Page 4 of 89 FirstFirst 1234567891454 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 1780
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    This statement doesnt apply everywhere you know. You're calling it myth because thats what you believe.

    And there are Christians in Pakistan.

    Two books to read which substantiate your statements. My guess from your post would be you've read the first.
    The Jesus Mysteries. Very interesting.
    Foucault's Pendulum, a novel by Umberto Eco.

    I recommend them both, but then again I also recommend The Case for Christ.
    I only call it myth, because that's what it is widely accepted as. I never stated I believe it as myth. My point was, the story of jesus is fractured throughout many old beliefs, and compounded into his story. When looking at that, why is the same story thought to be silly tales and myths by primitive people. But when applied to jesus, by the same primitive peoples, it's now absolute fact?

    those are good books by the way.
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Great point.

    This happened at the very outset of Man's history.
    I've always liked illustrations.

    See what you think of this:

    Parent has child. Gives them advice on how to enjoy the best life.
    A stranger comes along and tells the child that his parents lied to him.
    Because the child has free will and the ability to reason, he starts to consider what the stranger told him about his father. The child makes a decision to ignore what his parent said. The father told the child early on; 'if you want to live under my roof and continue to receive the support and help I can give you, and grow in insight and wisdom so as to make good choices in life, you have to abide by my rules'. The young adult chooses to try it on his own and rejects his father's authority. Inexperienced and somewhat arrogant, the now full grown adult has a trail of wreckage from his continued bad choices.

    The question next might be; Why doesn't the father help his son get back on track?
    Are you talking about going to College here?

    To answer your question. Well, in fact, the "father" does help the son get back on track, but it still requires the free-will choice of the son. A trite way of saying this is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

    KAM
  3. #63  
    Given that there is over 4200 religions world wide, all spouting to be the divine truth, I don't know how anyone could possibly buy into any of it.

    Using religious doctrine as a road map for life, sure, fine, if that floats your boat jump in if you must. But actually believing all of it is real? Actually believing all these stories happened? Actually believing in a magical place with pillars or virgins? Think critically about that for a moment.
  4. vandelay's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    61 Global Posts
    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Given that there is over 4200 religions world wide, all spouting to be the divine truth, I don't know how anyone could possibly buy into any of it.
    Maybe you should take into account that many of those are just different ways of worshiping the same God. Looking at this may be more useful Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Although only approximately 1/3 of the world's population is Christian, over half the world's population worships the God of Abraham.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Given that there is over 4200 religions world wide, all spouting to be the divine truth, I don't know how anyone could possibly buy into any of it.

    Using religious doctrine as a road map for life, sure, fine, if that floats your boat jump in if you must. But actually believing all of it is real? Actually believing all these stories happened? Actually believing in a magical place with pillars or virgins? Think critically about that for a moment.
    Well, while there might be 4200 religions, but there are likely 8 World-wide Religions, and 3 of them, encompassing something close to half the world population are Abrahamic Religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). So, in fact, a very significant portion of Religious believers agree on the basic starting point at least (belief in God, who created the universe).

    Also, you assume that everyone is a literalist in regards to their Religion, as opposed to understanding that in fact, many things are not literal (although many are literalists). Jesus taught using Parables (specifically not literal) for example which is a strong indication that not everything must be literal, but is rather a tool for understanding some premise.

    So, while you are attempting to forward the notion that there are untold contradictions and disagreements, I suggest that if you boil it down to the substance (not the form), you will find very broad similarities.

    KAM
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, this is a wonderful demonstration of why this sort of discussion goes nowhere in most cases. Why? Because this is a wild distortion of many Faiths, that have literally hundreds or thousands of years of scholarly study behind it. I know those who worship science (often overestimating it or their understanding of it) and fail to understand that it doesn't apply to Religious belief at all have a hard time resolving this, and make the mistake of this sort of nonsense comparison. Of course, the requisite smugness of self congratulations goes along with it in many cases.

    When one "side" in a discussion relies so heavily on scornful distortion, it is no wonder that such discussions are so easily poisoned. Perhaps if the Anti-Religious side could avoid its childish jibes there could be a fruitful discussion. I seem to recall people preaching here about that insults are an indication of how weak your argument is. Judging by that, this is a wonderful display of weakness. Or, perhaps that only applies to people they dislike or disagree with.

    One poster stated: Science methodology and religious faith are an apples and oranges discussion.

    This is true, which is what I spent recent days trying to explain, and which was vehemently denied by some. I guess to some people (claiming to rely on logic) it matters WHO says something rather than what is said. If that's "logical" then this is yet another reason why these discussions go nowhere. When those claiming logic insist on emotion based irrational responses, when THEIR preconceived notions are questioned, while taking the position that things they dislike are "illogical" then, there isn't much hope.

