threat of imminent destruction?

In fact, if you come to a bridge with a sign on it saying "bridge collapsed," do you keep driving or go around. What kind of idiot keeps driving and says something like "Well, there's no proof that the bridge actually collapsed?" or "Fear of death is not a good enough reason to go around"

Of course, self-preservation can't be the ONLY reason to do something, but as far as reasons go, it's not unconvincing.

IF anything, I think that's why Jesus spent so much time healing the sick. It's to show that God cares about us and that his plan for us is that we truly experience the best things possible.

[Comissar]

I'm not sure if this was bought up earlier but another problem with pascals wager is that it assumes that the god you choose to believe in is also the correct religion. However if you say chose to believe in Christianity and it turned out that hinduism is correct then your probably worse off than before as your believieng in a false idol rather than simply not believing
(note: I have no prejudice towards Christianity or Hinduism, I'm an atheist and see both beliefs as equally wrong)

[CPKZ]

For me, the fundamental problem with Pascal's Wager is that it presumes not only that there is but one God, but that it is the God that he believes in.
I'm not sure if this was bought up earlier but another problem with pascals wager is that it assumes that the god you choose to believe in is also the correct religion. However if you say chose to believe in Christianity and it turned out that hinduism is correct then your probably worse off than before as your believieng in a false idol rather than simply not believing

I see this argument about Pascal's Wager frequently, and personally I detest it as it ignores the main theme of the argument. Normally I see the argument you presented furthered with the "Well how do we know its not Hinduism, or Buddhism, or whatever thats the real belief."

In the end, Pascal's Wager is about finding belief and faith though. It works only against Atheism as only atheism has nothing occurring after death. You can't compare Christianity to Hinduism, because the second argument becomes "If you're right, and I'm wrong...sucks to be me."

[Comissar]

my point was that pascals wager seems to be an aweful way of trying to convince someone to be religious as there is no way for someone to say (assuming there is a god/gods of some sort) which is right

[CPKZ]

my point was that pascals wager seems to be an aweful way of trying to convince someone to be religious as there is no way for someone to say (assuming there is a god/gods of some sort) which is right

True, but thats not the entire point of the wager.
The wager is to dissuade someone from being an Atheist. While its often used for Christianity specifically, in the end argument is still just "If you're an atheist, you have nothing to good to look forward to."

Its an argument that says search and try to find a faith.

[Comissar]

True, but thats not the entire point of the wager.
The wager is to dissuade someone from being an Atheist. While its often used for Christianity specifically, in the end argument is still just "If you're an atheist, you have nothing to good to look forward to."

Its an argument that says search and try to find a faith.

however, in my opinion, an atheist is more focused on the present as there are no illusions of a future life to prepare for, on the other hand, a theist may spend their entire lives living within strict rules for what I see as no reason whatsoever. People may argue "whats to be gained from being an Atheist?" My argument is "Whats to be gained from being a theist?" Humans are beings of logic, I doubt anyone would disagree with me there, so why do so many of us believe in something without any solid proof?

[Sepulcher8]

Humans are beings of logic, I doubt anyone would disagree with me there, so why do so many of us believe in something without any solid proof?

What do you mean by "solid proof"? What would count as "proof" of the existance of a deity?

[sokolov]

I see this argument about Pascal's Wager frequently, and personally I detest it as it ignores the main theme of the argument. Normally I see the argument you presented furthered with the "Well how do we know its not Hinduism, or Buddhism, or whatever thats the real belief."

In the end, Pascal's Wager is about finding belief and faith though. It works only against Atheism as only atheism has nothing occurring after death. You can't compare Christianity to Hinduism, because the second argument becomes "If you're right, and I'm wrong...sucks to be me."

It doesn't really matter which belief it is, I think. The problem is that Pascal is suggesting we find faith and belief based on the presumption that the God we are talking about rewards faith in his existence - which may or may not, in fact, be the case, even if God does exist. It's multiple wagers hidden within a larger one.

I am also not sure I follow how Atheism is the only thing that has nothing occurring after death. Atheism has no specific reason to preclude the possibility of some kind of existence after death - but it does mean that an Atheist is not going to subscribe to say, a Christian's idea of life after death (although theoritically, Heaven and Hell could still exist, as long as there is no God involved).

[Neornithe]

The thing with Pascal and this discussion concerning him is that the arguments revolve around the question if it is "good", or "useful" to be`religous´.
The atheist, however, is mainly interested in the question if this `religion´ is true, which is a different question entirely.

I want to describe this with a hypothetic scenario:

Suppose you are standing in front of two doors. You can only enter one of the doors and the (very reliable) information availiable to you is the following:

One of the doors is marked "GOD", if you enter this door you will get to meet god, to be in his presence, to enjoy heaven or eternal bliss and all that (dont really know how to describe that part, but you see what Im getting at).
The other one is marked "TRUTH", if you enter this door you will learn the truth about god (and other important stuff related to the subject). Now, this truth may be that god does in fact exist and `religion´ corresponds with reality exactly as it has been described to you. But it may also be that there is no god at all, or that there is indeed a god but not the one you had in mind etcetera.

It seems to me that "faith" means that you choose the door marked "GOD", and that an atheist is a person that would choose the truth before god.

Pascal is saying something like "even if the god behind the door is an illusion, it will be a pleasant one, and the truth - which might be unpleasant - is going to be the same no matter which door you choose, therefore it is rational to choose the god-door". But this is not what we are asking. We are asking "what is true", and the only rational responce to this must be to choose the truth-door and find out.

So from the atheists point of view you do in fact loose something very valuable in choosing "GOD", as it renders you unable to also choose "TRUTH".

[sokolov]

That's an interesting way of looking at it, did you come up with that?

[Comissar]

What do you mean by "solid proof"? What would count as "proof" of the existance of a deity?

I would class proof as physical evidence of the existence of a divine being, holy writings cannot be counted amongst this category as they are the only things to claim the existence of said divine being. Trying to use it as evidence would be like me writing "God doesn't exist so there" and trying to use that as proof. Without reliable sources with which you can cross-refrence the claimant article there is no way of proving that its true (i.e. I would consider a neutral or unbiased eyewitness good evidence provided there isn't a substantial amount of evidence against the eyewitness

[Comissar]

The thing with Pascal and this discussion concerning him is that the arguments revolve around the question if it is "good", or "useful" to be`religous´.
The atheist, however, is mainly interested in the question if this `religion´ is true, which is a different question entirely.

I want to describe this with a hypothetic scenario:

Suppose you are standing in front of two doors. You can only enter one of the doors and the (very reliable) information availiable to you is the following:

One of the doors is marked "GOD", if you enter this door you will get to meet god, to be in his presence, to enjoy heaven or eternal bliss and all that (dont really know how to describe that part, but you see what Im getting at).
The other one is marked "TRUTH", if you enter this door you will learn the truth about god (and other important stuff related to the subject). Now, this truth may be that god does in fact exist and `religion´ corresponds with reality exactly as it has been described to you. But it may also be that there is no god at all, or that there is indeed a god but not the one you had in mind etcetera.

It seems to me that "faith" means that you choose the door marked "GOD", and that an atheist is a person that would choose the truth before god.

Pascal is saying something like "even if the god behind the door is an illusion, it will be a pleasant one, and the truth - which might be unpleasant - is going to be the same no matter which door you choose, therefore it is rational to choose the god-door". But this is not what we are asking. We are asking "what is true", and the only rational responce to this must be to choose the truth-door and find out.

So from the atheists point of view you do in fact loose something very valuable in choosing "GOD", as it renders you unable to also choose "TRUTH".

Got to agree with this, I would rather know the truth than potentially delude myself with false ideas

[Sammich]

Actual Atheism ("1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." - thank you, dictionary.com) would disinclude the potential for truth in a god or gods, when it is clear by all worldly evidence that we do not, in fact, have the ability to eliminate higher powers as an option. Wouldn't that put those with an interest in TRUTH in the agnostic camp, allowing for the chance that it's possible?

[Comissar]

Actual Atheism ("1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." - thank you, dictionary.com) would disinclude the potential for truth in a god or gods, when it is clear by all worldly evidence that we do not, in fact, have the ability to eliminate higher powers as an option. Wouldn't that put those with an interest in TRUTH in the agnostic camp, allowing for the chance that it's possible?

I think that the line between being an agnostic and an atheist is blurred

[sokolov]

Actual Atheism ("1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." - thank you, dictionary.com) would disinclude the potential for truth in a god or gods, when it is clear by all worldly evidence that we do not, in fact, have the ability to eliminate higher powers as an option. Wouldn't that put those with an interest in TRUTH in the agnostic camp, allowing for the chance that it's possible?

I suppose some atheist may be reluctant to go through the door in case they are wrong ;) But atheism can probably be more broadly defined as someone who currently does not believe in a God and a person who believes in something does have the prerogative to want to know the truth, as well as change their minds - presumably we all start out as atheists when we are born as we cannot know about God in that state.

Pascal's Wager suggests, however, that truth is not so much a concern as the potential reward of salvation.

Actually, I wonder if an extremely strong agnostic would even go through EITHER door, as an agnostic believes that the existence of God cannot be known. In other words, the only way to reconcile such a "Truth" door is that it does not, in fact, hold the Truth.

[Uccisore]

I think it's important to re-clarify that Pascal deals with truth as a skeptic - his view is essentially that we can't figure out whether God exists or not, all our rational investigation of the matter has ended in confusion. So it's not so much that he's encouraging us to ignore the truth, but pointing out that the atheist isn't really going to accomplish anything by seeking after it.

In Pascal's view, there is only one door. It says "God". If you stepped through it, you'd see that it says "Skepticism" on the other side. The people who are standing outside looking at the "God" door are still in the 'Skepticism' room- there is no place you can stand and consider both options. You're living in one or the other regardless.

[RSnow]

Actual Atheism ("1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." - thank you, dictionary.com) would disinclude the potential for truth in a god or gods, when it is clear by all worldly evidence that we do not, in fact, have the ability to eliminate higher powers as an option. Wouldn't that put those with an interest in TRUTH in the agnostic camp, allowing for the chance that it's possible?

Now, a tough question: why is truth so important to you? I mean, so by telling you that we live in the matrix and nothing we do is real, I could cause you to have a nervous breakdown? Or to sit there gibbering like a moron and unable to take any course of action?


One last thing, the guy who said "Using the bible as evidence would be like writing 'God doesn't exist' on a piece of paper and using that as evidence'" has clearly been hitting the happy juice, or is on something even stronger...

So apparently if I write "The sun exists because I can see it," it's as convincing as you writing "The sun doesn't exist." Tell you what, if you die swearing that what you wrote is true, I'll be able too consider it evidence aswell...

[Comissar]

One last thing, the guy who said "Using the bible as evidence would be like writing 'God doesn't exist' on a piece of paper and using that as evidence'" has clearly been hitting the happy juice, or is on something even stronger...

So apparently if I write "The sun exists because I can see it," it's as convincing as you writing "The sun doesn't exist." Tell you what, if you die swearing that what you wrote is true, I'll be able too consider it evidence aswell...

My point was that writing something does not necessarily make it true on its own. Of course if I wrote the sun doesn't exist then I'd be a moron if I then believed myself for writing it