What price religion?

Quote from spect8or:

Yes, they can and I bet most are. But those are EMOTIONAL reasons, aren't they?

A pure seeker of truth must PUT ASIDE what he WISHES was the case and make his best guess at what IS the case.

Thus I speculate that the vast majority of believers find "God" because they are LOOKING FOR HIM; because he helps them "make sense" of all the apparently pointless suffering in the world, of the longing for "purpose" in life. That is why so few theists I have met are content with some vague, distant, non-interventionist god; they NEED the personal, listens-to-your-prayers variety.
More...

I can't argue with some of what you're saying. I think most human beings would like for their to be someone who listens to their petitions.

Here's where I disagree: the majority of evangelical believers - and I emphasize evangelical - that I know believe that they have seen substantial evidence of God in their lives. I think that you are oversimplifying the situation.

I think that you think that most believers have what I call "blind faith" where they never get any confirmation or assurance of their beliefs.

And this simply is not the case: if nothing happened, they would not be believers.

I think you are oversimplifying by implying that most believers are "mindless" in their faith, i.e. they believe w/o any confirmation in spite of all the evidence, etc.
 
Jem you are way off base here.

So you are saying that most religious people FREELY ADMIT
that their belief is completely irrational??? I call bullshit.
MOST theists I come across DO try to tell me that god is FACT,
that jesus is FACT, that all this is FACT and they even try to prove it.

My statements are being misconstrued. If you really study it you will see that the teaching is that when you accept Jesus your spirit is changed. A christian does not expect you to accept God unless your spirit is willing. That is the teaching of the bible.

Now I will argue that Jesus lived on the earth (fact) and that is provable from independent historical records. See. Roman and Jewish historians. But I do not expect you to believe he is God unless you have been called and accept it.

I also think if you were to examine the evidence you would come to the same conclusion as me. But you may not and I do not therefore claim God is 100% percent sure provable fact.


" Everyone says you must believe in the dogma of evolution because it is a fact. "

Complete nonsense. Science CLEARLY states that speciation
is THEORY, and that microevolution is fact. (super strong theory).
Stop trying to muddy the waters.

Please give me a cite to the fact that speciation is a theory. Do you think that is what is taught in public schools. This is also a tremendous concession. I accept it.


"I never hear theists admit anything of the sort!
They continuously try pass off religion as ABSOLUTE FACT.
They wont budge an inch. This is the TRUTH period as far
as they are concerned.
What percentage of theists FREELY ADMIT that their religion
could be 100% wrong?? Now what percentage of scientists
admit their science could be 100% wrong.
I would wager the percentage would be VERY SMALL for the theists.
The scientists have to admit that their science can be wrong, because
its part of the definition of science. EVERYTHING in science is
considered falsifiable or its NOT science.
So what your saying could not be further from the truth as far
as im concerned.


This is obviously a difference in perception. Like I said I never see anyone admitting speciation is just a theory. And I do not know any educated Christian how claims they are 100% correct about things. Heck Christians have to admit to their differences every time they go to a new church and deal with the fact they may have been wrong on infant baptism or whatever all the time. Do you think we expect you to belive that God is a fact. Or do we hope you will someday see the light and be saved. (Light being Jesus)

But I will concede I am sure too many Christians portray that position as fact in certain parts of the country. Just not the parts I have lived in.

Strawman and pure ignorance. Evolution does NOT claim
that monkey turned into man. Your playing very fast and loose here.

Dude I do not know how old you are or where you were educated growing up. But the museum of Natural History in New York said it and all my public school teaching said it.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?
Remember the pictures of the evolution of man walking form monkey the cromagnon through homosapien. That was taught as fact. In textbooks all over the world we had picutures of embryo's evolving at times with Gills. Evolution certainly claimed speciation. If it doesn't now it needs a better publicist. schools.


But ill assume your talking about speciation.
To say there are NO facts supporting this
form of evolution is simply naive. There IS supporting evidence
for this. Its not a scientific "fact" (the strongest of theories),
but there IS evidence for it.

Please give me a link for the evidence of speciation. I would love to read it.


Again...evolution does NOT claim monkey turned into man.
You need to study up on evolution. see above

But even specition is FAR more scientific than any religion.
Your really going off the deep end if you believe this.
We only need to look at the DNA mappings of animals to see
how close apes fall to humans. No, we did not evolve from apes.
This is a common theistic strawman, but we DO seem to have
a common ancestor. This shred ALONE far outweighs anything
ive heard religion bring to the table.

Very subjective statement but I am willing to investigate, links please.


[snip bible mythology]

I hope your not making the ASSUMPTION that the biblical stories
are true and are going to base your court evidence on it.
It will be challenged immediately.

No, but I would be willing to show how archeology has been proving the historical timing and geographic veracity of the stories. Many of the old arguments against the historical timing and geographic veracity have been knocked down.


peace

axeman

Now I have to get back to other matters for a while.

peace back to you
 
>I think that you think that most believers have what
>I call "blind faith" where they never get any confirmation
>or assurance of their beliefs.

>And this simply is not the case: if nothing happened,
>they would not be believers.

I believe there are both catagories. I now fall into the catagory that you asserted...nothing happened so I quit believing. I know many who will also state that nothing has happened and yet they believe because they were taught to believe.

An old girlfriend of mine is the perfect example. Raised in a baptist family by a baptists minister father and despite all attempts, nothing ever "happened". For almost two adult decades she asserted that she was still a believer in spite of the "nothing". I received a call from her just the other day where she proclaimed her now athiesm.

For two decades she was a believer through "blind faith". There are many, many, many others (as I was once one).

JB
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I can't argue with some of what you're saying. I think most human beings would like for their to be someone who listens to their petitions.

Here's where I disagree: the majority of evangelical believers - and I emphasize evangelical - that I know believe that they have seen substantial evidence of God in their lives. I think that you are oversimplifying the situation.

I think that you think that most believers have what I call "blind faith" where they never get any confirmation or assurance of their beliefs.

And this simply is not the case: if nothing happened, they would not be believers.

I think you are oversimplifying by implying that most believers are "mindless" in their faith, i.e. they believe w/o any confirmation in spite of all the evidence, etc.
More...


Well, it's so much that I think they're "mindless" (although I don't rule it out!:D), it's that I think they are mistaken and that they refuse to accept alternative (and, imo, much better) explanations for what they think they are experiencing.

If Christianity was the world's only religion, I might have a bit of trouble with this as it's not particularly fair of me to ask somebody to simply ignore their personal experiences. However, Christianity is far from the world's only religion. So, if we accept that Christians' religious experiences are the real deal according to their personal testimonies then it would only be fair to accept the testimonies of people who have non-Christian religious experiences, wouldn't it? But what about where these religions conflict with each other? They cannot ALL be true. Why should an evangelical christian's religious experience hold more water than a hindu's? Or why would we not assume worshippers of the ancient egyptian gods, or the greek gods or the roman gods each had confirmatory religious experiences?

I think this strong evidence that none of them enjoyed ACTUAL religious experiences (of some deity), rather those experiences are just particular pyschological states inducible in anybody, whether they believe or not. For example, I spent most of my life as a christian (quite a strict one too, I might add) and remember well what it feels like to believe I was communicating with Jesus or God or that I was "filled with the holy spirit". Funnily enough, those feelings feel virtually the same to me these days when I have heightened feelings of love and peace. I don't think there's any reason to invoke god here.
 
Quote from jem:



Now I will argue that Jesus lived on the earth (fact) and that is provable from independent historical records. See. Roman and Jewish historians. But I do not expect you to believe he is God unless you have been called and accept it.

I also think if you were to examine the evidence you would come to the same conclusion as me. But you may not and I do not therefore claim God is 100% percent sure provable fact.
More...



Jem, I would challenge your claim that independant historical records support the existance of jesus (even as a man). I'd be interested to see what you have.
 
>So, if we accept that Christians' religious experiences are
>the real deal according to their personal testimonies then
>it would only be fair to accept the testimonies of people
>who have non-Christian religious experiences, wouldn't it?
>But what about where these religions conflict with each
>other? They cannot ALL be true.

BINGO!!

This thought thread was the genesis of my awakening and exit from "blind faith". I determined that ones choice of religion is primarily driven by the culture one is raised in (yes, there are exceptions but vastly smaller numbers) and this could not be a wise choice mechanism. I decided to search *for myself* which required throwing out all that I had been raised with and starting over.

When starting with a clean slate it is not hard to see inconsistencies and improbabilities of one religion being right and one being wrong.

