posted
'k, you're calling it nasty and bigoted again... not really making an argument against what Tom said... Do you have anything to add or are you just going to cry?
posted
I don't think it's necessarily bigoted or nasty to observe that religion specifically provides for no limits on otherwise illogical behavior.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. It certainly seems that at least certain religions require certain lower bounds on illogical behaviour.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, you are assuming that logic and reason are the only tools available. Judgement is more than that. Because things are subjective doesn't make them absolutely subjective.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a valid criticism of religious thinking, Katie, is that there is literally no way to put any limit on how unfounded or illogical someone might get when using a religious epistemology.
The same is just as true for nonreligious thinking, or ANY type of thinking. It's a feature of humans in general, not of religion, that people often are extremely illogical and unreasonable.
quote:That there's no possible external check on a given person's religious rationalizations is -- I think -- one of the biggest dangers. If somebody thinks God wants him to toss around venomous snakes, that's what he thinks; it's not like you can convince him otherwise.
This, on the other hand, is entirely false. It's common for people to change their mind on religious issues because of "external checks". For instance, if the Pope declares X, it is likely that many catholics will change their mind to believe X in response to that external piece of evidence, if they didn't believe X beforehand. Another common one is people who change their view of God after a loved one died. Or people who study the Bible and discover passages that alter their understanding. I'd wager that almost all religious people have changed their minds many times on many issues after being convinced by evidence that came from outside themselves.
It is true that some people aren't willing to change their mind in response to any amount of evidence on certain topics, but that is just as true for nonreligious topics as it is for religious topics. Even a casual look at arguments on Hatrack should prove that. For instance, you can probably offer me as much evidence as you'd like that hockey is a superior sport to basketball, and no matter how good your evidence is I suspect I'll still claim basketball is better.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Is that seriously your answer to trying to prove you aren't nasty and bigoted? What is wrong with you?
Human beings are illogical all the time. I'm too tired, too lazy, and too jaded to try once again to explain religion to close-minded people who refuse to bother thinking anything but the absolute worst, but: you are wrong. As usual. As you should know by now.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Sorry Boots, but when you're talking about something being "illogical" then logic and reason ARE the only tools available.
How is this whole argument different than accusing all of Islam of carrying out 9/11? Religion didn't step off the deep end. Some crazy people using their religion as their excuse did. I thought it had been fairly well established, at least with reasonable people, that Islam doesn't teach these kinds of actions.
Anything can be taken to extremes. Think of communist Russia.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're talking about religion. There's no limit to how unfounded and illogical people will get.
This is an example of the crappy, unpleasant tone on this board nowadays, that you wrote something so nasty without blinking an eye.
Well, pretty much anything in the hands of humans can be turned to awful ends. Is it nasty to point that out?
Perhaps I'm tired of people insisting that religion is nothing but sunshine and roses.
Everyone is happy to deplore Ron for claiming that God would deliver collective punishment on the US for certain behavior, and to say "well, my God wouldn't do that." Well, collective punishment for moral failing is what the God of the Bible did. The Fall, the Flood, the Plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah, the fall of the two kingdoms.
No one wants to even mention the fact that the very scriptures which most of the religious believers reading believe in, support his argument. It's inconvenient, and unpleasant. And anyone who points it out gets categorized as insulting.
Sorry, but no one gets to pick and choose who is using religion correctly, and who isn't. People feeding the hungry at soup kitchens because of the Gospels are using their religon, and so are people blowing up infidels.
Ignoring the unpleasant outcomes of religous belief helps no one. They have to be faced, and if religious people themselves refuse to, as the response on this boards suggests, then the non-religious will.
And they will be nastier about it.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one has suggested that religion is all sunshine and roses. Where on earth did you get that?
For about the 9 billionth time. Not all Christians are biblical literalists. Why, for heaven's sake do all atheists seem to be?
Of course, we can use our judgement to "pick and choose" who is using religion correctly and who isn't. Why not?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone is happy to deplore Ron for claiming that God would deliver collective punishment on the US for certain behavior, and to say "well, my God wouldn't do that." Well, collective punishment for moral failing is what the God of the Bible did. The Fall, the Flood, the Plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah, the fall of the two kingdoms.
I'll put it even more simply than boots did, swbarnes: guess how many folks participating at Hatrack believe the KJV Bible is the literal, perfectly transcribed word of God?
We've got Ron (I think), so that's one.
Anyone else? swbarnes, can you think of anyone else?
quote: Why, for heaven's sake do all atheists seem to be?
For some folks, the answer is pretty simple: because it's rhetorically convenient to an argument.
So perhaps the reason you're not making much headway in your arguments, swbarnes, isn't because religious folks are so blinded by superstition, denial, and idiocy that they can't hear you. Maybe it's because some of your initial premises are just completely off-base.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ignoring the unpleasant outcomes of religous belief helps no one. They have to be faced, and if religious people themselves refuse to, as the response on this boards suggests, then the non-religious will.
And they will be nastier about it.
Why? And what excuse do they have?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Sorry Boots, but when you're talking about something being "illogical" then logic and reason ARE the only tools available.
Behold the unrestrained glory of science, the God of logic and rationality.
Come on Pixiest, I understand you're miffed at the religious organizations that stood in the way of a cause you feel is just, and for reasons you think are specious, but if you think all religion has is crazy ideas and nothing good that ought to be shared around, that's a POV I don't think stands to reason.
I wish I could sit down and hammer out a religious rationale, and perhaps I should have refrained from posting until I was, but I've got to go, I'll probably try later.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QB] No one has suggested that religion is all sunshine and roses. Where on earth did you think that?
Because I read things like the post one or two up, where the poster says "Oh that evil things perpetrated by those religious people, who said they did what they did for religious reasons, that's not really religion". Everyone is keen to say that religion inspires good, but when something bad happens, they say that's not really religion. Religion never fails, it is only failed.
quote:For about the 9 billionth time. Not all Christians are biblical literalists.
I never, absolutely never said, or even implied that I think this is the case.
But lots of Chritians are, and they are every bit as religious and Christian as you, yes, even when they use their religous belief towards purposes you wish they didn't.
quote:Of course, we can use our judgement to "pick and choose" who is using religion correctly and who isn't. Why not?
When people tell you that you aren't really a Catholic, because you don't believe every word out of the Pope's mouth, what is your response?
Perhaps you embrace a far larger definition of Catholicism, one that isn't as strict as some people follow? And that just because you don't meet their standard doesn't mean that you aren't Catholic?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade: The atomic bomb ended the most bloody war in human history. It hasn't been used in anger for 64 years. Sounds pretty good to me.
There is good in religion. But to get upset when someone says that it can go crazy (as Kath did and is still doing) is to overlook so many of the atrocities committed by the religious even excluding their on going apartheid aimed at gay people.
Robots: Socialism (be it national socialism or soviet socialism) is another, but related issue. Where as religion sacrifices the individual to god, socialism sacrifices the individual to the state. One of the reasons the Soviets tried to stamp out Religion was because they didn't want the competition. No Other Gods Before The State type thinking.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QB] No one has suggested that religion is all sunshine and roses. Where on earth did you think that?
Because I read things like the post one or two up, where the poster says "Oh that evil things perpetrated by those religious people, who said they did what they did for religious reasons, that's not really religion". Everyone is keen to say that religion inspires good, but when something bad happens, they say that's not really religion. Religion never fails, it is only failed.
quote:For about the 9 billionth time. Not all Christians are biblical literalists.
I never, absolutely never said, or even implied that I think this is the case.
But lots of Chritians are, and they are every bit as religious and Christian as you, yes, even when they use their religous belief towards purposes you wish they didn't.
quote:Of course, we can use our judgement to "pick and choose" who is using religion correctly and who isn't. Why not?
When people tell you that you aren't really a Catholic, because you don't believe every word out of the Pope's mouth, what is your response?
Perhaps you embrace a far larger definition of Catholicism, one that isn't as strict as some people follow? And that just because you don't meet their standard doesn't mean that you aren't Catholic?
I use reason and some knowledge of Catholic doctrine to show them that they misunderstand the concept of papal infallibility. (You would also be hard pressed to find a Catholic who did believe every word out of the Pope's mouth.
Just because people (and not just religious people, BTW) don't use logic exclusively to make their judgements doesn't mean we can't use it at all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QB] No one has suggested that religion is all sunshine and roses. Where on earth did you think that?