    Apparently, these anti-religious people aren't able to comprehend the fact that "evidence" (as referenced in that very clever chart) is more akin to a historical kind than some neatly packaged experiment. This is a distortion that this little swipe relies on. In fact--religious based historical events (like any historical event) are rarely (less so the older you get) on the same level as a chemistry or physics experiment (for example). Rather they are based on accounts of varying degrees of quality and quantity often missing pieces, and with many contradictions, because these things are not measured data--they are human-based accounts of an event.

    So, in short--the sort of comparison made above is extremely dishonest...or based in great ignorance--not sure which. Of course, these same adherents to "science" are also likely to readily accept non-religious historical events, without any such scrutiny or scorn. Not everyone of course--I'm sure there are skeptics about various non-religious historical events as well. Those that fail to be consistent in this are of course hypocrites...or deeply ignorant, again, not sure which. Of course, I'm speaking of the historical aspect of Religions, rather than the supernatural, but this little chart makes no distinction. But why would it--a tool of ridicule's goal isn't accuracy.

    In short--anti-Religious people seem to have at least as much fervor in their chosen belief as religious people do in their's, despite Scientific Methodology being ill-suited to prove or disprove anything in regards to Faith (apples and oranges as stated above). When people keep insisting that they can prove or disprove something that is unprovable, the futility meter goes off the chart.

    So, with that starting point...I'll just wish everyone here good luck.

    KAM
    Sorry to make this short, but i only have a second to write this:
    History was written by the people that won the battles. The people that have their side of the story to tell... were killed prematurely.
    So, in short, we only know what the prevailers had to say about it.
    Last edited by dbdoinit; 02/17/2010 at 09:43 AM.
  7. #67  
    4 or 42 or 4200 I don't see the difference. I highly doubt the universe has room for more than one supreme being.....if such a thing were possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
    Maybe you should take into account that many of those are just different ways of worshiping the same God. Looking at this may be more useful Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Although only approximately 1/3 of the world's population is Christian, over half the world's population worships the God of Abraham.
  8. vandelay's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    61 Global Posts
    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    This has been debated to death here a number of times. I believe the outcome was that neither side could convince the other side they were crazy.

    Maybe that's because science is only meant to answer the question "how" while faith is only meant to answer the question "why?"

    The flow chart for faith is also inaccurate. If it were true, we would still believe the earth was the center of our solar system, but that has long since changed with science. The reason why the Catholic Church was less accepting of science at that time was because they were under pressure from the Protestant reformation to follow scripture more closely, but taking the Bible literally was never part of Catholicism.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Sorry to make this short, but i only have a second to write this:
    History was written by the people that won the battles. The people that have their side of the story to tell... were killed prematurely.
    So, in short, we only know what the prevailers had to say about it.
    While that is true in many ways, there is also these professions called "Historian" and "Archaeologist." These people do a bit more than simply listen to the guy who "won."

    Further--in regards to Religion...well, that's demonstrably untrue, which is evidenced by the fact that there are competing views within even the same religion. So, in many cases the losing side's view is well known, and continues to be debated.

    In other words--you are extending this point farther than is valid I think.

    KAM
  10. vandelay's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    61 Global Posts
    #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Whether there is a God or not, I personally find it very difficult to love God when he allows such horrible and devastating things (natural and/or man made) happen to innocent people every single day.
    People have every right to believe or not believe, but i resent the hypocrites that preach this and preach that and tell you how to live your life while committing their own sins (of which they preached against).
    Even if Einstein wasn't the one who said this, it is still a good argument for what you're saying. Did Einstein prove that God exists?

    Even so, Einstein was still Jewish and believed in God. You must be one hell of a scientist if you think you know something Einstein didn't which makes science incompatible with Religion. If you don't believe because you don't have faith that's different, but don't say it's because of science.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    4 or 42 or 4200 I don't see the difference. I highly doubt the universe has room for more than one supreme being.....if such a thing were possible.
    Well, your failure to make distinctions is...well yours. The difference between 4 and 4200 is that you leave a false impression that there is much higher levels of disagreement than actually exists. The existence of disagreement is your current reasoning why you think people shouldn't "buy into it." Your claim becomes less meaningful if there is less disagreement, and more meaningful if there is more. The point is that you have attempted to forward the notion that there is very little agreement, whereas I (and others) are explaining why that notion isn't as significant as you claim.

    You might also want to consider the possibility that some of these people are wrong. In fact--its possible that EVERYONE is wrong--including Atheists. OR it is possible that someone is right.

    I know this is dangerous territory (because someone will come along saying I'm equating science and Religion), but there is disagreement on issues of science as well--amongst scientists even. So, why would disagreement for something that is much more quantifiable (a scientific issue) not be reason to "not buy into it" then as well?

    It seems your claim is that if there is disagreement, then that indicates one should disbelieve it all. That doesn't even hold true for well established quantifiable things, so why would it hold true for less quantifiable things?

