 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Atheism versus Religion |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Silvershield   580                   Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombReligion and politics can both act as tools through which people can gain power and influence others, but your silly rhetoric that they are nearly identical is nonsense. Government may do plenty of harm, but is an absolutely necessary evil. Anarchy does not work in practice, at all. Originally posted by JombWell, if you were a "good person" when you were a Methodist and have not changed at all in that respect, more power to you. I've never said that the only way to be righteous and virtuous is to claim a religion. Originally posted by JombI think your mistake is that you assume that one falsehood or less-than-literal story in the Bible automatically invalidates the rest of it. And there's no reason to believe that. The reason I have to draw a conclusion, and to read certain parts of Scripture as I do, is faith. It all leads back to faith. In order to understand true spirituality and religion, you need to step outside your empirical nature and realize that we do not rely on the scientific method to form our beliefs. If to you that means we are stupid and irrational, I guess that's your opinion (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth when I say that, I'm just making a generalization). Originally posted by JombAs I continue to reiterate, religion is not about factual evidence. If I sat down and sought every bit of factual evidence I could that proves my religion, and refused to remain Catholic if I could not collect enough empirical proof, then I would not be Catholic anymore (and likely nobody else on Earth would, either). Searching oneself and considering one's religion does not mean seeking proof for it, but assessing it emotionally and intellectually and getting that feeling that it's just "right." Originally posted by JombMaybe the next time the census comes around, you should correct that. Originally posted by JombNo, of course not  .
Originally posted by JombHow many call themselves Christian, or how many are Christian? Originally posted by JombJomb, I'm not disagreeing with you that religion largely stems from cultural bias. I never tried to argue against that. My argument is and has continually been that, while a solid majority of people will follow the religion that their environment endorses, it is irresponsible to imply that any given individual is a mindless sheep who is of whatever religion his parents and peers exposed him to. You originally implied that I am Catholic because that's how I was raised, without acknowledging that I (and plenty of other people) have consciously decided that, while my upbringing is x, I also personally believe in x. Originally posted by JombAre you saying that the true word of God would be so clearly and undeniably true that nobody could possibly deny it? Because most religion relies on its inability to be proven, and something of such magical effect would clearly prove God, no? Originally posted by JombFirst, how does religion being tightly connected to culture make it equivalent to culture? Second, this is getting off track. I was originally, and still am, referring to Christianity above all else. I can't speak for anything else, really, except maybe Judaism. Partly because I don't know enough about many other religions. Originally posted by JombChristianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God, but I believe that Judaism and Islam are flawed in many of their Earthly practices. Otherwise, though, I think their followers closely match adherents to Christianity. For those that worship a different god than the Christian God, the conclusion is simple: I am right, they are wrong. What else could I possibly think? And, before you ask: no, I have no empirical proof. It's about faith. That should just be the sentence I brand the end of every post with: It's all about faith. Because, I feel like that's the only way to answer most of these questions. |
|||
Arwon Bazu   Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| And that's why the religious always have the home-ground advantage in these arguments. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonExactly. But I'm hardly trying to "win" this argument, I'm just trying to point out why I believe what I do. Because many people find it absolutely impossible to believe what is not tangibly in front of their faces. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I just find it really weird that people can be so self-assured and ethnocentric as to believe they have it right out of all the cultures over all the times there have been, that they were born into the one true faith, and not, say, a billion Hindus or the Jews who were around before them. The "all worshipping the same thing" cop-out doesn't cut it. It's just an utterly confusing, alien perspective. (edited by Arwon on 10-29-06 04:40 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonDo you really know anyone who says "I strongly believe in x religion, but I don't know if it's the right religion"? Because I don't think I know anyone like that. Anyone who would vacillate so much would more likely just not believe in anything at all, rather than "kind of" believing in something that requires so much faith. I get the sense that you're trying to say that I should be free to believe what I want, but I shouldn't jump to assume that my beliefs are the only correct ones...but, really, do you even do that? Do you take a side in a political discussion, for example, without fully believing that you are right and the other guy is wrong? |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
I recognise the implicit bias and subjectivity in my views. but it's basically far easier to universalise an essentially nihilistic and negative and nonrational atheism than it is any particular religious views. Bear in mind I'm just saying the sheer number of mutually exclusive religions and the high degree of cultural relativism in my outlook is one of the main reasons I can't fathom religious faith and one of the reasons I accuse religions of inherent arrogance and ethnocentrism. Doesn't mean everyone thinks that way--most people don't necessarily look at any particular issue and think "now who would see this really differently?" whereas I usually do. Hence my obsession with Hinduism and the billion atheistic Chinese in this thread. Often in religious arguments it's easy to forget things other than Catholicism and Protestantism exist.