Because I read things like the post one or two up, where the poster says "Oh that evil things perpetrated by those religious people, who said they did what they did for religious reasons, that's not really religion". Everyone is keen to say that religion inspires good, but when something bad happens, they say that's not really religion. Religion never fails, it is only failed.
quote:For about the 9 billionth time. Not all Christians are biblical literalists.
I never, absolutely never said, or even implied that I think this is the case.
But lots of Chritians are, and they are every bit as religious and Christian as you, yes, even when they use their religous belief towards purposes you wish they didn't.
quote:Of course, we can use our judgement to "pick and choose" who is using religion correctly and who isn't. Why not?
When people tell you that you aren't really a Catholic, because you don't believe every word out of the Pope's mouth, what is your response?
Perhaps you embrace a far larger definition of Catholicism, one that isn't as strict as some people follow? And that just because you don't meet their standard doesn't mean that you aren't Catholic?
I use reason and some knowledge of Catholic doctrine to show them that they misunderstand the concept of papal infallibility. (You would also be hard pressed to find a Catholic who did believe every word out of the Pope's mouth.)
Just because people (and not just religious people, BTW) don't use logic exclusively to make their judgements doesn't mean we can't use it at all.
posted
Garbage in, garbage out. If you insist on arriving at premises by irrational means, then even the best possible logic will give you irrational conclusions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd wager that almost all religious people have changed their minds many times on many issues after being convinced by evidence that came from outside themselves.
We've discussed before the flaws in this definition of the word "evidence." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone is happy to deplore Ron for claiming that God would deliver collective punishment on the US for certain behavior, and to say "well, my God wouldn't do that." Well, collective punishment for moral failing is what the God of the Bible did. The Fall, the Flood, the Plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah, the fall of the two kingdoms.
I'll put it even more simply than boots did, swbarnes: guess how many folks participating at Hatrack believe the KJV Bible is the literal, perfectly transcribed word of God?
Probably very few. But why is that relevant to anything I said? I didn't say it was a popular argument here. But lots of people in the country, in the world do hold it. And he has Biblical support for it, a point that no one here, not even the people who believe, in one way or another, in the overall validity of the Bible as a point of faith has cared to address. Even "I believe all those parts of the Bible are flat out false" would be dealing with it, but no one has even the courage to say that.
quote:For some folks, the answer is pretty simple: because it's rhetorically convenient to an argument.
I will donate $100 to whatever charity you name if you can come up with one clear quote of me saying that I think that all Christians are biblical literalists.
If you can't, or won't, I'll kindly ask you to retract the claim, or send $100 to the NCSE.
quote:Maybe it's because some of your initial premises are just completely off-base.
Which premise?
That some Christians are biblical literalists? That some religious people use their religious beliefs to stupid and harmful ends?
If some super conservative Catholic was telling all the Catholics on the board that they weren't really Catholic, because they were doing Catholicism wrong, I don't think the board would be forgiving. If someone told all the Christians on the board that they weren't really Christians, because what they were doing wasn't really Christianity, it was just something they made up for their own purposes, the board wouldn't just let that go either.
But when some posters label whole swaths of people and religious belief as "not really religion", because they find the beliefs distasteful, everyone seems to think that's just fine. Apparently, the fact that only one person posting on the board who fits that description makes it okay.
Lots of people do really stupid and harmful things because of religion, and playing word games by defining that stuff as not being religious, or not being what religion is 'supposed' to be is not going to change that.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've discussed before the flaws in this definition of the word "evidence."
We've discussed how you'd prefer to only count certain types of evidence as evidence so you can say that 90% of the world is irrationally pulling religion out of thin air.
Regardless of whatever words or definitions you'd prefer to use to say it, the fact still remains that religious people frequently change their mind on religious issues, and are often convinced to do so by something other than personal whim - something like a life event, a piece of scripture, a sermon, an experience, etc. So it is plainly false to say religious people can't be convinced by anything.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So it is plainly false to say religious people can't be convinced by anything.
Which is why I didn't say that. I said that there was nothing out there to prevent people using a religious epistemology from being irrational.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swbarnes, do you think that I haven't criticized Ron for his interpretation of the Bible? I admit, I don't do it everytime, because what would be the point?* But I certaionly have done.
What exactly are you calling "biblical support" when you say that Ron has it? Is that what you are saying. Honestly, you seem to be swinging rather wildly and I'm not sure what you are looking for. Clarification would be helpful.
*And I do have other things to do. And at some point it would probably violate the TOS.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually every time someone points out how different their religious views are than someone else it just reinforces the fact that the government needs to remain secular. Since people's religious views vary *wildly* any religious interference in government will step on many toes.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"how many folks participating at Hatrack believe the KJV Bible is the literal, perfectly transcribed word of God?
We've got Ron (I think), so that's one."
I have said many times that I do not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible, where every word is considered to be straight from God. I also have said that I do not believe in verbal inspiration even in the original language--because the scribes for over a thousand years before the time of Christ regularly and of necessity had to update the vocabulary to retain the original meanings as best they understood them, as many words changed in their meanings.
But this does not mean that the Bible cannot still serve as a reliable source of the highest authority in all the subjects it covers, when care is taken with sound scholarship, comparing passages that speak on the same subject, etc. It is God who directly inspired the Bible writers, and that makes it the best source of information we could possibly have. Want to know about the origin of life on earth? Genesis gives the testimony of the Creator Himself. Want to know about law and divine justice? Read the witness of the Lawgiver. Want to know what goodness and love really are? Read the definitions and examples given in the Bible of what constitutes true love and true goodness.
The speculations of human scientists can be interesting, but not supremely authoritative--especially when they have an obvious agenda to exclude God from any of their considerations.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, those goofy Catholic and Mormon scientists that subscribe evolutionary theory because of their obvious agenda to exclude God...
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Swbarnes, do you think that I haven't criticized Ron for his interpretation of the Bible? I admit, I don't do it everytime, because what would be the point?* But I certaionly have done.
This isn't a matter of his being right or wrong on this point or that. Do you think that he's not really a Christian because he interprets the Bible differently from you?
I imagine not, but how is this different from someone saying of a whole class of believers "Those guys are too crazy. What they are doing, that's not real religion. Real religion is more like how I believe"?
I think if someone told you that they were a 'better' Catholic than you are, because they totally accept every papal statement about sexuality, and you don't, you would think that it was obnoxious for someone to judge you like that at all, or you would think that judging by papal statments was a silly criteron. You'd probably want to be judged by being an active part of your church community, or by how much you've let the Gospels positively influence your life, and the lives around you. That's probbaly closer to how you might gauge a "good" Catholic
Or you'd think that the whole idea of trying to figure out which Catholic is 'better' than others was stupid.
But when it comes to the 'crazy' religious beliefs of others, you had no problem judging their religions as 'worse' than yours, because yours doesn't obviously conflict with science, and theirs does. Even though lots and lots of people think that's as stupid a way of judging religions as is judging Catholics by adherance to the pope.
And look at the post I refered to. The poster says flat out says "9-11 wasn't about religion, they were just crazy". Well, the one absolutely does not preclude the other. But a whole lot of people posting seem to think otherwise.
quote:What exactly are you calling "biblical support" when you say that Ron has it?
I'm saying everyone holding a Bible can see that the God of the Bible delivered collective judgment on whole peoples because of moral lapses.
Yes, of course, there's all the nice stuff too, about how forgiving God is, but that doesn't cancel out the ugly stuff.
Read the Catholic Encyclopedia on the plagues. They claim that the plagues happened as described, even though they are not literalists. I'm not claiming that every single Catholic accepts that source as true, but it's fair to say that a whole lot of them do.
Obviously, this isn't a problem if you say "I don't care what the Bible says, it's just a book", but that's a tough argument for a Christian to make. Doable, but difficult. Is it really a false premise to start with the assumption that people who call themselves Christian believe in God as described in the Bible?
But to claim that the God of the Bible would never do this...well, the Bible clearly says otherwise.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: But to claim that the God of the Bible would never do this...well, the Bible clearly says otherwise.
Arrrrgghhh! Only if you interpret the Bible literally! If you think that the Bible says anything "clearly" it is almost always a good idea to think again. It is a collection of writings that need to be understood in context. Yes, I believe that the writings are inspired. They are records of people and their relationship with God. But they aren't newspapers or modern history books. It is the written record of oral traditions and stories.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Yeah, those goofy Catholic and Mormon scientists that subscribe evolutionary theory because of their obvious agenda to exclude God...
I'm not even sure how that works overseas. Do Chinese scientists have an agenda to ascribe to evolutionary theory to exclude Buddha/Taoism? But does Buddhism/Taoism even care about evolution? Or is evolution only a God-seeking weapon of mass destruction? I'm so confused.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are, of course, many scientists with church affiliations who are intimidated by the mainstream majority in the science professions. The pressure is really on them, because they can't compete for grants if anyone even suspects they might doubt evolution. So what they do is try to compartmentalize, and say they keep their religious beliefs separate from their scientific beliefs. I believe this deliberate schizophrenia is unhealthy spiritually as well as mentally, and it will cripple them as worshippers of God as well as in their careers in science.
There are hundreds of scientists who are unabashedly creationists. The most responsible and credible representative of them that I have found is the Creation Research Society. Here is a link to their peer-reviewed quarterly in which they take on the latest arguments of evolutionists and provide research data and field evidence against them: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
I won't even comment on what the Pope said about evolution, because I am a Protestant, so he is not my problem.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Probably very few. But why is that relevant to anything I said? I didn't say it was a popular argument here. But lots of people in the country, in the world do hold it. And he has Biblical support for it, a point that no one here, not even the people who believe, in one way or another, in the overall validity of the Bible as a point of faith has cared to address. Even "I believe all those parts of the Bible are flat out false" would be dealing with it, but no one has even the courage to say that.
Well, since you're talking about religious matters with (at, really) religious folks here on Hatrack...of course it's relevant! I'm baffled you'd even think otherwise.
And are you telling me no one has had the 'courage' to tell Ron he's wrong about his interpretation of the Bible? It's happened so often that at this point that's taken as a given by pretty much every religious person who posts on Hatrack.
So your oblique accusation of cowardice is absurd, too.
quote:I will donate $100 to whatever charity you name if you can come up with one clear quote of me saying that I think that all Christians are biblical literalists.
If you can't, or won't, I'll kindly ask you to retract the claim, or send $100 to the NCSE.
What, don't I even get a chance to agree with your bet before I'm expected to pay up? That certainly fits your rhetorical style in this discussion:)
As for where you've done it, I didn't say you said all Christians were biblical literalists. I said that you're talking about biblical literalists to a group who, overwhelmingly, aren't literalists.
quote:Lots of people do really stupid and harmful things because of religion, and playing word games by defining that stuff as not being religious, or not being what religion is 'supposed' to be is not going to change that.
Who is doing that? That's the question people have been asking you. Point to someone, then point to a specific statement they've made, or even a thread in which they've made it.
Your chief tactic in this discussion has been to angrily argue against beliefs that people around here don't hold, and demand they argue against those beliefs alongside you, or else be cowards or hypocrites or dodgers or something.
It's very irritating.
------
Ron, you are saying that you believe in a conspiracy. A conspiracy of the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet and throughout history for that matter are participating, knowingly or unknowingly, in a scheme against religious folks and religious scientists.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Blackblade: The atomic bomb ended the most bloody war in human history. It hasn't been used in anger for 64 years. Sounds pretty good to me.
There is good in religion. But to get upset when someone says that it can go crazy (as Kath did and is still doing) is to overlook so many of the atrocities committed by the religious even excluding their on going apartheid aimed at gay people.
We've had atomic weapons 70 years. Historically speaking that's very little time. And it hasn't been just one time and that's it. Modern research about the Cuban Missile Crisis is showing that perhaps it was sheer luck we did not have a nuclear exchange. North Korea is acting absolutely crazy, Iran is promising to eradicate Israel once it gets weapons grade plutonium. Nuclear attacks on China very nearly took place during the Korean conflict.
I agree that the religious need to own up to the dangers of blind faith and unquestioning obedience. Many people make the statement however that any good that is found in religion can be isolated from religion, and that those who promise to follow the example of the greatest man I think in history, don't actually become better people in any sense of the phrase.
It's like arguing that somebody who dedicates their life to learning how to play a musical instrument do not actually become any better at playing it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Many people make the statement however that any good that is found in religion can be isolated from religion, and that those who promise to follow the example of the greatest man I think in history, don't actually become better people in any sense of the phrase.
It's like arguing that somebody who dedicates their life to learning how to play a musical instrument do not actually become any better at playing it. "
That's what the evidence supports, so I'm not sure why we shouldn't argue it. Problem is that along with following the example of a pretty decent guy, you get the baggage of illogical thought that comes with it, an us v them propoganda machine, fear based motivation, etc.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've had atomic weapons 70 years. Historically speaking that's very little time.
I'm not sure where you're going with the nuclear weapon argument. I mean, at some point someone discovered the long, heavy stick, and used the long, heavy stick to kill someone else. Are you attempting to blame that on science somehow, to argue that scientific thinking was the cause of the killing rather than the source for the method by which it was achieved?
I mean, I suppose you can argue that scientific thinking -- or, more correctly, faux-science -- is to blame for all kinds of horrible things; Social Darwinism wasn't technically scientific, but it hid behind the use of pseudoscience as a justification. And it's still conceivably possible that "science" might "prove" the advantage of utilitarian social policies that would be considered unthinkable under other approaches. To my mind, that's a slightly more compelling counter-argument than the "Well, scientists developed this thing that could theoretically kill a bunch of people."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I agree that the religious need to own up to the dangers of blind faith and unquestioning obedience. Many people make the statement however that any good that is found in religion can be isolated from religion, and that those who promise to follow the example of the greatest man I think in history, don't actually become better people in any sense of the phrase.
It's like arguing that somebody who dedicates their life to learning how to play a musical instrument do not actually become any better at playing it.
I'm not sure I buy this analogy. I actually read it a couple of times before I was sure which side you were arguing for -- because following Jesus is not like dedicating one's life to playing music. It's more like having a musical hero to help motivate your dedication...one day I want to play/compose just as well as Mozart. But you can still dedicate your life to music and I think people can dedicate their lives to being good people without using Jesus as their role model.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Many people make the statement however that any good that is found in religion can be isolated from religion, and that those who promise to follow the example of the greatest man I think in history, don't actually become better people in any sense of the phrase.
It's like arguing that somebody who dedicates their life to learning how to play a musical instrument do not actually become any better at playing it. "
That's what the evidence supports, so I'm not sure why we shouldn't argue it.
What evidence?
quote:I actually read it a couple of times before I was sure which side you were arguing for -- because following Jesus is not like dedicating one's life to playing music. It's more like having a musical hero to help motivate your dedication...one day I want to play/compose just as well as Mozart. But you can still dedicate your life to music and I think people can dedicate their lives to being good people without using Jesus as their role model.
Actually, that's exactly right I think. That's why simply being religious, in belief, is not enough to make one a better person. It'd be akin to someone who has Mozart as their hero, but who never dedicates any time to music (like Mozart did) - such a person probably isn't going to become a better musician.
The religious people who become better people from their religion are probably not those who say they are Christian but then fail to act like Christ; it is those who actually do act like Christ.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I am arguing against the spurious premise that religion is a ticking bomb and that science would never bite us back. Science is a wonderful fantastic thing, that I'd rather see the human race disappear than lose. Some people act like that if we just stick to science as a way to view the universe we can do no wrong. That any sort of blunder could be prevented if we just used better science. It sounds just like the religious who say, "Religion never does anything bad, those people just aren't religious enough."
Sciense is responsible for its' fruits, and nuclear weapons are one of those fruits. Yes it's human beings that decided to use the big stick to kill somebody, but that is one of the byproducts of the principle. Religion can create fanatics, science can create things humanity is not ready to heft, let alone wield.
If you believe human beings can be smart enough to use the miracles of science responsibly than I think it stands to reason that they can dedicate their lives to a religious cause greater than themselves, and perform admirably. I reflect on my life, and nearly all the good in it comes through my religion. I was taught to love my fellow man, to figure out my own opinions, to consult with God, to become the best possible version of myself. Could it have all been accomplished without any religion? Perhaps, but it didn't, my religion facilitated that process insofar as I adhered to its' principles.
Christine: If you strove to emulate Jesus as a whole, I don't care who you are, you would find the goodness inside yourself increase. Tresopax did a good job of encapsulating my argument.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes it's human beings that decided to use the big stick to kill somebody, but that is one of the byproducts of the principle.
Why? What inherent to science causes one human being to decide to use a nuclear bomb to kill other human beings?
Again, science gives you the method. It does not give you the decision.
quote:If you believe human beings can be smart enough to use the miracles of science responsibly than I think it stands to reason that they can dedicate their lives to a religious cause greater than themselves, and perform admirably.
No, I'd disagree here. The logic is different. The danger of a religious principle in this case is that it's built on appeals to an unimpeachable authority. You might luck out and dedicate your life to a good cause -- or you might dedicate your life to a bad cause. Either way, there's no mechanism provided to allow you to reliably decide which is which.
But it's worth noting that this is to some extent a false dichotomy, because "science" doesn't address that question at all. You can say "God says I should do this," depending on your faith, because you might have a religious model in which God is an entity capable of intervening in that way. But "science" is not an entity; it is not a moral arbiter. "Science" will never tell you to do something; at best, it can tell you what is likely to happen when you do something. You still need another component -- a philosophy of some sort -- to determine which of the results predicted by science are the ones you prefer.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's what the evidence supports, so I'm not sure why we shouldn't argue it. Problem is that along with following the example of a pretty decent guy, you get the baggage of illogical thought that comes with it, an us v them propoganda machine, fear based motivation, etc.
Evidence, huh?
Isn't it well established that 'because I think so' isn't really evidence?
Religious unquestionably enables 'illogical thinking'. I'm using the scare quotes because I think you have a different definition of that than I do. But here's the bogus part of your argument: plenty of people who don't embrace religion are highly illogical, irrational, and awful.
So I'm far from convinced that getting rid of religion through whatever means, be it persuasion or force, will make an appreciable dent in 'illogical thinking' in the world, any more than I'm convinced that if everyone was baptized tomorrow that would make everyone immediately happier.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, science gives you the method. It does not give you the decision.
What? Of course it does, Tom. You can't have the decision without the method. You can't have the decision to shoot someone without a gun. You can have the decision to kill someone without a gun, but that's a different thing.
quote: quote:If you believe human beings can be smart enough to use the miracles of science responsibly than I think it stands to reason that they can dedicate their lives to a religious cause greater than themselves, and perform admirably.
No, I'd disagree here. The logic is different. The danger of a religious principle in this case is that it's built on appeals to an unimpeachable authority. You might luck out and dedicate your life to a good cause -- or you might dedicate your life to a bad cause. Either way, there's no mechanism provided to allow you to reliably decide which is which.
This is true in the abstract, but not actually true in practice. In pretty much every religion I've ever heard of, the 'unimpeachable authority' is actually quite specifically restricted in a variety of ways, by its own theology and doctrine.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
basic kierkegaardian themes: someone believes in God; is utterly positive of the existence of this God with utter lack of proof and would sooner die than go against this core philosophy. They simply cannot.
expanded theme: as a result of the mental habits which create utter positivity of the existence of God in the lack of any proof whatsoever, a person can craft an utter positivity in the notion that their belief is crafted upon evidence and/or reason, and are similarly unequipped to challenge this notion that they indeed have come to their faith based on evidence or reason. In a way which is curious due to their inability to understand why, they have crafted a new version of what constitutes evidence or reason. Through faith.
Man I should write this stuff down and do something with it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sciense is responsible for its' fruits, and nuclear weapons are one of those fruits.
That's like saying that the photoreceptors in my eyes are responsible for when I used a big heavy stick that they spotted to bash in the brains of my caveman brother.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Religious unquestionably enables 'illogical thinking'. I'm using the scare quotes because I think you have a different definition of that than I do. But here's the bogus part of your argument: plenty of people who don't embrace religion are highly illogical, irrational, and awful. "
I'm not sure something can be a bogus part of my argument if I didn't make the argument.
Yes, non-religious people are often illogical, irrational, and awful. However, the entire foundation of religion is irrationality, and fuzzy thinking.
"Evidence, huh?
Isn't it well established that 'because I think so' isn't really evidence?"
Yup. Thats why I rely more on things such as the correlation between religious ferver of a population and higher crime rates for that population, in democratic nations. Or the correlation between religion and thinking torture is sometimes ok. Or, well, frankly, the correlation between religiosity and voting for proposition 8.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure something can be a bogus part of my argument if I didn't make the argument.
Yes, non-religious people are often illogical, irrational, and awful. However, the entire foundation of religion is irrationality, and fuzzy thinking.
Sure you do. You even go on to make it later in this very post I'm quoting, Paul.
Also, the 'entire foundation' of religion is not what you say it is. No matter how strongly you want it to be, in fact.
quote: Yup. Thats why I rely more on things such as the correlation between religious ferver of a population and higher crime rates for that population, in democratic nations. Or the correlation between religion and thinking torture is sometimes ok. Or, well, frankly, the correlation between religiosity and voting for proposition 8.
Oh, really? Well, then. Even if I granted your premise - I don't, because hey, you're not even linking the dubious* studies you're referencing - I wonder what other things correlation means, then?
Watch out, minorities!
*Dubious in the sense that I very much doubt they indicate the things you suggest they indicate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Sure you do. You even go on to make it later in this very post I'm quoting, Paul."
No, I don't. Nowhere have I said that non-religious people do not engage in illogic, or irrationality, nor have I said they do not do awful things. You can try to pretend that's what I said, but that doesn't make it so.
"Also, the 'entire foundation' of religion is not what you say it is. No matter how strongly you want it to be, in fact."
The foundation of religion is a belief in and worship of the divine. We can dispute that if you'd like, but I think its a reasonable working definition of religion and it is how I am using the term here.
But the problem is, a belief in god is not rational. It can't be arrived at through sound logic with premises rooted in reality. Asserting otherwise doesn't make the problem go away.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, can you possibly accept the idea that God might have asked the Jews to regard keeping the Sabbath as a special covenant duty for them, without that excluding the fact that the Sabbath was intended as a memorial of Creation for everyone?
Fine. Go ahead and remember it. Be cognizant of it. But the observance of it was commanded only to us.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The commandment begins with the words, "REMEMBER the Sabbath day, to KEEP it holy." (Exodus 20:8) That does not sound like something new that only then was being instituted.
Whyever not? In Deuteronomy, it says "Keep the Sabbath day". God commanded us a number of things to remember (to do) on Shabbat, and a number of things to keep (to avoid doing) on Shabbat. We do bring the day in and bring the day out over wine/grape juice. We do not do melacha. Just like God commanded.
Honestly, Ron, I'm a little curious to know what you do with "It is a sign between Me and the Children of Israel". Do you think God was kidding?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fact that the Sabbath was not only then being instituted is also born out by the fact that for many months prior to Sinai, manna only fell six days a week, and never on the Sabbath, and a double portion fell on the day before the Sabbath. See Ex. 16:22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30.
The Sabbath was given to us at Marah, as I've already mentioned to you. That was before Sinai. After the Exodus, but before Sinai. And just prior to the Manna starting to fall.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, do not the Jews wish for all humanity to worship God? How then can you object if others besides Jews honor His Sabbaths?
You need to worship God the way He commanded. Not the way you wish He had commanded.
You know the story of Nadab and Abihu? The two eldest children of Aaron? How they brought strange fire before God and got consumed by it? They weren't indulging in pagan rituals, Ron. They wanted to serve God. But they disregarded the rules God gave us for serving Him and chose to do it their own way. Take a lesson.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure we had the exact convo with Ron in another thread. He quoted the same verses to us - we read them in depth and showed them in context to be referring to a covenant between God and Israel.
Wanna read them as Verus Israel? Fine.
As for our desire for all of humanity to recognize God - we're into that - but not through the Sabbath. There are 7 commandments given to non-Jews, as we have discussed.
Sabbath was given as a reward to Israel for their specific task in this world. If you desire to keep the Sabbath so badly, conversion is always an option.
But I have to echo Lisa in my incredulity as to why you want to observe the Sabbath and to how vastly different your sabbath observance is from ours.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This is an example of the crappy, unpleasant tone on this board nowadays, that you wrote something so nasty without blinking an eye. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
