mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[Mywas 687]

Simple. Just post in your religion. If its not included, quote this post and tell me what it is. I'll add it.

Wait I don't see anyone here who is a Druze nore do I see the druze option in the Poll. does the world even knows about druze? lol

[~Squishy Skies~ 756]

Fairy tales are cool, and it's fun to make-a-believe, but I'm pretty conscious of reality and it's cruel ways.

 

Not saying I deny anything. Just saying I rely more on rationalism and realism.

 

I do worship Tobuscus, however.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Skylar

[John 793]

This is true, in a logical sense.  However, from the perspective of Bayesian probabilistic reasoning, it does lower the probability of any particular Christian sect having The Truth.

This type of reasoning is not the correct type to fit the situation due to the fact that we are dealing with an absolute.  This type of reasoning would work if the God's of each religion followed the creation of the religions.  Its sort of hard to explain, however here is my best analogy I can give at the moment:

 

you have a red ball in a box.

 

You acquire four more boxes with different color balls inside, none of them red.

 

You line these boxes up.

 

Has the probability that the red ball exists changed?  No.

 

  Here's how: First of all, the prior probability for any particular sect being the One, True Religion is already very low.

False.  Adding more fake apples into a pile of real apples doesn't make the probability of that apple being real any lower.  It only lowers the probability that someone would be able to pick the real apple blindly.

 

So now we move on to anticipated consequences.  If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible intelligent entity that wishes to communicate certain ideas to humanity, and if this entity desires that humans understand and accept a correct interpretation of these ideas, we can anticipate that such an entity would do an excellent job of achieving its ends.  You assume you understand this being's intentions.  It has unlimited means at its disposal, unlimited intelligence with which to conceive its communication strategy, and unlimited knowledge about the humans with which it seeks to communicate.  How could it possibly fail?   It doesn't fail to communicate because it is not fully attempting to communicate.  It lets the people CHOOSE weather or not they want to try and communicate with it.  Like I said in the hypothetical, if we were all 100% certain of this beings existence, it would have no ill deeds to judge us on.  We would all be lying about our perfections just to get on this beings good side.  What would be the point of living then?  People would commit acts of kindness and generosity just to buy their way into heaven.  Due to the fact that we are NOT 100% certain of this God because it chooses not to communicate with us to the point of overexposing itself, committing acts of good show our true characters.  The deity can now see these acts as being meaningful instead of forced.   Doubt allows us to show true selflessness.

 

 

Now, a Christian could argue that the "ifs" in the first set of proposed anticipated consequences are not claims they're making.  Perhaps Yahweh is not omni-everything, and is muddling through, making mistakes, and learning just like we are, or perhaps he is no so much a person as a process of spiritual growth and realization (Process Theology).  Perhaps Yahweh doesn't want to produce a clear communication: he wants people to choose out of devotion and faith rather than understanding, or perhaps he has predestined what each person will "choose" an eon or two prior to the Big Bang, so fidelity of communication is irrelevant.  Or perhaps "he" is willing to wear whatever masks people need to see "him" don (including female goddess masks), in order for them to perceive some facet of "him"/"her" through the lens of their culture and times.  Or something else.

 

If a given religious viewpoint has some other set of anticipated consequences, and its adherents want to convince anyone not already in the fold, they should be able to specify consequences which would falsify their hypothesis if present (or if not present) to the satisfaction of people who don't share their viewpoint.  Write more reliably;  this sentence didn't have to be this long.  I don't want to have to sit here and de-crypt your message.  In other words, if people of differing viewpoints on religion or anything else want to actually find out who's most likely to be right, they should get together and agree on sets of anticipated consequences that would validate or falsify their respective belief systems, so everyone can consult reality to see who's correct.

 

If one crafts one's religion so that the things they expect to see in reality are the exact same things an atheist expects to see in reality, they've defined their religion out of the field of potential truth.   Definitely not true.

 

 

 

 

This is a bit of a stretch. Not really. Jesus is portrayed¹ saying, "You are Peter [Greek petros, a movable stone], and on this rock [Greek petra, a large, solid rock formation] I will build my church [Greek ekklesia, a congregation; not necessarily implying cathedrals and enduring priestly institutionsThese didn't show up until later.]."  This says nothing about going to Rome or being a Pope or being the first of a long line of Popes.  There's more to this.  Read on.

 

And we're back into the realm of interpretation, and the question of how much these particular sources should be trusted in the first place.

What else could he have possibly meant by "On you I will build my Church?"  Peter started the Catholic church.

This is simple logic!

Given that:

1.)Peter started the Catholic Church (which he did)

2.)Jesus said he will build his Church metaphorically on Peter.

3.) Jesus's Church is the Catholic church.

 

First of all, the key word in the part of my post you're referencing is "often," i.e. not every single person.  Furthermore, I was referring more to the people in later periods who were in a position to "canonize" the various texts as "Scripture" and order that the texts they did not canonize be destroyed.  In most cases we do not even know who the authors of the various Biblical texts were, much less have access to their motivations.  History is chock full of people who deeply and sincerely believe in their religions to the point of being willing to die for them (Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, Buddhist monks who immolate themselves in protest against various injustices, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc.).  There is also no shortage of cases where a mystic or ethical teacher attracts followers who later create a religion or ideology the teacher themselves would not recognize as their own.  Don't avoid the topic.  So why then, given that many of these motivations are unknown, seem to follow that they were all selfish motivations?  You tend to argue around the topic until is changes and then I can't get a point across.

 

If someone writes a text which they say is "divine revelation" (and we have no assurance that all or most Biblical authors even intended to do this) or claims that ancient texts written by other people are "divine revelation" but that they (the person) just happen to be the one with the correct interpretation, and make your check payable to...well, shouldn't people be skeptical?

We were talking about different sections of the Bible, not about different religious texts.

And of course people should be skeptical.  Being skeptical is different from immediately denying something because you think its silly.

 

 

One problem I have with this as a hypothesis is that if the deity's purpose in creating the Cosmos was to get humans, the Cosmic "big history" revealed to us by science is an inconceivably inefficient and wasteful way to go about it.  Way to define efficiency on a human level and then apply this definition to God.  First, Yahweh would have to wait around for 14 billion years for the humans to show up.  So now you're subjecting our God to time.  I shouldn't even have to say why this is faulty.  Then, there's a hundred thousand years or so in which modern humans exist, but Heaven watches with folded arms while they live, struggle, suffer, and die in a world of inexplicable natural forces, diseases, and disasters before deciding about 3,000 years ago, that now is the time to get involved  So now you're the one making all of the historical assumptions.--in an isolated desert backwater of the world, by tinkering with a tiny assemblage of barbarian tribes in the hinterland of the Levant, far away from the great centers of literate civilization in India, China, Egypt or Mesopotamia.  Far from Egypt?  I don't think so.

 

If an omnimax deity wanted to create a Cosmos as a habitat for humans so it can interact with them  So now you've assumed the beings motives too.

, it could surely find some much more effective, efficient, and elegant way to do so, whether in seven days or an instant of Planck time.  Form follows function.  Waste is an indicator of poor design, limited ability, or both.  Subjecting the God to human ideas of waste and inefficiency.  You do realize that this God could have wanted all of the laws of physics and constants to be just right?  This God could have also wanted the speed of light to be what it is.  If this we're the case, is this God not being efficient with the expansion of the Universe?  If the God were to change the laws of physics to speed up his creation time like he's in some sort of race, these laws would have effected the way the Universe operates and may have prevented life.

 

NOTE:

 

1. You will notice that I tend to use phraseology like "Jesus is portrayed saying/doing" or "as portrayed in the Gospels" and the like instead of "Jesus said/did."  This is because, for various reasons that are probably outside the scope of this post or thread, I think that that Jesus was most likely not a historical man who started Christianity.  I think he was originally viewed by the earliest believers as a wholly spiritual divine intermediary between the divine and human realms,

What the fuck?  Talk about making assumptions.

a "divine man" conceived in the framework of the Mystery Schools, more like Osiris or Mithras than, say, Socrates or Diogenes.

How the hell are Osiris and Socrates related?

  The closest contemporary analogy would be a "channeled entity" like Ramtha or Seth or the "Jesus" who putatively dictated A Course in Miracles.  This is not a mainstream position, but in this case I do not think the mainstream is correct.  My idiosyncratic phraseology  Please, avoid pseudo-intellectual phrases.  There are more efficient ways to relay your opinions.   in this post is intended for clarity: I do not want to convey an inaccurate impression that I think that "Jesus said" this or that, when I think he probably didn't.

I feel like you snuck this last passage in just to make a statement that you don't believe that Jesus existed.  We have enough to argue about, and most atheists at least acknowledge that he was a man.

So...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCNC_vf7R2g

Yet you're saying all the other Christian sects are less credible than the Catholic Church. I wonder what people would be saying if it was another sect that had built the Vatican. To me, all sects believe in the same god. Heck, Judaism and Islam believe in the same god as well and are merely different interpretations of that god. No John, I'm not saying one is more credible than the other here. What I'm saying is why can't all these guys just get along.

Then why argue with me about that?  Hell I wish they could get along too.  Don't send a bomb that someone else deserves at me just because you want to come out on top of an unrelated argument.

 

They had every reason to want power. By presenting a religion different from the ones the slaves of the Roman Empire's days knew, the apostles would be able to gain support from the disillusioned masses and eventually overthrow the Empire. Ultimately, they did manage to break free of their grasp and settle in the Holy Land which to this day is still an area of contention between Jews/Christians and Muslims, altho the west doesn't have religions oversight over the area and those Muslims who bring up the crusades are generally extremists.

 

Not the apostles.  Peter CHOSE to fucking die upside down on a cross, which is known to be a longer death.  If he was a self-centered bastard who only wanted power, he shouldn't have cared In what way he died.  I highly doubt overthrowing Rome was his primary concern at that point.  You run out of things to criticize so you start going to time wasting arguments like this.

 

If god was straightforward, we'd have no need to make attempts at interpreting his word. An omnipotent and omniscient being would be able to lay down his word well enough for anyone to understand.

 

So now because you don't see it as straightforward, its not straightforward.

 

 

I have so many fucking things to do and I'm stuck here having to defend my religion from stupid arguments.  I'm not trying to convert anybody or force anything on them so everybody just fuck off.  If your this critical about everything in life I don't know how you trust or believe in anything that doesn't appear right in front of you to provide you with a vision, sounds, smells, and touch.

 

The arguments have danced around, never stay in the same place and now we're on to how "straightforward" the deity is.  Give me a break!  We all know that argument can't go anywhere due to its solely subjective nature.

Edited July 23, 2013 by John

[Galen 1,354]

 

 

This type of reasoning is not the correct type to fit the situation due to the fact that we are dealing with an absolute. This type of reasoning would work if the God's of each religion followed the creation of the religions. Its sort of hard to explain, however here is my best analogy I can give at the moment: you have a red ball in a box. You acquire four more boxes with different color balls inside, none of them red. You line these boxes up. Has the probability that the red ball exists changed? No.

 

It isn't correct why exactly? You keep talking like it's proven and undeniable that the catholic god exists. The way I understand your analogy is that each box contains different perspectives. Yes, the red ball still exists, but while you prefer the red ball, anoter will prefer the yellow ball. Yet another will prefer the blue ball and another will choose the green ball. People choose what to believe in. The red ball exists the same way the green, yellow and blue balls also exist.

 

 

 

What else could he have possibly meant by "On you I will build my Church?" Peter started the Catholic church. This is simple logic! Given that:

1.)Peter started the Catholic Church (which he did)

 

Causation is not correlation. Peter may or may not have started the catholic church. It also may or may not have been what Jesus wanted it to be. I'm pretty certain he'd have wanted a church that would approve of Mary Magdalene as well but the church denied it as they wanted to maintain Jesus's image of absolute holiness.

 

 

 

We were talking about different sections of the Bible, not about different religious texts. And of course people should be skeptical. Being skeptical is different from immediately denying something because you think its silly.

 

Except you're calling us silly when we're giving you reasons why we're sceptics. Not to mention you constantly feel under attack when I and several others are only here to discuss our opinions and how they contrast with yours. I'm pretty sure if there was hard evidence god exists, you wouldn't have so many "problems" here.

 

 

 

Then why argue with me about that? Hell I wish they could get along too. Don't send a bomb that someone else deserves at me just because you want to come out on top of an unrelated argument.

 

Like I said, I'm not attacking you. I'm discussing my opinion. I said what I said because I thought you might take the first part of my sentence as an attack on the credibility of the catholic church alone when I'm merely alluding to how it boils down to choice and no more than that. Turns out you took it as an attack anyways, that's why it's hard to discuss things with you and others alike.

 

 

 

Not the apostles. Peter CHOSE to fucking die upside down on a cross, which is known to be a longer death. If he was a self-centered bastard who only wanted power, he shouldn't have cared In what way he died. I highly doubt overthrowing Rome was his primary concern at that point. You run out of things to criticize so you start going to time wasting arguments like this.

 

Peter was one man among 12 others who wanted to lead people away from Rome's tyranny. Of course they would want to establish a society of their own to act in opposition of the Empire, not unlike the Rebel Alliance against the Galactic Empire. To some, like Peter, martyrdom was a way to demonstrate the people would not give themselves up to the Empire's rule and rather die fighting it. While they may or may not have been power-hungry, greedy monsters then, the organization they established eventually became just that.

 

 

 

So now because you don't see it as straightforward, its not straightforward.

 

No. I'm saying if god were straightforward, he would make himself easily understood by everyone, without exception, and we wouldn't be having a debate on which christian sect, forget which religion to begin with, is more credible than the other.

[Fluttermena 1,223]

I recently converted to the Dectrip Faith. Hail Inglip!

Seriously though, I'm an atheist. I do have a fascination with religion, but my interest is more anthropological than anything else.

 

I mean no offense, but I tend to look at religion in a somewhat lighthearted and sometimes comedic way. I find myself wondering how interesting it would be to live as a monk, or go to religious services purely for the cultural experience. I love roleplaying as a priest, monk or nun in games, or as a member of a wacky joke religion on the internet. Learning about religion or doing religious things is kind of a hobby to me, it's my way of playing "pretend".

 

@@John

@

@

 

I don't want to stir up more crap, but can you guys tone it down a little? This is getting rather mean-spirited. I know religion is a sensitive topic, but please don't get mean about it.

 

 

 

[John 793]

I recently converted to the Dectrip Faith. Hail Inglip!

Seriously though, I'm an atheist. I do have a fascination with religion, but my interest is more anthropological than anything else.

 

I mean no offense, but I tend to look at religion in a somewhat lighthearted and sometimes comedic way. I find myself wondering how interesting it would be to live as a monk, or go to religious services purely for the cultural experience. I love roleplaying as a priest, monk or nun in games, or as a member of a wacky joke religion on the internet. Learning about religion or doing religious things is kind of a hobby to me, it's my way of playing "pretend".

 

@@John

@

@

 

I don't want to stir up more crap, but can you guys tone it down a little? This is getting rather mean-spirited. I know religion is a sensitive topic, but please don't get mean about it.