    KAM
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
    Even if Einstein wasn't the one who said this, it is still a good argument for what you're saying. [url= Einstein prove that God exists?[/url]

    Even so, Einstein was still Jewish and believed in God. You must be one hell of a scientist if you think you know something Einstein didn't which makes science incompatible with Religion. If you don't believe because you don't have faith that's different, but don't say it's because of science.
    When did I say it's because of science?
    I never said that.
  13. #73  
    A question was asked earlier, which is a common reason for believing there can't be a God is why does he allow all the suffering?
    A couple good points were made, but I'd like to get back to that when I get time later today.

    Another thing I feel worthy of discussion is the 6 creative days.

    And then finally; has Religion really been a force for good?

    These are some of concerns some have about the belief in God.
  14. #74  
    When an individual seriously bases their life around loner superstitious ideas, it's called insane.
    When an isolated group of people build a belief system around superstition, it's called a cult.
    When the masses accept the belief system to the point it gains political power, it's called a religion.

    The only difference between a cult and a religion is that a cult has no political power.

    Though very sad, it doesn't surprise me that belief in imaginary supernatural forces still exists. Ignorance (ignoring new information) has always been an issue with humanity. We have incredibly powerful imaginations and the power of suggestion more often outweighs reason. Sigh.
    Sprint Pre, Mugen 2800mah battery
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    It seems your claim is that if there is disagreement, then that indicates one should disbelieve it all.
    Yes. If your going to ask me to believe that one all powerful dude is running the universe. Someone with this much power, such as setting up a spa for the afterlife, would have been able to deliver a uniform and concise message to all of earths people....and the lifeforms of all the other populated planets, however many there may be.
  16. vandelay's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    61 Global Posts
    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    When did I say it's because of science?
    I never said that.
    Sorry, that was a separate point, should have made both paragraphs separate posts.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    A question was asked earlier, which is a common reason for believing there can't be a God is why does he allow all the suffering?
    Build character, right? I mean, surely the loss of a child has a silver lining.
    A couple good points were made, but I'd like to get back to that when I get time later today.

    Another thing I feel worthy of discussion is the 6 creative days.
    Dinosaur bones are a real stick in that mud.
    And then finally; has Religion really been a force for good?
    You mean like during the crusades? Or for wiping out aboriginal cultures and belief systems?
    These are some of concerns some have about the belief in God.
    Belief in God is fine. It's the 'spreading of the word' that causes much of the pain and suffering in the world. Ask any jihadist.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
    Sorry, that was a separate point, should have made both paragraphs separate posts.
    WELL FIX IT!!
    Just kidding, stuff like that happens when i rush to put a point out there too.
  19. vandelay's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    61 Global Posts
    #79  
    If there is no God, then there is no afterlife, and we have no soul. That means that human life is no more special then the life of the chicken you had for dinner, none of the relationships you have matter, and if you were to die right now, it wouldn't matter. To me, that seems like a rather empty life. Scientifically, we can't prove which religion is better, or if there is a God, or what the meaning of life is, but that is because as I said before, science can only be used to answer "how" while religion is looking for "why?"
  20. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Stop oppressing me, Stan. [/montypython]

    Yes, I believe it was worth posting. The question related to why there is a perception of hypocrisy related to religious figures.
    Remember this quote later on.

    Those 2 individuals are certainly not alone with regards to twisting God's words to meet less-than-godly purposes. One only needs to look at the Catholic Church's molestation issues, as well as incidents such as the above post, and numerous sex scandals among high-profile preachers, to see why many people see religion as hypocritical.
    Why would "religion" be hypocritical because certain members of a religion are hypocritical? Don't you see that as a non-sequitur? But since we're talking about perception, I think most people can differentiate those things.

    All of this, of course, is compounded by religious figures of all denominations who pick & choose scripture to justify everything from terrorism to killing of abortion doctors to hatred of homosexuals.
    Again, judging a whole class of people by an extremely small minority.

    Unfortunately, religious hypocrisy is much more common than I originally posted - I was being charitable.
    I don't think you were being charitable at all. I think you were giving the prerequisite lip-service before you spoke your true feelings.

    And of course I never labeled all ministers hypocrites - merely pointing out that stories like these are not at all uncommon, and undermine the credibility of religious institutions.
    Now, recall your original statement in this post? If you never labeled all ministers as hypocrites then you have no valid reason to believe I was referring to you. But you did make the statement that the actions of these two men is part of the reason people think of the religious as hypocrites. I was merely pointing out the nonsensical conclusion drawn by such people.

    But if you want to twist what I said to indicate that I "have problems", go right ahead. Is that very Christian, though?
    Wow, now there's an original one. But I direct you to the above paragraph. My statement was directed towards the people to which you were referring in your original post.

    One would think a moderator would know better than to make such personal attacks, or to discourage folks from posting because you don't agree with the content of what they're saying.
    How exactly was that a personal attack?
Page 4 of 89 FirstFirst 1234567891454 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions