Religion - is one better than another?

Message boards : Politics : Religion - is one better than another?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 23 · Next

AuthorMessage
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454275 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 21:24:59 UTC - in response to Message 1454248.  


I came across this and thought of you.


Hahaha! That is so awesome! +1 for you :)
ID: 1454275 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1454281 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 21:47:42 UTC

Replying to Intelligent Design's posts and Blank Name's(Volunteer Tester) posts 'is' a Religion Around Here.

These Two Posters Feed On Willingness of Others to Continue a Discussion which keeps them keeping on.

They both have the 'Want' and 'Need' to Respond, Ad Nauseam, 'Believing' they are Learning Through Discussion, when it actually 'is' Their Religion to 'Discuss' Forever for The Sake of Their GOD. Which 'is' Themselves.

' '

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1454281 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1454283 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 22:03:55 UTC - in response to Message 1454274.  
Last modified: 15 Dec 2013, 22:19:15 UTC

Yes, it is easy to say and harder to do. I never claimed it would be easy for people to find hope within themselves, but it is far preferable to finding hope in a lie. I cannot find it agreeable in any way to say that people need to be lied to about life and the Universe.

Things like the existence of God or an afterlife are not lies. They aren't truth either, they are just something you believe in or you don't believe in.


If there's no reason to believe they exist, then they are lies.

Not sure why you would get the impression that I feel you should agree for the sake of agreement.

Mostly because you said this:
"You're quick to argue and slow to come to an understanding or agreement - seemingly and especially toward Atheists, all the while preaching respect for religion and believers."

In my head that translated as criticism on me arguing back and being hard to convince. It felt like you were saying I should agree with you more quickly because things were getting a little ugly. My apologies if I mistranslated it.


Yes, you did mistranslate it. Rather, what I meant was you don't seem to want to come to an understanding. It appears that since you feel you've already given Atheism a try and you had a 'falling out', that somehow you feel you no longer have to listen to what an Atheist has to say, hence you're quick to argue.

I don't know about "my way", but I do know that there is a right way and a wrong way. To me, the angry youth who is mad at God and therefore self-identifies as Atheist just to rebel is not an Atheist and not really getting what Atheism is really about. Similarly, someone who simply reads an argument by an Atheist and agrees with them because they didn't look into it critically enough isn't really an Atheist either.

Hmm strange, I didn't know Atheism was such an exclusive club that only allows those with pure enough motives to join. I also didn't know you had such an extensive knowledge on my motives that you could actually make an accurate assessment of them. I always thought (and I recall numerous self identified Atheist claiming, but perhaps their motives weren't pure enough either) that Atheism just meant you don't believe in God and/or believe in the non-existence of God. So, why are the examples you mentioned here not really atheists and what exactly is it they are doing wrong.[/quote]

Well then you indeed have Atheism wrong. It's not an exclusive club, but motive means everything. It isn't about being 'pure', rather, it is about understanding that Atheism isn't just about not believing in a god.

Of course you would contest such a notion, as stating such directly challenges the Atheistic period of your life, a period that you quite clearly feel you have put behind you, and here I am telling you that you didn't do it right, thus taking away your argument that "I was once Atheist and it didn't work for me" as it would force you to re-visit it and re-examine that period.

You make it sound like I had some traumatic experience that made me to afraid to dwell on a past period of my life. I can assure you that nothing I experienced even comes close to being traumatic to me. And I'll happily reassess that period if you give me a good reason to do so. I consider constant self reflection a crucial part of critical thinking. The real reason I oppose your notion is because I don't think there is a right and a wrong way to be an Atheist.


I suggested no such thing. It just seems to me that, like so many former Atheists, you seem to feel like you are entitled to criticize simply because you are a former Atheist, so that should somehow give more weight to your arguments. I am suggesting that your arguments would carry more weight if you actually understood what Atheism is about. Regardless if you think there is a right and wrong way of being an Atheist, there most certainly is.
ID: 1454283 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454284 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 22:04:32 UTC - in response to Message 1454244.  

I am not sure that your assumption that all poor people are unhappy and all rich people are happy holds true. I know that money helps, that's for sure. Also, if people are in a bad place and religion teaches them to accept that rather than do something about it then I don't think religion is really helping in the long term. It does of course depend on what religion and how its interpreted. Jesus got a lot of following at the time because he preached revolution against the Romans.

I don't mean to say that all poor people are unhappy, I'm saying there are people who are unhappy, who will have to struggle all their life, for the simple reason of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I can't stomach the idea that when they die its game over for them, to bad they had a crappy life, but they only had one shot at it. And what religion teaches and what faith provides are two different things. Religion teaches you things, but faith just gives you hope for something. Hope that if this life sucks, perhaps the next one doesn't.

And no, I don't believe religion on the whole teaches people to accept life as it is. Religious charities actively work to relieve people of their suffering and actively strive to make the world a better place. Most religions teach you to help out your fellow men and try to make the world a better place.


I think we all like the new pope, (unless you are Sarah Palin)

Heh, he certainly didn't make any friends on Wall Street when he stated that trickle down economics is a stupid policy idea.


Atheism is a state of expectation. It is a state where you realise your expectations are irrelevant.

My issue with atheism revolves solely around the God question. Everything else, such as our total irrelevance in this universe are not things that I hold against Atheism. In fact, I do not even consider them to be incompatible with the believe in God, I actually think that having a God around still makes us totally irrelevant and insignificant.


I am not sure that was what he is saying. The notion that Atheism is an answer is missing the point. Atheism is position where you realise there is no answer and that its still going to be ok. It just makes your existence more a statistical miracle than it was. It means that you have to bring meaning to your life and stop looking for it outside yourself.

Clearly I have a very different notion of what Atheism is. Let me be clear, when I say Atheism, I mean this here.

So Atheism is an answer, and the question it answers is 'Is there a God(s)'. I stopped being an Atheist because I no longer felt convinced by the logic and the arguments that Atheists employ when answering that question. Where atheists answer that question with 'no' or 'probably not, so no' I could no longer convince myself that no or probably not so no were the right answers.
ID: 1454284 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454285 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 22:05:20 UTC - in response to Message 1454278.  

Ooooh, did I just espy a noodly appendage!!


No, its Cthulhu! :D
ID: 1454285 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1454286 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 22:07:25 UTC - in response to Message 1454281.  

These Two Posters Feed On Willingness of Others to Continue a Discussion which keeps them keeping on.


I do believe it was I who stopped responding to Michiel's last comment in the other thread.

They both have the 'Want' and 'Need' to Respond, Ad Nauseam, 'Believing' they are Learning Through Discussion, when it actually 'is' Their Religion to 'Discuss' Forever for The Sake of Their GOD. Which 'is' Themselves.


I can assure you I've learned much through discussion. Others can vouch for that. Just because you don't like arguing with me doesn't mean your claims about me are true.
ID: 1454286 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1454289 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 22:17:59 UTC - in response to Message 1454284.  

Clearly I have a very different notion of what Atheism is. Let me be clear, when I say Atheism, I mean this here.

So Atheism is an answer, and the question it answers is 'Is there a God(s)'. I stopped being an Atheist because I no longer felt convinced by the logic and the arguments that Atheists employ when answering that question. Where atheists answer that question with 'no' or 'probably not, so no' I could no longer convince myself that no or probably not so no were the right answers.


Actually, since no one can know there's a God, the question is "Do you believe there's a god?" Atheism is a result of, "I see no reason to believe in a god". It's not an answer but rather the result of lack of supporting evidence for the claim.

It's fine if you have faith and have belief. It's fine if you don't identify with Atheism. But I do believe you misunderstand a great many things about Atheism.
ID: 1454289 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454293 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 22:29:25 UTC - in response to Message 1454283.  

If there's no reason to believe they exist, then they are lies.

That is such a troubling statement. First, reasons to believe. That is really shaky ground. What are reasons to believe? If my hand talks to me and tells me God and the afterlife are real, I might consider that a valid reason to believe in it. If I tell someone else about it, I had a reason to believe, therefor I did not lie. You need to be more precise about reason to believe and what it includes and what it doesn't. Second, you are making up definitions here. In the dictionary, you will find that lies (or lie) generally means an untrue statement with intention to deceive or to create a false or misleading statement. One can only make untrue, false or misleading statements if one can make true, not false or accurate statements. In short, it means you have to know the truth. But do you know the truth about God or the afterlife? No, all you have is 'no reason to believe' but that is not truth, nor is it even close to being the truth. And by the total absence of knowledge on the truth, one is simply incapable of telling or creating a lie.

So please, lets keep words like 'lies' out of this discussion shall we. Instead, I would suggest the word myth, as it covers topics like God or an afterlife much better.


Yes, you did mistranslate it. Rather, what I meant was you don't seem to want to come to an understanding. It appears that since you feel you've already given Atheism a try and you had a 'falling out', that somehow you feel you no longer have to listen to what an Atheist has to say, hence you're quick to argue.

Like I said, if you give me a good reason to reconsider Atheism, I'm more than willing to do so. And with good reason I mean a convincing argument as to why the answer on the God question should be 'no' or 'probably not, so no'. I will also accept a good argument on why the answer to the God question should not be 'maybe, but for now I will go with yes'.


Well then you indeed have Atheism wrong. It's not an exclusive club, but motive means everything. It isn't about being 'pure', rather, it is about understanding that Atheism isn't just about not believing in a god.

If its not that, then what is it about?


I suggested no such thing. It just seems to me that, like so many former Atheists, you seem to feel like you are entitled to criticize simply because you are a former Atheist, so that should somehow give more weight to your arguments. I am suggesting that your arguments would carry more weight if you actually understood what Atheism is about. Regardless if you think there is a right and wrong way of being an Atheist, there most certainly is.

You were the one who brought this up you know. You said that I should have tried Atheism, and that if I had I would have been one, and I simply replied that I already had. Had you not said that, I probably would have never brought my personal history up. I'm not even really criticizing atheism for being atheism or something, I simply think a number of their arguments are not convincing/flawed. You don't need to be a former Atheist to point out flaws in someones logic or their arguments. Anyone can do that.
ID: 1454293 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454295 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 22:42:32 UTC - in response to Message 1454289.  

Actually, since no one can know there's a God, the question is "Do you believe there's a god?" Atheism is a result of, "I see no reason to believe in a god". It's not an answer but rather the result of lack of supporting evidence for the claim.

It's fine if you have faith and have belief. It's fine if you don't identify with Atheism. But I do believe you misunderstand a great many things about Atheism.

And this is where our previous discussion in the other thread started. Atheism includes more than one strand of logic. Indeed, the 'I see no reason to believe in a God' is one of those strands. The other is 'I see reason not to believe in a God'. The first is a result of what comes down to a choice, though not everyone makes that choice on a conscious level. Me and you are different here because I picked the other path which resulted in 'I see no reason not to believe in a God'.

My argument against Atheism is focused solely on the people who proclaim to see a reason not to believe, because this kind of logic stems from 'logical' arguments that supposedly show that God isn't real. So next time you see me arguing against 'Atheism' realize that its the kind of Atheism that supposedly has all kinds of rational arguments that show God is not real.
ID: 1454295 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1454298 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 22:49:39 UTC - in response to Message 1454293.  

If there's no reason to believe they exist, then they are lies.

That is such a troubling statement. First, reasons to believe. That is really shaky ground. What are reasons to believe? If my hand talks to me and tells me God and the afterlife are real, I might consider that a valid reason to believe in it. If I tell someone else about it, I had a reason to believe, therefor I did not lie. You need to be more precise about reason to believe and what it includes and what it doesn't.


You may not believe yourself to be lying, but without finding out why your hand talked to you, what caused it, whether someone was playing a joke on you, then it may as well be a lie if you pass it off as truth.

Second, you are making up definitions here. In the dictionary, you will find that lies (or lie) generally means an untrue statement with intention to deceive or to create a false or misleading statement. One can only make untrue, false or misleading statements if one can make true, not false or accurate statements. In short, it means you have to know the truth. But do you know the truth about God or the afterlife? No, all you have is 'no reason to believe' but that is not truth, nor is it even close to being the truth. And by the total absence of knowledge on the truth, one is simply incapable of telling or creating a lie.


I've made up no definitions here. Again, truth is nothing more than a point of view. But for those that try to pass off an afterlife, or god, as truth, are most certainly lying to those around them.

So please, lets keep words like 'lies' out of this discussion shall we. Instead, I would suggest the word myth, as it covers topics like God or an afterlife much better.


In my mind as it relates to this topic, myth and lie mean the same thing. However, "myth" sounds less malicious so it s preferable to a believer.

Like I said, if you give me a good reason to reconsider Atheism, I'm more than willing to do so. And with good reason I mean a convincing argument as to why the answer on the God question should be 'no' or 'probably not, so no'. I will also accept a good argument on why the answer to the God question should not be 'maybe, but for now I will go with yes'.


I'm not willing to give you a good reason to reconsider Atheism. That is for you and you alone to decide. I'm merely suggesting that what you believe you experienced as Atheism was more of a misapplication of it.

Well then you indeed have Atheism wrong. It's not an exclusive club, but motive means everything. It isn't about being 'pure', rather, it is about understanding that Atheism isn't just about not believing in a god.

If its not that, then what is it about?


We would have to re-visit our last discussion about logic and the scientific method. I gave up on that discussion for a reason.

You were the one who brought this up you know. You said that I should have tried Atheism, and that if I had I would have been one, and I simply replied that I already had. Had you not said that, I probably would have never brought my personal history up. I'm not even really criticizing atheism for being atheism or something, I simply think a number of their arguments are not convincing/flawed. You don't need to be a former Atheist to point out flaws in someones logic or their arguments. Anyone can do that.


I'm glad I bought it up. And I'm glad you shared about your personal history. Your statements about having been born into the life you have, and your statements about personal happiness speak volumes.

Indeed, you don't need to be a former Atheist to point out flaws, but based upon our last discussion, you make such broad, sweeping generalizations about Atheism and science that it's hard to even assist you in why what you believe to be a flaw is simply a misunderstanding on your part.
ID: 1454298 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1454302 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 23:05:33 UTC

All Religions have in common, people, Vain People. Vanity 'is' Number One Curse of HuWoManKind. Same fO Atheism and Any Spirituality Driven 'ism' encountered by This World.

'Discussion' or 'Argueing' is a Vain Attempt by All HuWoMans to Reinforce Their Attempts to 'Learn'. Under The Guise of 'Betterment' fO Themselves and HuWoManKind.

When Reality Says: The Reinforcement of MY SELF and MY BELIEFS. Using 'Fact Based' or 'Faith Based' matters not. The Result is Same. ME, My, I oh my.

GOD is Learning All The Time. The All-Knowing Learns? Well, 'it' 'is'

Reinforcement of HIS Already Known 'Beliefs' of HuWoMan. Constant Reinforcement leads to 'Facts'. A 'Known' fact since The Beginning. GOD is Merciful. Praise Lord.

' '

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1454302 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1454303 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 23:11:21 UTC - in response to Message 1454302.  
Last modified: 15 Dec 2013, 23:22:17 UTC

'Discussion' or 'Argueing' is a Vain Attempt by All HuWoMans to Reinforce Their Attempts to 'Learn'. Under The Guise of 'Betterment' fO Themselves and HuWoManKind.

When Reality Says: The Reinforcement of MY SELF and MY BELIEFS. Using 'Fact Based' or 'Faith Based' matters not. The Result is Same. ME, My, I oh my.


Is that why you always try to disrupt a civilized discussion? Because you believe people are only trying to re-enforce their own beliefs? Or is it only certain people around here that you greatly dislike such as myself?

I came around to Atheism, among other reasons, through some discussion on these forums. If what you said were true, I would have never fallen into Atheism and would have remained a faithful believer if I only wanted to re-enforce my own belief and self.

Sometimes, Dull, you hit the nail right on the head. Other times, your own cynicism toward people and discussion brings you so far away from being right. This is one of those times where you are wrong.
ID: 1454303 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454307 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 23:21:13 UTC - in response to Message 1454298.  

You may not believe yourself to be lying, but without finding out why your hand talked to you, what caused it, whether someone was playing a joke on you, then it may as well be a lie if you pass it off as truth.

Well there is the problem. The definition of lying includes malicious intent on the part of the person telling the lie. If the person is convinced he is telling the truth, there is no intent on his part to deceive, hence no lie has been told. You are confusing lie with reliability here. Someone who makes a claim but does not check to see if that claim is true is not lying, he's just not reliable. A priest is therefor not lying when he talks about God or the afterlife being real, he is just not very reliable on this subject.


I've made up no definitions here. Again, truth is nothing more than a point of view. But for those that try to pass off an afterlife, or god, as truth, are most certainly lying to those around them.

Again, lying presupposes the intent to deceive. But you can't knowingly deceive people if you don't know if there is a God or an afterlife or not.

In my mind as it relates to this topic, myth and lie mean the same thing. However, "myth" sounds less malicious so it s preferable to a believer.

Its preferable because telling about a myth has no presumed intention to deceive the people.


We would have to re-visit our last discussion about logic and the scientific method. I gave up on that discussion for a reason.

I thought we had agreed on most points there. Except that I have different preferences when it comes to what kind of logic I trust the most.


Indeed, you don't need to be a former Atheist to point out flaws, but based upon our last discussion, you make such broad, sweeping generalizations about Atheism and science that it's hard to even assist you in why what you believe to be a flaw is simply a misunderstanding on your part.

Maybe, but I can't better myself if no one explains to me why what I consider to be a flaw is actually a misunderstanding on my part. Look, I'm willing to be educated here, but I'll need to be pointed in what you believe to be the right direction or I'm going nowhere.
ID: 1454307 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1454313 - Posted: 15 Dec 2013, 23:38:01 UTC - in response to Message 1454307.  

Well there is the problem. The definition of lying includes malicious intent on the part of the person telling the lie. If the person is convinced he is telling the truth, there is no intent on his part to deceive, hence no lie has been told. You are confusing lie with reliability here. Someone who makes a claim but does not check to see if that claim is true is not lying, he's just not reliable. A priest is therefor not lying when he talks about God or the afterlife being real, he is just not very reliable on this subject.


I wasn't aware we were speaking about an individual here. I was referring to a lack of evidence for the afterlife or God, and passing it off as truth. Not an individual's lie, but rather a deceptive lie on a larger scale to keep people obedient and, from their perception "happy".

I've made up no definitions here. Again, truth is nothing more than a point of view. But for those that try to pass off an afterlife, or god, as truth, are most certainly lying to those around them.

Again, lying presupposes the intent to deceive. But you can't knowingly deceive people if you don't know if there is a God or an afterlife or not.


Not at the individual level, no.

In my mind as it relates to this topic, myth and lie mean the same thing. However, "myth" sounds less malicious so it s preferable to a believer.

Its preferable because telling about a myth has no presumed intention to deceive the people.


I don't see what else it could be called when we still have people believing in the teachings of religion when we have shown so much of it to be false.

We would have to re-visit our last discussion about logic and the scientific method. I gave up on that discussion for a reason.

I thought we had agreed on most points there. Except that I have different preferences when it comes to what kind of logic I trust the most.


I thought that we agreed that you were using the wrong tool for the job.

Maybe, but I can't better myself if no one explains to me why what I consider to be a flaw is actually a misunderstanding on my part. Look, I'm willing to be educated here, but I'll need to be pointed in what you believe to be the right direction or I'm going nowhere.


Consider it a lack of confidence in myself to help you.
ID: 1454313 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454321 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 0:04:11 UTC - in response to Message 1454313.  

I wasn't aware we were speaking about an individual here. I was referring to a lack of evidence for the afterlife or God, and passing it off as truth. Not an individual's lie, but rather a deceptive lie on a larger scale to keep people obedient and, from their perception "happy".

That almost hints at a group of people telling something with the intention to deceive in order to control a large group of people. The intention is still to misinform while the people perpetuating the lie know the 'the truth' whatever that is.

Not having evidence for a story while still passing it off as true simply makes the people telling the story unreliable. And indeed, I would not seek a priest if I want hard scientific data.

I don't see what else it could be called when we still have people believing in the teachings of religion when we have shown so much of it to be false.

Honestly, what does religion teach you? To be nice to the people around you? To be peaceful? To be pacifist? That is what religion teaches you, and it teaches you by telling you certain stories that exemplify the teachings. Those stories have been proven false in the historical context, meaning that its fiction, not historical fact. But that doesn't mean the message in those stories is lost or no longer true.

Look, would the stories around Jesus be any less of a lesson in pacifism if it turns out Jesus wasn't real and the story never happened in real life? Would 'turn the other cheek' be any less of a good and positive message if it turns out that Jesus never said that? I think not.
ID: 1454321 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1454322 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 0:23:15 UTC - in response to Message 1454321.  

I wasn't aware we were speaking about an individual here. I was referring to a lack of evidence for the afterlife or God, and passing it off as truth. Not an individual's lie, but rather a deceptive lie on a larger scale to keep people obedient and, from their perception "happy".

That almost hints at a group of people telling something with the intention to deceive in order to control a large group of people. The intention is still to misinform while the people perpetuating the lie know the 'the truth' whatever that is.

Not having evidence for a story while still passing it off as true simply makes the people telling the story unreliable. And indeed, I would not seek a priest if I want hard scientific data.


Considering there's no evidence for the spiritual realm, I wouldn't go to a priest for spiritual advice either.

I don't see what else it could be called when we still have people believing in the teachings of religion when we have shown so much of it to be false.

Honestly, what does religion teach you? To be nice to the people around you? To be peaceful? To be pacifist?


What about teaching you that homosexuality is wrong? What about teaching you that stoning to death disbelievers and disobedient children is acceptable? What about teaching you that you must follow a specific path in order to get into a "mythical" place where all you'll feel is love and be re-united with those you love?

That is what religion teaches you, and it teaches you by telling you certain stories that exemplify the teachings. Those stories have been proven false in the historical context, meaning that its fiction, not historical fact. But that doesn't mean the message in those stories is lost or no longer true.

Look, would the stories around Jesus be any less of a lesson in pacifism if it turns out Jesus wasn't real and the story never happened in real life? Would 'turn the other cheek' be any less of a good and positive message if it turns out that Jesus never said that? I think not.


It's less of a lesson if the teaching is a lie that is attempted to be passed off as being real. There's no reason to trust or believe the teacher. Was it any less of a lesson to learn that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree? No, the lesson was that it is important to never tell a lie. But simply say so instead of convincing those you are teaching that your examples are based in reality.

