What would it take for you to believe in God?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
To claim that even a single statement in the bible is "verifyably truthful" demonstrates utter and complete ignorance and denial of the fact the the entire bible is a fictional tool created expressly for the purposes of societal mind control and governance by a group of people who sought power and dominance of their moral beliefs.

Just like our forefathers who wrote the constitution are the founders of our contry, these people were the founders of modern religion...except their work is not subject to amendment and rational discussion, as is our constitution.

Yes, a great deal is about emotional control. This isn't hard to understand, just look at the violence of the human animal! It you tell people that their lives are pointless or that their Gods hate them (consider the Aztec beliefs on this point), things can get very ugly in a hurry. IMO it's practically a "miracle" that the human race has made it this far, but OTOH we have certainly progressed a long way.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

Not that you need or want my affirmation, but I agree with everything except the bolded point.

I can think of no better way to live one's life than by the Golden Rule, Love thy Neighbor as thyself, and other such precepts laid down by the Teacher. Granted, it is not unique in this among the ancient texts, but from the philosophical standpoint, it is still a wealth of rich and helpful information.

There is certainly a wealth of information and philisophical tenets worth considering, but considered as a whole I find it a much more insidious text. People without the necessary faculties to consider the philosophy and nothing else are often left with a sense of mystical paranoia. Strictly followed, much of it seems to encumber the mind rather than enable it. You could easily find thousands of examples of this, and it manifests itself in various ways.

Anyway, this argument alone could probably go on for quite some time. There are far better texts for philisophical and moral (something that many people seem to always assume wouldn't exist without such doctrine) virtue.

That's just my opinion of course.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Third, proselytizers do bother me when they try to bend society's laws in their favour. Maybe you'd enjoy a theocracy, but I know I sure as hell won't.

Proselytizers, evangelicals, and other religionists are far from the only ones guilty of that offense. It seems like almost everyone has an agenda to use society's laws in order to screw their neighbor. I don't single out certain groups while turning a blind eye to others when it comes to that offense. Neither should you. I wouldn't enjoy a communism anymore than I would a theocracy.

I think you're having trouble distinguishing between what's real and what isn't. Examples:
- nutcases promoting intelligent design: real
- nutcases banning gay marriage because it offends their religion: real
- armies of godless atheists seeking a communist revolution... not real.

Really?

And what about the drug prohibition? Its very basis is in the Protestant ethic ("How dare anyone do anything but work?"), yet I never hear of any atheists talking about repealing it (except for cannabis on rare occasions). It's done more damage than anything else to this nation, driven by fearmongering nutcases who would make this country into a lockdown prison if they thought that would stop people from abusing illegal drugs (prescription drugs OTOH are just fine), and yet you're more worried about distractions like intelligent design and gay marriage.
Who's the nutcases?

Wow, you're being serious about that. I suppose your understanding of history hasn't made it past junior high school...

Now I don't know why you're bringing up drugs. You'll never hear atheists talking about much of anything, since they have no organizations like churches (nor can they ever have anything like them). Atheism is not a religion with values, if people wanted to repeal drug laws, they'd join NORML or something, not an atheist association.

Third, you have a nice little romanticized view of religions people, and that's keeping you from seeing how dangerous something some ID is. It is nothing less than trying to stop human scientific and technological progress because a bunch of retarded wackjobs find it offensive.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: sao123
I personally hope that one of these expeditions to the mountains find Noah's Ark or the Ark of the covenant or any of several other historical artifacts just to shut all the nay sayers about the bible not being a reliable historical source.

So, let's say they find remnants of a boat in the mountain or some case they decide to call the covenant. What exactly would that prove to you?

 

[BigJ]

Turning light beer into Newcastle.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

Not that you need or want my affirmation, but I agree with everything except the bolded point.

I can think of no better way to live one's life than by the Golden Rule, Love thy Neighbor as thyself, and other such precepts laid down by the Teacher. Granted, it is not unique in this among the ancient texts, but from the philosophical standpoint, it is still a wealth of rich and helpful information.

There is certainly a wealth of information and philisophical tenets worth considering, but considered as a whole I find it a much more insidious text. People without the necessary faculties to consider the philosophy and nothing else are often left with a sense of mystical paranoia. Strictly followed, much of it seems to encumber the mind rather than enable it. You could easily find thousands of examples of this, and it manifests itself in various ways.

Anyway, this argument alone could probably go on for quite some time. There are far better texts for philisophical and moral (something that many people seem to always assume wouldn't exist without such doctrine) virtue.

That's just my opinion of course.

If you can cite better texts for such purposes than the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, I invite you do so. There aren't any that I am aware of.
Of course the compilation of texts we know as the Bible is not perfect taken as whole, but what is?
I can't accept your the-knife-is-too-sharp-for-the-children-they-might-cut-themselves argument.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Third, proselytizers do bother me when they try to bend society's laws in their favour. Maybe you'd enjoy a theocracy, but I know I sure as hell won't.

Proselytizers, evangelicals, and other religionists are far from the only ones guilty of that offense. It seems like almost everyone has an agenda to use society's laws in order to screw their neighbor. I don't single out certain groups while turning a blind eye to others when it comes to that offense. Neither should you. I wouldn't enjoy a communism anymore than I would a theocracy.

I think you're having trouble distinguishing between what's real and what isn't. Examples:
- nutcases promoting intelligent design: real
- nutcases banning gay marriage because it offends their religion: real
- armies of godless atheists seeking a communist revolution... not real.

Really?

And what about the drug prohibition? Its very basis is in the Protestant ethic ("How dare anyone do anything but work?"), yet I never hear of any atheists talking about repealing it (except for cannabis on rare occasions). It's done more damage than anything else to this nation, driven by fearmongering nutcases who would make this country into a lockdown prison if they thought that would stop people from abusing illegal drugs (prescription drugs OTOH are just fine), and yet you're more worried about distractions like intelligent design and gay marriage.
Who's the nutcases?

Wow, you're being serious about that. I suppose your understanding of history hasn't made it past junior high school...

Now I don't know why you're bringing up drugs. You'll never hear atheists talking about much of anything, since they have no organizations like churches (nor can they ever have anything like them). Atheism is not a religion with values, if people wanted to repeal drug laws, they'd join NORML or something, not an atheist association.

Third, you have a nice little romanticized view of religions people, and that's keeping you from seeing how dangerous something some ID is. It is nothing less than trying to stop human scientific and technological progress because a bunch of retarded wackjobs find it offensive.

I'm having a hard time see the difference between you or them as whackjobs is what it is, Martin. You seem to think that because you've given yourself a certain label, and are living your life vicariously through that label, that that makes you better that those people who you attribute a different label to.

And my understanding of history hasn't made it past junior high school? :roll: You can fsck off with that one. 100 million people died last century to communism with a billion-plus more enslaved, and you say that that is no threat? Clearly your own faith causes you to pick and choose what you interpret just as bad as with any fundamentalist.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

Not that you need or want my affirmation, but I agree with everything except the bolded point.

I can think of no better way to live one's life than by the Golden Rule, Love thy Neighbor as thyself, and other such precepts laid down by the Teacher. Granted, it is not unique in this among the ancient texts, but from the philosophical standpoint, it is still a wealth of rich and helpful information.

There is certainly a wealth of information and philisophical tenets worth considering, but considered as a whole I find it a much more insidious text. People without the necessary faculties to consider the philosophy and nothing else are often left with a sense of mystical paranoia. Strictly followed, much of it seems to encumber the mind rather than enable it. You could easily find thousands of examples of this, and it manifests itself in various ways.

Anyway, this argument alone could probably go on for quite some time. There are far better texts for philisophical and moral (something that many people seem to always assume wouldn't exist without such doctrine) virtue.

That's just my opinion of course.

If you can cite better texts for such purposes than the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, I invite you do so. There aren't any that I am aware of.
Of course the compilation of texts we know as the Bible is not perfect taken as whole, but what is?
I can't accept your the-knife-is-too-sharp-for-the-children-they-might-cut-themselves argument.

Pursuing this argument will take a long time, so I won't jump into it too heavy.

I look at religious ideas like any other, and memetically speaking, (speaking in terms of memes; not sure memetically is even a word) there has to be a means by which these ideas pervade society and the individual. With no means of cognitive motility, ideas simply don't last.

So, my primary objection is that the motility of the Bible's memes is that of eternal consequence. Believe this or <insert some consequence here>. This can lead to a constant sense of metaphysical/mystical paranoia, whereby people are constantly worries that they're in conflict with these memes. I know people that put themselves through a fair degree of self torture (fasting to the point of dehydration, for example) simply to reduce that conflict.

The reality is that most people cannot separate the philosophy from everything else. I would be willing to bet that most of the people reading the use of philosophy in this context hadn't even considered it as such.

I could cite hundreds of books that I believe serve as a far superior philisophical foundation, but I'm no scholar and I don't have the time. I would consider Hindu philosophy as a solid foundation, because quite honestly it has a very basic structure that tends to correspond to some of the ideas presented before and during the Enlightenment, a period of transition from mysticism and materialism to rationalism. For those, I'd recommend the Vedas, Gita, etc. Post-Aristotelian Western Philosophy could then occupy a lifetime of internal thought. I find that my own philisophical considerations tends to align with what Descartes wished to achieve.

Sorry for detracting from the thread.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Pursuing this argument will take a long time, so I won't jump into it too heavy.

I look at religious ideas like any other, and memetically speaking, (speaking in terms of memes; not sure memetically is even a word) there has to be a means by which these ideas pervade society and the individual. With no means of cognitive motility, ideas simply don't last.

So, my primary objection is that the motility of the Bible's memes is that of eternal consequence. Believe this or <insert some consequence here>. This can lead to a constant sense of metaphysical/mystical paranoia, whereby people are constantly worries that they're in conflict with these memes. I know people that put themselves through a fair degree of self torture (fasting to the point of dehydration, for example) simply to reduce that conflict.

The reality is that most people cannot separate the philosophy from everything else. I would be willing to bet that most of the people reading the use of philosophy in this context hadn't even considered it as such.