Well, yes, but I am a university debater so it kind of comes with the territory. Sometimes you have to advocate torture. You should have heard me argue for military intervention in North Korea a few weeks ago, or arguing that the Catholic Church shouldn't promote condoms in Africa the week after that. This is reflected in my politics. Consistancy and rationality is overrated, objectivity doesn't exist, sometimes you have to get subjective to really do something justice. Depending on the issue, who I'm talking to (are they to my left or right?) my mood, and how many drinks I've had, I'll cop to anything from a sort of mushy centre-left liberalism to some fairly full-on radical leftism to a sort of perverse frustrated conservative elitism. One of my favourite games lately is convincing people of the utility and justification in resorting to political violence if you can't make your leaders accountable through the mechanisms of the actual political system. (edited by Arwon on 10-29-06 07:30 PM) |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| "Religion and politics can both act as tools through which people can gain power and influence others, but your silly rhetoric that they are nearly identical is nonsense.
Government may do plenty of harm, but is an absolutely necessary evil. Anarchy does not work in practice, at all. " I don't think it's nonsense, because politics and religion have very similar means and ends, and some politicians from the past tried to become gods, and religious leaders commonly try to also be political leaders. I think they are both just aspects of culture. Yes, it's too bad about Anarchy, it may not work, but I'd probably attempt to live under it if I had any choice in the matter, how much worse could it really be? 
"Well, if you were a "good person" when you were a Methodist and have not changed at all in that respect, more power to you. I've never said that the only way to be righteous and virtuous is to claim a religion. " no, you never did claim that, but you did say that I'd be a different person with religion, but I dont feel any different than when I had it. "The reason I have to draw a conclusion, and to read certain parts of Scripture as I do, is faith. It all leads back to faith. In order to understand true spirituality and religion, you need to step outside your empirical nature and realize that we do not rely on the scientific method to form our beliefs. If to you that means we are stupid and irrational, I guess that's your opinion (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth when I say that, I'm just making a generalization). " I dont think you are stupid and irrational, most religious people are'nt. They just dont bother to question it, because its tradition and custom.. you know, culture
Everybody is influenced by their culture, even me
The problems happen when people get caught up in their culture and believe it's vastly superior to everybody else's. That everybody else should be just like them. "As I continue to reiterate, religion is not about factual evidence. If I sat down and sought every bit of factual evidence I could that proves my religion, and refused to remain Catholic if I could not collect enough empirical proof, then I would not be Catholic anymore (and likely nobody else on Earth would, either). Searching oneself and considering one's religion does not mean seeking proof for it, but assessing it emotionally and intellectually and getting that feeling that it's just "right." " Right, it's about culture (or faith if you like). But free-thinking is about stepping outside your culture and analyzing things with logic and facts. This is why so many people referred to as "Free-Thinkers" are Agnostics or Atheists. "Maybe the next time the census comes around, you should correct that. " Maybe I will, I dont really consider it a high priority though, it makes no difference to me what the government thinks I am... "How many call themselves Christian, or how many are Christian? " Calling yourself Christian is all thats necessary to be a Christian in most people's eyes. Because most people are'nt really that into their religion to care if people are fakes in it or not. "Jomb, I'm not disagreeing with you that religion largely stems from cultural bias. I never tried to argue against that. My argument is and has continually been that, while a solid majority of people will follow the religion that their environment endorses, it is irresponsible to imply that any given individual is a mindless sheep who is of whatever religion his parents and peers exposed him to. You originally implied that I am Catholic because that's how I was raised, without acknowledging that I (and plenty of other people) have consciously decided that, while my upbringing is x, I also personally believe in x. " I'm not saying people are mindless sheeps, only that for the vast majority of people their religious affiliation is simply an exp And I should reiterate that culture can be a good thing, the Earth would be one dull place if everyone had the same culture. The trick is to have tolerance for other viewpoints and enjoy the differences rather than become scared by them. "Are you saying that the true word of God would be so clearly and undeniably true that nobody could possibly deny it? Because most religion relies on its inability to be proven, and something of such magical effect would clearly prove God, no? " Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, if a writing were truly divine then it would be obvious to everyone who read it that it was true and there'd be no serious doubt. To my way of thinking, the fact that religions rely on inabilty to be proven and the need for faith, is one of the strongest bits of circumstantial evidence AGAINST them being true. After all, that is the sort of things which con-men traffic in. "First, how does religion being tightly connected to culture make it equivalent to culture? " Because in ever respect I can think of, religion is identical to culture. It is not the entire culture, just one large branch of it. "Second, this is getting off track. I was originally, and still am, referring to Christianity above all else. I can't speak for anything else, really, except maybe Judaism. Partly because I don't know enough about many other religions. " But, I'd argue that since you dont know much about other religions, how do you know they are wrong? Most of them pass the same litmus test you were giving your own religion, that they cant be 100% disproven. "For those that worship a different god than the Christian God, the conclusion is simple: I am right, they are wrong. What else could I possibly think? And, before you ask: no, I have no empirical proof. It's about faith. " This is exactly the sort of arrogance which allows religions to be used to wage wars, after all, we're right and they are wrong, so we need to make them see it our way. Why are we right without evidence? Why are they wrong without evidence? Because of faith, which both sides have. Not that you'd personally do that, I dont consider you violent. "That should just be the sentence I brand the end of every post with: It's all about faith. Because, I feel like that's the only way to answer most of these questions." It is the only way to answer religious questions short of actually having some hard evidence. But it's really the equivalent of saying "because my family tradition says this is the right way, as does my culture, and not wanting to disrespect my heritage I'll follow suit." |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombThe purpose of government is, ideally, to ensure the security and well-being of its citizens. The purpose of organized religion is, ideally, to lead its members to salvation in the afterlife(speaking of Abrahamic religion, at least). The ends of each are in no way similar. As far as the means...a government ensures that security and well-being by drafting and enforcing laws. A religion ensures salvation by drafting and suggesting regulations and guidelines. Are they similar in that sense? Sure, I suppose, but only superficially. Originally posted by JombIt could be a lot worse if it were implemented on any large scale. Because, though you may do perfectly fine without external governance, there are plenty of people who would take advantage of such freedom by doing not-so-nice things. Originally posted by JombIf you were a "true" Christian - that is, you earnestly believed in it and it influenced your lifestyle - then you were certainly a different person then. The belief or non-belief in a supernatural deity requires a great shift in a person's perception of the world, if nothing else. Originally posted by JombReligion requires great sacrifices of time and resources in terms of devoting time to worship, donating monetarily, etc...as it is objectively a "detrimental" activity, at least practically speaking, I can't imagine why people would just blindly follow it if they have no vested interest and sufficient belief in it. Like, those people that don't take religion too seriously also don't spend much time and money on it, while the opposite is true for those who are serious adherents. My point is, it is unlikely that most rational, practical people just follow it blindly because "they just do." Instead, those people who honestly believe in their religions do so actively rather than passively, because they go so far as to take action by making sacrifice. Originally posted by JombSo many people who are referred to as "free-thinkers" are non-religious because religion has become increasingly demonized in the modern West. Christians are seen as stupid rednecks, or their priests as pedophiles, or as any number of other silly stereotypes. Originally posted by JombBut it makes a difference to me when someone like you, who says they're Christian only because they were born into it even though they have no personal attachment to it, commits acts that are harmful to the greater Christian reputation. Because people then attach such acts to the Christian label rather than to the individual person. Originally posted by JombThen "most people" are wrong. Originally posted by JombPeople who are whatever religion they are because they were born into it are going about it all wrong. People who were born into that religion but then later accepted it on their own have the right idea. Also, I don't see why it's necessary to "try out different religions" before deciding on one. I don't drink alcohol, and my friends always say that I should at least try it before deciding that I don't want to; but, I point out that it's not about me searching for whatever lifestyle is "most fun," but about recognizing the one that I think is right. As with religion, I don't feel obligated to try my hand at every world religion before I am entitled to choose one, because I feel like the one I have now is the one that fits me and the one that is true. Originally posted by JombThat's a fallacy. Like I said, a major concept within religion is that of faith; a person who believes in a religion does so without concrete evidence, and is so "proven" as a devout believer. But any writing that is so magical and supernatural that it is the obvious work of God would defy that necessity of faith and, in so doing, defy a cornerstone of what Christianity is. Originally posted by JombIt's an unfortunate coincidence (for lack of a better word) that con-men use such methods, but in no way does it prove that religion is itself a con. The former does not indicate, either directly or indirectly, the latter. Originally posted by JombI know they are wrong because my personal belief in the Savior would immediately discount a great majority of those world religions that don't include Jesus. Originally posted by JombThe fact that my religion cannot be proven is not the reason that I believe in it; it is simply a fact that is associated with it. Originally posted by JombBelieving that "we" are right and "they" are wrong is perfectly fine. Believing that we need to forcibly convince "them" to accept our beliefs is not. Jesus' idea of evangelization extends only to preaching and encouraging, not to violently converting. Originally posted by JombNo, I disagree totally. My family tradition may be Catholic, but I am not Catholic because of my family tradition. My ex-girlfriend's family tradition may be Presbyterian, but she is not Presbyterian because of her family tradition. In fact, she's not Presbyterian at all, she is Catholic. So, it's not strictly family tradition. People who are not "true" believers, as I've outlined above, may adhere to their religions in order to please their relatives, but people who are strong in their beliefs have personal rather than familial reasons. |
|||
MathOnNapkins 1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Indeed what he set up was a fallacy. Regardless, it would be impossible to create such a book, that by its own power convinces people of the existence of anything. The nature of the scienfic method is observation in the here and now. I find it very strong evidence that the New Testament claims many bore witness to Jesus' miracles and the miracles of his followers, but it does not convince me that what is written is actually true. I'm reminded of the Family Guy treatment of the Jesus miracles. Yes we understand that your mindset is determined by faith, we just don't care for that mindset ourselves. To quote the movie Pi: When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere. I want you to consider if there is any wisdom in this statement, because if you don't, it's only going to seem like I'm flaming you. This of course happened to be concerning the number 216 appearing everywhere, which, by the way, is 6^3 = 6*6*6 which looks like 666 (scary coincidence eh?), but the point stands. A relative of mine at one point thought a man from California was out to get us [my family] and had conspired against us with the police due to a hormonal leap into menopause. But I don't really consider her any more insane than the theories of most religions out there. Probably a little more paranoid. She's fine now though, thanks to some therapy and a little drugs. Now obviously the paranoid kind of insanity is more dangerous to those around you and not very healthy. Most people would rather believe that what they find pleasing is true. And that is why I think many people like Christianity. It is a very pleasing religion to believe in. The idea that those who are good and follow Jesus' teaching receive a reward is something many people will find comfort in. How many popular religions are there that tell everyone they are going to hell no matter what? A religion like that just doesn't sell. There are some that say "oh, only X amount are going to heaven." And everyone in that religion probably thinks that they are 1 out of that X because in their mind they are all competing. It's sounds like one of those game theory problems to try to keep everyone acting honest. Like I said earlier, I do believe that religions are crafted by geniouses. I mean, just look at how well Christianity has spread! (Sometimes by the sword but we won't go into that.) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsWhich contributes to the invalidity of his argument. Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsIf you've been exposed to the teachings of Christianity, and you've received a fair treatment of what they really stand for, yet you are not interested, it is beyond my power and my duty to do anything more. As I said, I'm not here to convert anyone. It you don't care for that mindset yourself, I'm not about to argue with you about it. Originally posted by JombLet me just break down your argument into more concise (yet still equivalent) terms, so that I may address it more clearly: For many people, the idle coincidences of the daily world are construed to stand for some greater theme. That is, every mundane, daily event is understood by a religious person to be evidence for a Higher Power, because those religious people are actively seeking such evidence. If such a bias did not exist, people could see those meaningless occurances for what they really are - that is, just simply, meaningless occurances. If any of that is off-base, let me know. Otherwise, let me pose a thought to you. First, your reasoning is absolutely valid. It is scientific fact that the human brain will seek a common thread between events and items, either consciously and unconsciously, and will understand those events to be components of a greater "conspiracy" of some sort. However, I think you stumble when you assume that religion is, indeed, just that human tendency to distort reality. I won't argue with you for a second over the notion that the brain has that tendency, but there is no external evidence for you to automatically attribute religion to it. You take the human mind and its behavior, and you take religion, and you insist that a connection exist where one may or may not. Do you get me? The problem with the argument is that your assumption is drawn without any sort of direct motivation for it. |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins 1100 In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| If you've been exposed to the teachings of Christianity, and you've received a fair treatment of what they really stand for, yet you are not interested, it is beyond my power and my duty to do anything more. As I said, I'm not here to convert anyone. It you don't care for that mindset yourself, I'm not about to argue with you about it.
Actually, I stand in awe of the teachings of Christ, as regards to how to conduct ourselves and get along. Really, the whole Bible is a very solid text and I don't appreciate people who belittle it as they probably haven't taken the time to read it. I want to write Richard Dawkins for his cricism of Kings 19 in The God Delusion as he takes it out of context considerably. There was a kid I met in IRC once who tried to link everyone to this one site claiming the Bible was satanic (can't find it). I really can't argue with any of the New Testament and what it has to say about how we should be. Like I said, Christianity is a very likable and sensible religion, until you start having to get into the nastier theological debates about whether Christ is God, the whole Trinity thing, moral nitpicking and so on. won't argue with you for a second over the notion that the brain has that tendency, but there is no external evidence for you to automatically attribute religion to it. As we've been going on in this thread, that is precisely it. The lack of evidence for the theistic case is precisely why I make the connection. Would it be improper to connect it with Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? (And these examples are not meant to belittle religon; obviously these examples are deliberate falsehoods meant to hype up kids for holidays.) Religious beliefs are fractious and varied, whereas reality is... well, reality. Of course there are propaganda machines to distort reality such as media outlets but what you experience everyday is tangible and you (hopefully) are very familiar with it by now. And my point is not only that the tendency to fantasize could not only be the source of religion, it also helps reinforce it. I'm not sure, but I think you thought I implied that religion was intentionally fabricated, and that was not what I meant. (edited by MathOnNapkins on 10-31-06 01:35 AM) |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| "As far as the means...a government ensures that security and well-being by drafting and enforcing laws. A religion ensures salvation by drafting and suggesting regulations and guidelines. Are they similar in that sense? Sure, I suppose, but only superficially. "
The politics is very similar to religion debate is rather interesting, I think. You have to consider such things as the way people lived in ancient times, where in many nations the religion WAS the government and vice versa. Or the Roman emperors or Egyptian Pharoahs who insisted they were infact Gods. Seperating the 2 is a somewhat modern concept. But it's probably a whole new thread