 

292823__safe_fluttershy_poster_series_artist-colon-createvi.jpg

 

Treating religion as a game/joke doesn't make you sound intellectually superior and doesn't seem like an appropriate comment for someone who wants things to be "toned down."  -.-

Edited July 23, 2013 by John

[Galen 1,354]

I don't want to stir up more crap, but can you guys tone it down a little? This is getting rather mean-spirited. I know religion is a sensitive topic, but please don't get mean about it.

 

Well, I'm only here to discuss my viewpoint and why I find there to be little sense in Abrahamic religions overall in contention of other's views of their religion's absoluteness. My apologies if I came out as forceful during the exchange. The problem I seem to encounter here is some take said scepticism as an outright attack on their belief v_v

Edited July 23, 2013 by Freedan

[Fluttermena 1,223]

Treating religion as a game/joke doesn't make you sound intellectually superior and doesn't seem like an appropriate comment for someone who wants things to be "toned down."  -.-

 

There, that's exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about. I never claimed to be intellectually superior, and my attitude towards religion doesn't invalidate my views about the little flame war you guys are having, a flame war that you are keeping alive more than anyone else with your angry replies.

At least, by treating religion lightly, I don't end up getting all worked up over it and behaving like a jerk.

[John 793]

Well, I'm only here to discuss my viewpoint and why I find there to be little sense in Abrahamic religions overall in contention of other's views of their religion's absoluteness. My apologies if I came out as forceful during the exchange. The problem I seem to encounter here is some take said scepticism as an outright attack on their belief v_v

 

No, skepticism isn't the problem.  Besides, you don't know what its like as you really have no beliefs to defend.  Its about the way you choose to handle your skepticism.  Arguing on the side of being "skeptical" really gives you unlimited things to complain about within the religion.  That being said, you and many others choose to attack points that aren't worth attacking.  This makes the debate stressful as no matter how many things I can explain, you just move on to another topic.  Its endless.  

 

And at the end of the day I have to deal with people saying "Well, I'm just above religion so I take it as a joke." (Not necessarily talking about you, although you we're apparently pretty close to having this intention)  How am I supposed to respond to this?  It's like saying "The last few comments were a bit heated on sides A and B, but I'm going to now express my beliefs on how side A's opinions should be taken with a grain of salt."

 

If you want to bring peace, don't run into the middle of the battlefield carrying the enemy flag...

Except you're calling us silly when we're giving you reasons why we're sceptics. Not to mention you constantly feel under attack when I and several others are only here to discuss our opinions and how they contrast with yours. I'm pretty sure if there was hard evidence god exists, you wouldn't have so many "problems" here.

 

I love to hear people babble about "hard evidence" as if there's "hard evidence" that God doesn't exist.  We're past the point of Biblical literalism in the argument so don't give me that bull.  And If you really believe that your last comment was a respectful way to relay your beliefs than I don't know what to tell you.

Edited July 23, 2013 by John

[Galen 1,354]

No, skepticism isn't the problem. Besides, you don't know what its like as you really have no beliefs to defend. Its about the way you choose to handle your skepticism. Arguing on the side of being "skeptical" really gives you unlimited things to complain about within the religion. That being said, you and many others choose to attack points that aren't worth attacking. This makes the debate stressful as no matter how many things I can explain, you just move on to another topic. Its endless.

 

This is the other problem I encounter particularly with you. You're very prone to making assumptions about people you debate with, which makes it really easy for others to respond in similarly aggressive tones. I suppose I should give you a little context. You seem to have been speaking to me like I'm atheist when I've already mentioned I'm agnostic. I'm open to the possibility of a creator existing. I even may have alluded to having Buddhist beliefs when discussing Karma (tho that might have been in a private convo with someone else). So I actually do know a little something about protecting beliefs.

 

However, there's a difference between protecting it and keeping an open mind that there might be other possibilities out there, and I see you doing the latter. I didn't come here to attack anything, only to discuss, but the problem I see in you is that you define your self-identity rather strongly with the religion you follow. That is fine, but when others seem to have a different perspective of religion, you take it personally as if someone is directly insulting you. You say scepticism is fine but when someone expresses why, it's as if you're taking it as a personal insult. That's the problem. I'm not attacking anything. I'm pointing out those parts of scriptures which make no sense to me.

 

 

 

And at the end of the day I have to deal with people saying "Well, I'm just above religion so I take it as a joke." (Not necessarily talking about you, although you we're apparently pretty close to having this intention) How am I supposed to respond to this? It's like saying "The last few comments were a bit heated on sides A and B, but I'm going to now express my beliefs on how side A's opinions should be taken with a grain of salt."

 

Fluttermena never said he's above religion. He said he treats it lightly for himself and nothing else. Yet you're taking even that as an attack on you. Relax. There is NO reason to be upset.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Freedan

[Fluttermena 1,223]

And at the end of the day I have to deal with people saying "Well, I'm just above religion so I take it as a joke." 

 

I never said I was above religion, and I specifically said that I meant no offense. This is just my take on religion and I'm not stating that it is a joke as if that was an objective truth. I havent even made any attempts to question the validity of your beliefs.

If it wasn't clear, the first part of my original post was my answer to the thread: it wasn't directed at you, nor does it have anything to do with my opinions on religious debates.

[John 793]

There, that's exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about. I never claimed to be intellectually superior, and my attitude towards religion doesn't invalidate my views about the little flame war you guys are having, a flame war that you are keeping alive more than anyone else with your angry replies.

At least, by treating religion lightly, I don't end up getting all worked up over it and behaving like a jerk.

 

Yeah, do you know how it feels to have to do a 1 vs 5 debate by yourself with every single person blasting different types of deep philosophical questions at you daily and then to have to respond to each and every thing individually?  Then you come here and basically call my position a joke (Yeah, I know its your opinion and you probably didn't mean any harm and you just wanted to comment but jimmies were rustled.)  Here's Atheist number 6 ready to bombard me with questions today!

 

 

I never said I was above religion, and I specifically said that I meant no offense. This is just my take on religion and I'm not stating that it is a joke as if that was an objective truth. I havent even made any attempts to question the validity of your beliefs.

If it wasn't clear, the first part of my original post was my answer to the thread: it wasn't directed at you, nor does it have anything to do with my opinions on religious debates.

 

Yeah, like I said before, you probably didn't mean any harm and I'm sorry if my assumption offended you.  

 

Imagine having to fist fight five other gang members and then having a 6th gang member show up and say "Hey I'm just here to watch."

However, there's a difference between protecting it and keeping an open mind that there might be other possibilities out there, and I see you doing the latter. I didn't come here to attack anything, only to discuss, but the problem I see in you is that you define your self-identity rather strongly with the religion you follow. That is fine, but when others seem to have a different perspective of religion, you take it personally as if someone is directly insulting you. You say scepticism is fine but when someone expresses why, it's as if you're taking it as a personal insult. That's the problem. I'm not attacking anything. I'm pointing out those parts of scriptures which make no sense to me.

 

You comment as if you're the only person I've had to deal with in the past few days.  There was no one thing I became offended at, (unless we're talking about waaaayyy earlier when I was talking about the church's views on interpreting the Bible, where other people were assuming me to be a literalist.)

 

And don't expect me to have an open mind when nobody else has done the same on this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think anybody, even the smartest of people, have the mental capacity to simultaneously argue with five people on a variety of different topics per person.

Edited July 23, 2013 by John

[Galen 1,354]

 

 

Yeah, do you know how it feels to have to do a 1 vs 5 debate by yourself with every single person blasting different types of deep philosophical questions at you daily and then to have to respond to each and every thing individually? Then you come here and basically call my position a joke (Yeah, I know its your opinion and you probably didn't mean any harm and you just wanted to comment but jimmies were rustled.) Here's Atheist number 6 ready to bombard me with questions today!

 

Except he didn't call your position a joke. He said he takes religion less seriously than others. That shouldn't be a problem, especially as it wasn't a comment directed at you.

 

 

 

And don't expect me to have an open mind when nobody else has done the same on this thread.

 

Just because others act a certain why doesn't mean you should too. Just saying.

 

 

 

I don't think anybody, even the smartest of people, have the mental capacity to simultaneously argue with five people on a variety of different topics per person.

 

And I don't blame you. It's why I tend to just let things slide away and come back if I feel there's a need to or find interest in particular points.

[Fluttermena 1,223]

Yeah, like I said before, you probably didn't mean any harm and I'm sorry if my assumption offended you.  

 

Imagine having to fist fight five other gang members and then having a 6th gang member show up and say "Hey I'm just here to watch."

 

 And I'm sorry that my attitude towards religion offended you. I came here to try and stop the fistfight, not to sit by and watch. It just seemed like you were fighting with more uncontrolled anger than you opponents.

Believe me, I care about your happiness as much as I care about anyone else's.

 

[John 793]

Except he didn't call your position a joke. He said he takes religion less seriously than others. That shouldn't be a problem, especially as it wasn't a comment directed at you.

I already explained this in the comment above...

 

 

 

Just because others act a certain why doesn't mean you should too. Just saying.

Don't be a hypocrite.

 

 

 

And I don't blame you. It's why I tend to just let things slide away and come back if I feel there's a need to or find interest in particular points.

Well, you don't seem to have bolstered your understanding.  You instead find it more necessary to say that "just because others act a certain way doesn't mean you should" when I actually wasn't acting that way until very recently...

 

 

 

 And I'm sorry that my attitude towards religion offended you. I came here to try and stop the fistfight, not to sit by and watch. It just seemed like you were fighting with more uncontrolled anger than you opponents.

Believe me, I care about your happiness as much as I care about anyone else's.

 

Your opinion/attitude towards religion doesn't actually offend me.  It was the shear timing of it all that rustled my jimmies.

 

Edited July 23, 2013 by John

[Galen 1,354]

 

 

Don't be a hypocrite.

 

*Le sigh*

 

I've already stated I'm open to the possibility. I just haven't seen enough that can change my mind either from you or from anyone. In any case, I'm gonna leave this discussion before everyone starts accusing one another with actual insults.

[John 793]

*Le sigh*

 

I've already stated I'm open to the possibility. I just haven't seen enough that can change my mind either from you or from anyone. In any case, I'm gonna leave this discussion before everyone starts accusing one another with actual insults.

So have I stated the same thing before and there's no insults going around ATM.  There's nothing more to talk about until I get another response from an atheist who can't trust that his computer's in front of him out of the spirit of skepticism.

[Fluttermena 1,223]

Your opinion/attitude towards religion doesn't actually offend me.  It was the shear timing of it all that rustled my jimmies.

 

*sheer

In hindsight, I realise that trying to be neutral while simultaneously stating which side I agree with the most was counter-productive. Serves me right for being self-centered and sharing my opinions at the wrong moment instead of making it a priority to help people.

[John 793]

*sheer

In hindsight, I realise that trying to be neutral while simultaneously stating which side I agree with the most was counter-productive. Serves me right for being self-centered and sharing my opinions at the wrong moment instead of making it a priority to help people.

 

No, I jumped the fence and I already admitted that.  Don't milk it.  It was fine of you to make that post.  I just said "YOLO" and posted a quick response.  I suppose I channeled some of the frustration at you because you sort of "got in the way."  I apologize.

Edited July 23, 2013 by John

[Fluttermena 1,223]

No, I jumped the fence and I already admitted that.  Don't milk it. 

 

This reminds me of a joke where two guys want to enter a building and both of them want to be polite and let the other one go first. They end up getting so angry over the other's refusal to go first that they start a fight and beat each other up...

[Nuclear Neurotic 56]

Formerly Christian (no specific denomination as my family church hopped a lot. But my sister has settled upon Presbyterian.)

Deconverted, been an atheist for over a year now.

[--Thunder Bolt-- 534]

This type of reasoning is not the correct type to fit the situation due to the fact that we are dealing with an absolute.  This type of reasoning would work if the God's of each religion followed the creation of the religions.  Its sort of hard to explain, however here is my best analogy I can give at the moment:

 

you have a red ball in a box.

 

You acquire four more boxes with different color balls inside, none of them red.

 

You line these boxes up.

 

Has the probability that the red ball exists changed?  No.

 

  Here's how: First of all, the prior probability for any particular sect being the One, True Religion is already very low.

False.  Adding more fake apples into a pile of real apples doesn't make the probability of that apple being real any lower.  It only lowers the probability that someone would be able to pick the real apple blindly.

 

Yeah, that's what I was trying to communicate when I said that it lowers the prior probability of any particular Christian sect being true (i.e., any one picked blindly from the lot).  You said it better.  We are presented with a vast array of religions and sects thereof (Christian and non-Christian) and invited to pick out one of the lot as the One, True Faith.  They all have the exact same evidence: "People who rode around in chariots and thought diseases were caused by evil spirits said so!  Some of them even wrote books!"  We're also starting from a position of not knowing that any of them is true.  There's no guarantee of a winning lottery ticket.

 

Now let's add to the scenario the claim that the "red ball" (analogy: the real god/goddess/pantheon) can talk and say, "Hey!  Over here!  I'm in this box, just follow my voice!"  In this case, the red ball has the capacity to help people find it.  If we don't hear a red ball talking, we can rule out claims of a red ball that can talk, that knows we're here and wants us to find it.  Either there is no red ball, or the red ball is deliberately remaining silent, hiding among all the fakes.  So we have someone claiming there's a talking red ball, but talking red ball is choosing to make things look exactly the way they would if there was no talking red ball.  This ought to evoke a bit of epistemic suspicion, like claims that UFO's crash all the time, but the government hides all the evidence.

 

 

So now we move on to anticipated consequences.  If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible intelligent entity that wishes to communicate certain ideas to humanity, and if this entity desires that humans understand and accept a correct interpretation of these ideas, we can anticipate that such an entity would do an excellent job of achieving its ends.  You assume you understand this being's intentions. [John in red]

 

Here we go again.  John, you really need to try to slow down and take time when reading other people's posts before you get angry and start flailing away at something they didn't say.  The last time we got in a debate, I had to quote my own posts back to you twice and start resorting to 24-point text before it finally got through to you that we were arguing for the same side.  You didn't notice the italicized "ifs" in my post (I've made them somewhat easier to spot this time around), or the whole paragraph afterward where I discuss other possibilities that could arise if the "if" statements above aren't true. 

 

As I understand it, most Christians assert that Yahweh is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and infallible.  Do you disagree?  The vast majority of Christians I've communicated with assert that Yahweh "wishes to communicate certain ideas to humanity" such as his great, unfathomable love for us, the plan of salvation and set of right beliefs we must follow in order to be "saved," and the like.  Not all Christians agree with this though.  Calvinists assert that Yahweh only wants to relate to some people, whom he has predestined to come into the right set of beliefs, and for these people he does communicate his message infallibly and gain their adherence.  Others say that Yahweh hides so that we can have "free will" in choosing to believe in him or not (for which some of those Christians, but not you AFAICT say he will then punish us forever if we exercise it).

 

 

 

It doesn't fail to communicate because it is not fully attempting to communicate. It lets the people CHOOSE weather or not they want to try and communicate with it. Like I said in the hypothetical, if we were all 100% certain of this beings existence, it would have no ill deeds to judge us on.

 

That would be so unfortunate, if humans committed no ill deeds for Yahweh to judge us on!   Why do you think Yahweh is so keen on "judging humans" anyway?  Is that really worth the Holocaust?

 

 

We would all be lying about our perfections just to get on this beings good side.

 

Do you think that would work with your concept of Yahweh?

 

 

What would be the point of living then? People would commit acts of kindness and generosity just to buy their way into heaven.

 

Do you think that they don't?  What's the point of a narrative that says "Believe and/or do the right things and you get to go to a perfect paradise forever after you die; if you don't, it's everlasting hellfire!" if not to provide a system of incentives and sanctions to manipulate behavior?  Now, I'm guessing that you don't believe in that narrative, and IIRC you've said you don't believe in everlasting fiery torment (please correct me if I'm wrong), but that narrative has been pretty common in Christianities over the last couple thousand years--plus Islam as well.  If the real God hides itself to prevent such a thing from taking place as you suggest above, wouldn't that be an argument against Christianity (and Islam)? 

 

1. The New Testament and the Quran contain passages promising Heaven as Yahweh's/Allah's reward for right belief/right behavior and threatening Hell as his punishment for wrong belief/wrong behavior.

 

2. The real God refrains from making his presence known so that people will not act morally just to gain reward and avoid punishment.

 

3. Therefore, the real God is not Yahweh as portrayed in the New Testament or Allah as portrayed in the Quran.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Due to the fact that we are NOT 100% certain of this God because it chooses not to communicate with us to the point of overexposing itself, committing acts of good show our true characters. The deity can now see these acts as being meaningful instead of forced. Doubt allows us to show true selflessness.

 

So how do you know this being's intentions?  Especially in such fine detail?

 

 

 

What else could he have possibly meant by "On you I will build my Church?" Peter started the Catholic church. This is simple logic! Given that: 1.)Peter started the Catholic Church (which he did) 2.)Jesus said he will build his Church metaphorically on Peter. 3.) Jesus's Church is the Catholic church.

 

You're just making assertions.  "The Catholic Church" didn't exist until centuries after Peter (assuming he was a historical figure) was dead.  Prior to that point there were local Christian communities with different viewpoints and different sacred texts.  The first person to propose a "New Testament" canon was Marcion, who rejected the Hebrew Scriptures and taught that Yahweh was an evil Archon who tried to usurp worship from the real God, the "Father" Jesus spoke of.  This is not Catholic doctrine.  True, the Catholics won out eventually, more or less stamping out the Gnostics, Arians, Ebionites, and other Christianities over the centuries, but that doesn't prove that their version of Christianity is a perfectly-accurate representation of the views of Jesus or Peter any more than the success of the Protestant Reformation proves that Jesus was a Lutheran.

 

 

 

Don't avoid the topic. So why then, given that many of these motivations are unknown, seem to follow that they were all selfish motivations? You tend to argue around the topic until is changes and then I can't get a point across.

 

Once again, reading comprehension.  Here's the original comment you're responding to:

 

Instead, all claims to knowledge of a One, True Religion and a One, True Priesthood and/or Holy Book(s) come out of the mouths or pens of plain old, ordinary human beings (usually men) who often stand to gain a great deal of wealth, power, and status if their claims are accepted.

 

First of all, notice that I'm talking very broadly about claims to knowledge of a One, True Religion and a One, True Priesthood, including all the ones you think are false.  Not just you and yours.  Second, I stated that these men often (which means: not always, but frequently) stand to gain wealth, power and status once they're accepted as the One True Priesthood of the One True Religion.  Do you really disagree with this?  Would you say that Imams don't benefit from having the power to issue a fatwa and have their followers treat it as law?  Would you say that Aztec priests received no benefit from being the sole spokesmen of the gods?  How about the Pharaohs and the high priests at Karnak?  Don't you think that anyone looking at priestly establishments like that ought to at least wonder if, just maybe, the men claiming to be conduits to the Divine might have ordinary human incentives to do so?  In the context of my comment, I was talking about priestly establishments, i.e. the phrase "One True Priesthood," people in a position to canonize a text as "the" "Holy Book." 

 

A poor fisherman, with nothing but a staff and a cloak to his name, wandering the highways and byways of the Roman Empire doesn't exactly fit the profile.  Wealthy priests, claiming to be the poor fisherman's rightful successors, who sit on golden thrones and advise heads of state (or in the case of their predecessors, order heads of state around), do.  This doesn't prove that Catholicism is false, but its Popes and Cardinals do have some things in common with all those other wealthy, powerful, high-status priesthoods, don't they? 

 

 

 

You do realize that this God could have wanted all of the laws of physics and constants to be just right? This God could have also wanted the speed of light to be what it is. If this we're the case, is this God not being efficient with the expansion of the Universe? If the God were to change the laws of physics to speed up his creation time like he's in some sort of race, these laws would have effected the way the Universe operates and may have prevented life.

 

You criticize me for applying concepts of efficiency and time to God (even if he's "eternal" or whatever, the 14 billion years of pre-human history is unnecessary if the humans are his purpose and he has the power to create a viable human-habitat in some shorter period, like seven days), yet you subject him to physics.  Well, physics includes time.  Do you mean to say that your conception of Yahweh couldn't have created a fully-formed Cosmos ex nihilo as described in the Book of Genesis because physics would have made that impossible ("these laws would have effected the way the Universe operates and may have prevented life")?  If so, then Yahweh is subject to physics, and time.  You can say that the Cosmos we observe is the most elegant and efficient way Yahweh had to produce humans, but then that means he is not omnipotent.  If he is not omnipotent, then the conditional statement ("If an omnimax deity wanted to create a Cosmos as a habitat for humans...") that you were responding to would not apply.

 

Aside:

 

@@Fluttermena,

 

When I embiggen and bold the "ifs" and "ands" as I'm doing here, please understand that I'm not doing it to be mean to John.  I'm doing it because his replies show that he actually doesn't see the conditional statements in my posts.  I want him to see them so that he will reply to things I'm actually saying instead of reading absolutist claims in their place.  This should not be interpreted to imply that I think he's stupid or anything like that.  I don't think John is stupid.  AFAICT, he is an intelligent and decent human being.  Unless he's an intelligent and decent pony communicating with us through trans-Portal wifi.   It's just that, for some reason, he doesn't see it when I'm making a conditional statement in this debate.

 

/Aside

 

 

 

1. You will notice that I tend to use phraseology like "Jesus is portrayed saying/doing" or "as portrayed in the Gospels" and the like instead of "Jesus said/did." This is because, for various reasons that are probably outside the scope of this post or thread, I think that that Jesus was most likely not a historical man who started Christianity. I think he was originally viewed by the earliest believers as a wholly spiritual divine intermediary between the divine and human realms,

 

What the fuck? Talk about making assumptions.

 

It's not an "assumption."  First of all, it's something I "think" is "likely."  That's not the same thing.  Second, my tentative conclusion in this direction is the result of reading a lot of material on both sides of the historicist-mythicist debate (the question of whether or not Jesus was a historical man).  To fully explain the hypothesis I'm talking about, much less explain the evidence and arguments for both sides and why I think the mythicist side seems more probable would require a whole long post in itself if not a book, on a subject that is OT for this thread.  That's why it's explained briefly in a footnote. 

 

 

a "divine man" conceived in the framework of the Mystery Schools, more like Osiris or Mithras than, say, Socrates or Diogenes. How the hell are Osiris and Socrates related? The closest contemporary analogy would be a "channeled entity" like Ramtha or Seth or the "Jesus" who putatively dictated A Course in Miracles. This is not a mainstream position, but in this case I do not think the mainstream is correct. My idiosyncratic phraseology Please, avoid pseudo-intellectual phrases. There are more efficient ways to relay your opinions.

 

Please explain how attacking my choice of vocabulary furthers this discussion.

 

 

 

a "divine man" conceived in the framework of the Mystery Schools, more like Osiris or Mithras than, say, Socrates or Diogenes. How the hell are Osiris and Socrates related?

 

Reading.  Comprehension.  I was contrasting figures like Osiris and Mithras (Mystery School god-men who were not historical figures) against (probably) historical human teachers, indicating that I think Jesus probably belongs in the category with Osiris and Mithras, rather than the category with Socrates and Diogenes.

 

 

 

I feel like you snuck this last passage in just to make a statement that you don't believe that Jesus existed. We have enough to argue about, and most atheists at least acknowledge that he was a man. So...

 

John, please stop with the attempted telepathy.  I explained exactly why I put that note there in plain text.  When you say "Jesus said" X, you mean that you believe that a real man named Jesus, on Earth, actually said X.  If I cited a Gospel passage that quotes Jesus and said "Jesus said" X [what's quoted in the passage], I would be misleading you as to what I actually think.  Why?  Because belief in a historical Jesus is the more well-known position, and you (and everyone else on the thread) would come to the "obvious" conclusion that I think an actual Jesus actually said X.  Confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought.

 

You're quite right that we have enough to argue about, and the mythicist/historicist debate is OT for this thread.  That's why I put it in a footnote as a brief explanation instead of, you know, trying to make a case for the mythicist position.  And that's why I'm not going to try to make a case for it now, or offer any links to supporting materials.  Unless you ask.

Edited July 23, 2013 by InvisiblePinkUnicorn

[Sky Warden 2,243]

Hey, you guys. Easy.

 

 

 

 

"Believe and/or do the right things and you get to go to a perfect paradise forever after you die; if you don't, it's everlasting hellfire!"

 

It's just a figurative language. ._.

 

 

I... I don't know. From the title it seems like this thread simply asks about what is your religion and why did you choose it, so I don't think that religion debate is... well, whatever.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Aerial Stream

[. eris . 1,661]

Overwhelmingly atheist population, I see. Oh well. I'm a born-again Christian, if you couldn't tell. Basically a peace & zen thing, love everyone regardless of anything. xD Sometimes that's hard to do, though, but I certainly try.

[MLPForums Phanact 1,374]

Overwhelmingly atheist population, I see. Oh well. I'm a born-again Christian, if you couldn't tell. Basically a peace & zen thing, love everyone regardless of anything. xD Sometimes that's hard to do, though, but I certainly try.

 

It's a shame the rest of the chrisitan population don't follow what you do D: I seem to meet the "HOMOSEXUALS, WOMEN, ABORTIONS, DRUGS, RAWR RAWR RAWR FIRE DEATH HELL" kind of christians all the time. It might just be where I live though. GG England.