Nicely stated.

JB
 
Quote from jem:

I

Two Jesus's genealogies are not in conflict, they trace down through different sides one from Mary and one from Joseph. (yes we know Joseph was not his real dad).

Three, I have never seen a failed prophecies after fully investigating. The explanations are sometime subject to good lawyering though. Could you point one out.


More...


Jem, I really don't see any reason at all to assume that one side of the genealogies is of Mary's side. Why?

(1) It would be highly unusual, if not unheard of, in ancient times to justify one's position in society on the basis of descendancy from the mother's side.

and

(2) More importanly, Luke (which the genealogy I'm assuming you refer to with this) has absolutely no reference to Mary.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli


I really don't see any way to understand that except as saying Heli is the father of Joseph, thus making Luke's genealogy that of Joseph.
The "as was supposed" refers to the point that Joseph was supposed to be Jesus' father (but he really wasn't, god was).

The only way to make it Mary's genealogy is by making Joseph Heli's son-IN-LAW. But why would we infer this?
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I wish that non-believers would stop trying to "Freudianize" believers. You despise it when we do that do you.

I can tell you for a fact that I do not believe because of "fear, threat or superstition".

Can't Christians and Jews be motivated by higher purposes such as improving their character, seeking truth, desiring to raise a strong family, etc. just like you guys?

Again, I know hundreds of Christians and with a few exceptions I know noone that is motivated by "fear, threat and superstition", but you can keep believing that if you want to...
More...
Why is it "Freudianizing" religious believers to state that religion is based on things invisible, unknowable ? Looking at any religious claim I have ever come across indicates that IS what religion is based upon... Gods and things put forward as invisible and unknowable.

If you do not believe in religion because of fear, threat or superstition you presumably believe in religion because it meets your requirements of rationale, reasonableness, truth, fact, probability based on substantial existing evidence which can be corroborated, not just by the say so of some other believer? Then pray let us know of it. I for one would be most interested and attentive to such information.

You would include I presume, Muslims and Buddhists, Baha'is, Hindus, Baptists, Amishes, Lutherans Pentecostals, Presbyterians...etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc each with their differing standards which they consider is the higher purpose and the means whereby a stronger family can be raised,..... when all the time the standards by which stronger families, the seeking of truth and the improvement of character are all definable, better established and are put into practice every day, without the need or contradictions and encumbrances of religion and its subjugation of real and actual meaning of human values.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I agree with this for the most part. However, I personally believe that the gap is not as far apart as most believe when you throw in the supernatural/spiritual side of life...

As I've said before, I don't believe in blind faith where one believes and finds no supporting supernatural, circumstantial or behavior modifying changes in his life. In this sense, religion is "testable" to a certain extent, but of course not in the "laboratory/clinical" sense.
More...
I don't quite follow this shoeshine. Are you saying you don't believe in blind faith but you would believe in a religion where some supporting "supernatural, circumstantial or behavior modifying changes" have an effect on someone's life?

Surely..."Supernatural, circumstantial or behavior modifying changes" is not reason enough to say something is therefore true and meaningful is it ?

These things offer a standard which is sufficiently acceptable for you to consider believing them when they are part of a religious doctrine, and you would not require blind faith along with that, to convince you they are something more than what is widely recognised as human emotional reaction?? ...surely not ! ??
 
In response to spect8ors request.


Keep in mind that if all the documents we have from the first two centuries AD were collected and put on a bookshelf, they might take two feet of shelf space.

One of the best known references to Jesus is in Josephus's history titled Antiquities. (Flavius Josephus was born in AD 37 and died in AD 97).

Other ancient writers who mention Christ are Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138), and Pliny the Younger who was a Roman author and administrator.

Writting in the year AD 221, Julius Africanus quotes from a history of the Eastern Mediterranean written in about AD 52 by Thallus. Julius Africanus writes concerning the time of Jesus' crucifixion::

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."*


This is copied from http://www.missiontoamerica.com/history.html but it is consistent with what I found when I researched it 5-8 years ago.

You also raised a question regarding the genologies that I will have to work on. But I cant right now-- I will do my research on it. Ih has been a while since I went through all my books, which are still in storage in San Diego. I will have to find it on the net. http://www.carm.org/questions/2geneologies.htm that was a quick search. I am actually doing something else at my computer so I did not spend long on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top