"Religion requires great sacrifices of time and resources in terms of devoting time to worship, donating monetarily, etc...as it is objectively a "detrimental" activity, at least practically speaking, I can't imagine why people would just blindly follow it if they have no vested interest and sufficient belief in it. Like, those people that don't take religion too seriously also don't spend much time and money on it, while the opposite is true for those who are serious adherents. My point is, it is unlikely that most rational, practical people just follow it blindly because "they just do." Instead, those people who honestly believe in their religions do so actively rather than passively, because they go so far as to take action by making sacrifice. " No, these are not usually detrimental activities when you get down to it. There are great rewards in the praise of other people about how good a person you are, sometimes there are tax breaks involved, some people meet people through their religious activities, which is a social reward for them beyond anything specifically about being completely devoted. But yes, on a whole most people are'nt that committed to their religion to go too far out of their way, in my observations. But that does'nt stop them from claiming a religion or being taken seriously as a member of that religion. "So many people who are referred to as "free-thinkers" are non-religious because religion has become increasingly demonized in the modern West. Christians are seen as stupid rednecks, or their priests as pedophiles, or as any number of other silly stereotypes. " I dont think thats it at all, you yourself admitted that based only on hard facts you could'nt follow a religion, and thats the kind of thinking and tough choices a person may have to face when they engage in serious free-thinking. Not that those stereotypes are completely valid, but they get reinforced when you go to redneck country (I've lived there before actually) and find tons of ignorant people screaming about how christian they are while simultaneously breaking just about every commandment. "But it makes a difference to me when someone like you, who says they're Christian only because they were born into it even though they have no personal attachment to it, commits acts that are harmful to the greater Christian reputation. Because people then attach such acts to the Christian label rather than to the individual person. " Why would you care? I dont claim to be a christian in my daily life, i dont attend church, i dont do things in the name of a church, etc. My grandma keeps my name registered at her church because it makes her feel better, and quite frankly it does'nt matter to me. I figure making an old lady feel good is worth something, while going to her church and insisting i'm not a member and must have my name removed would just make her feel bad for no reason. It affects me not one bit. "Then "most people" are wrong. " You have a elitist view on who is a christian and who isn't. By your very strict definition, a very small percentage of the people currently thought of as christians actually are. Out in society it does'nt work like that though, if you claim to be one you are. that's how it works with the statistics and census, etc. Plus the fact that a very large portion of people saying they are christian dont regularly attend church, but just about everyone still considers them christian. "People who are whatever religion they are because they were born into it are going about it all wrong. People who were born into that religion but then later accepted it on their own have the right idea. Also, I don't see why it's necessary to "try out different religions" before deciding on one. I don't drink alcohol, and my friends always say that I should at least try it before deciding that I don't want to; but, I point out that it's not about me searching for whatever lifestyle is "most fun," but about recognizing the one that I think is right. As with religion, I don't feel obligated to try my hand at every world religion before I am entitled to choose one, because I feel like the one I have now is the one that fits me and the one that is true. " It's not necessary, because almost nobody does this and yet they are still accepted as whatever religion they are. But if you were seeking truth and wisdom honestly, and not simply reflecting your culture, you'd be trying every religion you could before making any final decisions. It's not about which is "most fun" it's about which is "most true", or "most wise", or whatever you're looking for in religion. "That's a fallacy. Like I said, a major concept within religion is that of faith; a person who believes in a religion does so without concrete evidence, and is so "proven" as a devout believer. But any writing that is so magical and supernatural that it is the obvious work of God would defy that necessity of faith and, in so doing, defy a cornerstone of what Christianity is. " I dont consider this a fallacy, if a god wrote something down, it would be absolute truth and would cut through all the bullshit instantly for anyone who read it. It would'nt be ambiguous and easily interpreted in thousands of conflicting ways. Why is faith in a book important to your religion? Other than because its written in the same book that demands the faith. I repeat, why would a being which is vastly superior to us in every way care whether we had faith in it or not? That would matter to it how? "It's an unfortunate coincidence (for lack of a better word) that con-men use such methods, but in no way does it prove that religion is itself a con. The former does not indicate, either directly or indirectly, the latter. " No it does'nt completely prove anything, but it is yet another chunk of circumstantial evidence on the mountain of circumstantial evidence against such a thing actually being true. "I know they are wrong because my personal belief in the Savior would immediately discount a great majority of those world religions that don't include Jesus. " Why? Maybe they never met Jesus but did meet X(whoever is divine in their religion), perhaps X is also a god and the 2 are both true and valid. This scenario is no less plausable than either of them being true. Or, maybe god appeared to them in a different form and set up their religion (afterall, god is incomprehensible and cant be understood) "Believing that "we" are right and "they" are wrong is perfectly fine. Believing that we need to forcibly convince "them" to accept our beliefs is not. Jesus' idea of evangelization extends only to preaching and encouraging, not to violently converting. " Without proof to back up your claim it comes off more as arrogance and hubris to say definitively that you are right and they are wrong. religions dont always use outright violence to spread, there are many areas of the world where i've read accounts of people being coerced to convert using such means as with-holding medical aid or cutting them out of business if they dont change their religion. "No, I disagree totally. My family tradition may be Catholic, but I am not Catholic because of my family tradition. My ex-girlfriend's family tradition may be Presbyterian, but she is not Presbyterian because of her family tradition. In fact, she's not Presbyterian at all, she is Catholic. So, it's not strictly family tradition. People who are not "true" believers, as I've outlined above, may adhere to their religions in order to please their relatives, but people who are strong in their beliefs have personal rather than familial reasons." OK, so you both were born into a christian society and both continued as christians without any honest attempts to understand other religions and i'm supposed to believe it has nothing to do with your culture and is just an amazing coincidence? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombAs I've been pointing out, I only refer to modern Christianity above all else. I cannot speak for or defend most other religions, both because I don't know enough about them and because I don't think many of them are defensible, at least not as far as I'm concerned. Originally posted by JombNot in my experience, at least not in general. I don't go to church so that people can ooh and aah and call me a good boy, especially because nobody really does that, anyway. Originally posted by JombI don't know a thing about taxes; do you have a concrete example? Originally posted by JombAgain, in my experience, you typically don't meet people in church. You go to Mass, sit through it, and leave. There are plenty of extraneous activities - youth groups, Bible study, etc - but those are a totally different story. If you're using those things as social clubs, then you don't really have the right idea. Originally posted by JombIt doesn't stop them from claiming a religion (even though it should - as I've said, those people who are Christian in name but no in action give the rest of us a bad name), but it often does stop them from being taken at all seriously. I mean, nobody admires that group of people that are in church for Christmas and for Easter but not otherwise. Originally posted by JombIf the "tough choice" is to renounce a religion because hard evidence does not exist, I think it's incorrect to assume that it's the "right choice." And, yeah, those stereotypical rednecks who break just about every commandment are not "true Christians," as far as I've been using that term. Of course, they're all Protestants, but that's a whole new argument... 
Originally posted by JombI don't mean to use "you" to refer to you specifically, but more as a generality. That is, in general terms, when people take the Christian label (for any of a hundred possible reasons) but then don't adhere to Christian precepts in daily life, it gives the rest of us a bad name. There's the classic story of someone who is presently atheist hating Christianity because a bunch of kids who called themselves Christian used to beat him up in high school; those bullies are hardly Christian, yet their behavior generalizes to the greater population. Originally posted by JombIt's not elitist at all, it's realistic. A Christian is not a person who says "I am a Christian," but a person who lives by the ideals set forth by Christ. I'm not trying to be malicious or elitist at all but, as I've been saying, the misdeeds of the "false" Christians give "true" Christians a bad name. Originally posted by Jomb"Most fun" was intended to be analogous to "most true." Maybe my analogy was a bit flawed .
But, in any case, who's to say that this first religion I've tried out isn't the one that is right? Maybe I feel like I don't need to test a million different faiths because I know that the one I presently have is ideal. Originally posted by JombFirst, you don't have your Christian doctrine straight. No sect that I know of says that the Bible is God's own handwriting, and few say that it is His exact verbatim dictation. The Christian sect that I represent - Catholicism - takes the approach that the Bible is inspired by God. So, your question is based on misinformation. But that doesn't change the fact that, as I am trying to reiterate, if a book were so obviously and undeniably written by God, it would require no faith to accept, and so the main idea of religion - that of faith - would be destroyed. Which makes your proposal a fallacy. Not to mention the fact that you and I have never seen a text that has actually been written by a supernatural deity, and so we have no grounds to make assumptions about what such a book's properties might be. Originally posted by JombAnother one of those questions that has no acceptable answer beyond the old "God works in mysterious ways." He is so far above us that we cannot hope to understand His plan or His motives. Originally posted by JombAnd, by definition, circumstantial evidence proves nothing. Especially not in a scenario in which the belief that is being questioned does not rely on concrete evidence at all. Originally posted by JombMy belief system says that your statements are false. I have no defense beyond that, especially because my belief system is not largely based on concrete evidence. And, while God is certainly incomprehensible in His entirety, He gifted humanity with at least a basic understanding of how He wants us to live. God's methods and motives cannot be understood, but He is not absolutely beyond our knowledge in the sense that humans have the Bible and the teachings of Jesus from which to draw wisdom and advice. Originally posted by JombYou expect me to say "I base my entire life around a set of beliefs, try to develop my entire person and decide my every action based on that belief system, but I'm not really sure that it's true, it's just my opinion"? That's a little absurd. I am what I am because I staunchly believe that I am right, not because Christianity is "the best thing out there" right now. Originally posted by JombAnd those methods are absolutely wrong and no righteous person could condone them. Originally posted by JombWell, within Christianity there is a great deal of separation between denominations, so it's hardly as if we were raised in the same tradition. And add to that the fact that Catholics and Protestants tend to virulently oppose one another in many cases... |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| "I don't know a thing about taxes; do you have a concrete example? "
Any charitable donations, for example, become tax write-offs. "Again, in my experience, you typically don't meet people in church. You go to Mass, sit through it, and leave. There are plenty of extraneous activities - youth groups, Bible study, etc - but those are a totally different story. If you're using those things as social clubs, then you don't really have the right idea. " I cant tell you how many people have said to me "I'm going to church so I can meet a wife (or husband). "If the "tough choice" is to renounce a religion because hard evidence does not exist, I think it's incorrect to assume that it's the "right choice." It depends on if you think that truth is whats right, or feeling safe is what's right. For some people the truth is inherantly right, for others the truth is less important than peace of mind. To me truth is more important than feelings of well-being. "It's not elitist at all, it's realistic. A Christian is not a person who says "I am a Christian," but a person who lives by the ideals set forth by Christ. I'm not trying to be malicious or elitist at all but, as I've been saying, the misdeeds of the "false" Christians give "true" Christians a bad name. " Fair enough, people who truly follow the teachings of Jesus are hard to dislike. But in the real world they are a small percentage of what people refer to as christians. "But, in any case, who's to say that this first religion I've tried out isn't the one that is right? Maybe I feel like I don't need to test a million different faiths because I know that the one I presently have is ideal. " No one is to say that it isn't right, but if you have'nt tried the others with an open mind, then you yourself cant justify making that claim either. "Another one of those questions that has no acceptable answer beyond the old "God works in mysterious ways." He is so far above us that we cannot hope to understand His plan or His motives. " + "And, while God is certainly incomprehensible in His entirety, He gifted humanity with at least a basic understanding of how He wants us to live. God's methods and motives cannot be understood, but He is not absolutely beyond our knowledge in the sense that humans have the Bible and the teachings of Jesus from which to draw wisdom and advice. " Which is it, is he incomprehensible, or do we comprehend him? I still dont understand why he wants us to have faith in him and what he'd gain from that, where is that explained? The most obvious conclusion is that it is not god who wants us to have faith that he exists without proof, but rather it is the authors of the bible and/or church leaders. "He is so far above us that we cannot hope to understand His plan or His motives. " Then why do you claim that his plan is for us to have faith in him without any proof? I thought we could'nt comprehend his plan? Why would his plan involve something that would make us a rube in virtually any other debate or situation? "You expect me to say "I base my entire life around a set of beliefs, try to develop my entire person and decide my every action based on that belief system, but I'm not really sure that it's true, it's just my opinion"? That's a little absurd. I am what I am because I staunchly believe that I am right, not because Christianity is "the best thing out there" right now. " What i'm trying to understand is WHY you think you're right without any proof or even without looking into the other ways of thinking about this thing we call religion. The only answer I can come up with is because of your upbringing and/or cultural influences. "Well, within Christianity there is a great deal of separation between denominations, so it's hardly as if we were raised in the same tradition. And add to that the fact that Catholics and Protestants tend to virulently oppose one another in many cases..." You all follow the same book, the other stuff is mostly petty squabbling about minor details as far as I can tell. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombAnd there are just as many charities that are not religiously affiliated at all. Not to mention the fact that donation to a charity can be attributed to general human benevolence as opposed to necessarily being attached to any church or religion whatsoever. Originally posted by JombThen they're looking in the wrong place. I can't really speak for Protestantism, but a Catholic service is a serious, almost grave event and there's hardly any networking going on. If you want to meet a potential mate who shares your religion, you may go to the social events sponsored by your church, but I doubt you would go to a Mass itself. Originally posted by JombI feel safe and well, yet I'm quite certain I've found the truth as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. Originally posted by JombA person who strictly and successfully follows Jesus' teachings has to be the most likable person in the world. He puts others before himself always, he is friendly and generous, he is not violent. However, just because the popular notion is that anyone who wants to call themselves Christian automatically is Christian, doesn't mean the popular notion is correct. Originally posted by JombI can justify it. At this moment, I consider my beliefs and feel they are the absolute truth, the absolute right. I can't imagine anything superior. Why bother searching through the untruth when I already possess the truth? Originally posted by JombI thought I put it pretty clearly before. Let me try again: God's motives, the reasons He does what He does and He made what He made, are absolutely beyond humanity; we can speculate and search, but we will never know for certain. However, we can know how He wants us to behave. We do not necessarily know why we are supposed to behave in that way, only that it is the will of our God, and He promises us salvation if we obey Him. Any better? Originally posted by JombYou're using the wrong vocabulary, and then going on an assumption that is based on that faulty language. It is not God's "plan" for us to have faith in Him without proof. His "plan" is absolutely beyond what we as humans can understand. It is God's "will" that believe in Him, and we can certainly know His will - after all, the Bible and Jesus are our two greatest sources in acting as God wishes. Originally posted by JombBecause I hear God's voice and see His works every day. And, I know you'll take that to mean that I literally have a conversation with God, but I'll make no such claim; instead, I find myself in constant awe of the enormity and beauty of our world, and I see it as sprung from a supreme deity rather than a fully natural set of cause-effect. I don't mean to keep using this phrase but, honestly, there is no concrete evidence. Originally posted by JombPretty much, yeah. Many Protestants believe that salvation comes from belief in Jesus rather than from good works, which is the issue I have the most problem with, but the differences are otherwise superficial. Edit to flesh out my first point. (edited by Silvershield on 11-02-06 12:48 PM) |
|||
|
Metal Man88 Gold axe It appears we have been transported to a time in which everything is on fire! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Ah... yes. The old 'Religion and Morals' topic. Well, I didn't have the time to read through the insanely long (but most likely fascinating) discussion up to this point, but I do have some information to give.
The first is, mostly, religion is not required to be, say, 'moral.' I am an athiest, and yet, never curse, plan never to drink, or smoke, and do not believe in premarital sex either. I have seen many religious people, of various religions, proclaim in one breath their morality and in another do things which, depending on their religion, may or may not be a sin, but is in general immoral by my standpoint. Wheras I see, especially from Paradise Lost, that God is more likely reality itself, and thusly not the traditional lightning-wielding demon smiter some books would proclaim him to be. That said, I also feel that there's a different belief for everybody; the only absolute in it is that we cannot replace reality with something else, so in the case something happens after death beyond our control, and it is the same regardless of religion, religions run the chance of being wrong in some ways. It is mostly because of this and other things that I abstain from truly calling any one thing 'God', because I fear that I may be barking up the wrong tree and waste my energy. That said, it seems universal that true spirituality transcends your actual religious status, so it also indicates that you do not need religion to BE spiritual. I am, mostly, against religions fencing in people's children and telling them what to believe, when instead, I feel, they should be allowed an unbiased (but still moral) upbringing, and when they're mature enough to make their own choice, offer them the various religions to choose from. Otherwise it can result in an all-too-common 'I was raised this way, and in resentment or disagreement from it I chose this other way', which may actually place an undue negation connotation to that person's first faith, and may skew their choices in the opposite direction than otherwise intended. This said, from my knowledge and those of others, I believe the closest thing to a religion I can look at without questioning its existence is the overlap between almost all beliefs; some sort of afterlife, some sort of white light, and some sort of explanation for this world. Whether or not that is scientific I don't know; however having nearly died myself once I have seen a white light, and from this believe there to likely be some sort of interdimensional conduct going on here. I could go on forever, but there is not much more for me to say; I am, like most humans, limited by the fact I haven't died on this side. Unfortunately, the dead have a difficult time communicating to us, so even when I die (not for any time soon, that I feel) I probably won't be able to inform any of you what lies there. A pity. |
|||
Ogama Dobe Rope  Since: 11-15-06 From: The Darkness of my Soul Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I don't have the time to read through this whole discussion however allow me to add in my opinion.
I called myself Atheist for a while. Lately though there are two people who are important to me who pretty much would not leave me alone about how I wouldn't be able to be happy or how I wouldn't feel so empty if I believed in God. Well one of them started praying for me. Well at least she told me so. And I felt sort of different. Eventually I conceded to them. Yet I can't really tell the difference. This whole thing . . . it just ends up leading in circles for me. |
|||
|
Schweiz oder etwas [12:55] (Dr_Death16); I swear, the word drama needs to be stricken from the dictionary, for I've heard it so many times, it will permanently be imprinted on my brain  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kingston, Rhode Island Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ogama Dobe Wait, what? |
|||
|
Crayola Double stone axe  Since: 03-18-06 From: coeburn,VA Last post: 6347 days Last view: 6309 days |
| ||
| We believe in Santa clause because Santa appeals to us. We believe in the boogieman because we fear him. Your religion is based on fear and doubt and faith. Knowing something and believing something is not the same thing. Believing having false hope, saying prayer works sometimes but other times it is God’s will for things to happen. If god has the say in the beginning why pray what difference does it make? None were all sad were all alone we all need to depend on each other and reality not fanciful stories told thousands of years ago, Bottom line if you want something to base government on use hard concrete facts not opinions. Use your head not your heart, as wrong as that sounds it saves tears it saves the pain of brainwashing yourself into believing false prophesies, my papaw believes the world is going to end 2012 he has no facts to back this up but he believes it unquestionably, surely to make a claim like this he would have to have some proof but all he has is that the way humanity is going right now surely it will end by 2012, We cannot disprove this but just because we cannot disprove it doesn’t make his assumptions true.
-Crayola |
|||
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Oh Lord. Not this discussion again. To prevent the same stuff from being recycled again and again, this'll be closed. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Atheism versus Religion |
| Thread closed |