So yes, if Jesus never existed, and it is being taught that everyone must strive to live like someone who never really lived, it is very much a lesson in disbelieving those who are attempting to teach.
ID: 1454322 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1454374 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 4:00:57 UTC - in response to Message 1453045.  



So you think my plan of setting up a festive diorama of Christians being fed to the lions on the front lawn might be in poor taste? I was hoping it would discourage them from parking there when the go to the Church across the street.


Brilliant Esme.
Now you've got me thinking of a wonderfully Christian scene based on events during the inquisition.
I'll need an Iron Maiden, stocks, thumb screws, a rack and a stake with some non-Christians blazing away all night.
That should keep them off my porch.
Thanks.

It's the most wonderful time of the year



I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1454374 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1454379 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 4:11:17 UTC - in response to Message 1454374.  



So you think my plan of setting up a festive diorama of Christians being fed to the lions on the front lawn might be in poor taste? I was hoping it would discourage them from parking there when the go to the Church across the street.


Brilliant Esme.
Now you've got me thinking of a wonderfully Christian scene based on events during the inquisition.
I'll need an Iron Maiden, stocks, thumb screws, a rack and a stake with some non-Christians blazing away all night.
That should keep them off my porch.
Thanks.

It's the most wonderful time of the year



LMAO!!!
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1454379 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1454382 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 4:33:17 UTC

It seems that no religion is better than others when it comes to human rights.
Name the year and somebody will find a faith that was killing off the heathens and or infidels. Or those of the same faith.

I think that the human race has a great potential. We read all the time about strangers risking thier life to save someone whom they dont know. That gives me hope. Then we read about the sick bastards who delight in killing others. That does not give me hope.

If this a power struggle between good and evil, Why must we pay the price?


[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1454382 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1454432 - Posted: 16 Dec 2013, 10:47:54 UTC - in response to Message 1454322.  

Considering there's no evidence for the spiritual realm, I wouldn't go to a priest for spiritual advice either.

Yes, because you operate under the assumption that the spiritual realm doesn't exist or at least has no significance on the way you live your life. You don't need spiritual advice in that case. The people that reached a different conclusion might not see it that way.

What about teaching you that homosexuality is wrong? What about teaching you that stoning to death disbelievers and disobedient children is acceptable? What about teaching you that you must follow a specific path in order to get into a "mythical" place where all you'll feel is love and be re-united with those you love?

In the 14 years I went to church not once was I told that homosexuality was wrong or that we should stone disbelievers, or even that you should follow a specific path towards heaven. Religion teaches you whatever lesson you want it to teach. Sadly, yes that has resulted in a number of bigots using religion to justify their intolerance towards all those who are different from them. Though honestly, bigots will be bigots, with or without religion. Bigotry and intolerance are just part of the human condition and religion is just one of the many ways which are used to justify it. Make no mistake though, those people could equally well use sports or political ideology as justification for their intolerance. This is not a thing you can pin solely on religion.

And rather than to keep using the extremist few percent of any given religion as the baseline of what religion supposedly represents or teaches, I'd look to what the vast majority of moderate believers say their religion is about.


It's less of a lesson if the teaching is a lie that is attempted to be passed off as being real. There's no reason to trust or believe the teacher. Was it any less of a lesson to learn that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree? No, the lesson was that it is important to never tell a lie. But simply say so instead of convincing those you are teaching that your examples are based in reality.

So yes, if Jesus never existed, and it is being taught that everyone must strive to live like someone who never really lived, it is very much a lesson in disbelieving those who are attempting to teach.

What? The teaching is a lie? So you say that the teachings of JC of peace and love are lies? Because that are the teachings, and they are wrapped in a nice story that is meant to illustrate the teaching. But because that's not historically accurate, the whole teaching of peace and love is also nonsense?

Well, you said I misunderstood Atheism. In return I think you misunderstand what religion and faith are meant to do for people.
ID: 1454432 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 23 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Religion - is one better than another?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.