I could cite hundreds of books that I believe serve as a far superior philisophical foundation, but I'm no scholar and I don't have the time. I would consider Hindu philosophy as a solid foundation, because quite honestly it has a very basic structure that tends to correspond to some of the ideas presented before and during the Enlightenment, a period of transition from mysticism and materialism to rationalism. For those, I'd recommend the Vegas, Gita, etc. Post-Aristotelian Western Philosophy could then occupy a lifetime of internal thought. I find that my own philisophical considerations tends to align with what Descartes wished to achieve.

Sorry for detracting from the thread.

I don't see the detraction, nor I think would the OP.

I can't disagree with you, other than to say I've read those other texts and they are not perfect either. Certainly the Vedas and the Gita contain more than their fair share of mysticism (beyond that of the Bible even I would say).
It is true that an obsession with "salvation" as described in the NT could lead one to a kind of disfunctional paranoia (or more likely, an anxious obsession with perfection, possibly leading to psychological depression), however, it is not unique in this either, and the difficulty comes more from interpretation than anything else as the text itself repeatedly warns against this (for example, Matthew 7:9-12).

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

Not that you need or want my affirmation, but I agree with everything except the bolded point.

I can think of no better way to live one's life than by the Golden Rule, Love thy Neighbor as thyself, and other such precepts laid down by the Teacher. Granted, it is not unique in this among the ancient texts, but from the philosophical standpoint, it is still a wealth of rich and helpful information.

There is certainly a wealth of information and philisophical tenets worth considering, but considered as a whole I find it a much more insidious text. People without the necessary faculties to consider the philosophy and nothing else are often left with a sense of mystical paranoia. Strictly followed, much of it seems to encumber the mind rather than enable it. You could easily find thousands of examples of this, and it manifests itself in various ways.

Anyway, this argument alone could probably go on for quite some time. There are far better texts for philisophical and moral (something that many people seem to always assume wouldn't exist without such doctrine) virtue.

That's just my opinion of course.

If you can cite better texts for such purposes than the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, I invite you do so. There aren't any that I am aware of.
Of course the compilation of texts we know as the Bible is not perfect taken as whole, but what is?
I can't accept your the-knife-is-too-sharp-for-the-children-they-might-cut-themselves argument.

Pursuing this argument will take a long time, so I won't jump into it too heavy.

I look at religious ideas like any other, and memetically speaking, (speaking in terms of memes; not sure memetically is even a word) there has to be a means by which these ideas pervade society and the individual. With no means of cognitive motility, ideas simply don't last.

So, my primary objection is that the motility of the Bible's memes is that of eternal consequence. Believe this or <insert some consequence here>. This can lead to a constant sense of metaphysical/mystical paranoia, whereby people are constantly worries that they're in conflict with these memes. I know people that put themselves through a fair degree of self torture (fasting to the point of dehydration, for example) simply to reduce that conflict.

The reality is that most people cannot separate the philosophy from everything else. I would be willing to bet that most of the people reading the use of philosophy in this context hadn't even considered it as such.

I could cite hundreds of books that I believe serve as a far superior philisophical foundation, but I'm no scholar and I don't have the time. I would consider Hindu philosophy as a solid foundation, because quite honestly it has a very basic structure that tends to correspond to some of the ideas presented before and during the Enlightenment, a period of transition from mysticism and materialism to rationalism. For those, I'd recommend the Vedas, Gita, etc. Post-Aristotelian Western Philosophy could then occupy a lifetime of internal thought. I find that my own philisophical considerations tends to align with what Descartes wished to achieve.

Sorry for detracting from the thread.

-5 for trying to use R Dawkins awkward meaningless jargon FTL...

The Bible is not meant to be a book of personal philosophy on how to be a good person. The book demonstribly is a guide on how to pleasethe christian God.
There are lots of books which can tell you how to be a good person, but just being a good person is insufficient.

The Bible is meant to be controversial and divisive. It calls you to step out of the every day world and step into something better, the spiritual path to pleasing YAHWEH.
The new convenant completes & fulfills the old one. It does not contradict it nor remove it.

And since everyone else can quote the bible... I shall post my favorite here also...

1 Corinthians 1:18-31

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things?and the things that are not?to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God?that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."[d]

The things we think we know is exactly that... nothing.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Third, proselytizers do bother me when they try to bend society's laws in their favour. Maybe you'd enjoy a theocracy, but I know I sure as hell won't.

Proselytizers, evangelicals, and other religionists are far from the only ones guilty of that offense. It seems like almost everyone has an agenda to use society's laws in order to screw their neighbor. I don't single out certain groups while turning a blind eye to others when it comes to that offense. Neither should you. I wouldn't enjoy a communism anymore than I would a theocracy.

I think you're having trouble distinguishing between what's real and what isn't. Examples:
- nutcases promoting intelligent design: real
- nutcases banning gay marriage because it offends their religion: real
- armies of godless atheists seeking a communist revolution... not real.

Really?

And what about the drug prohibition? Its very basis is in the Protestant ethic ("How dare anyone do anything but work?"), yet I never hear of any atheists talking about repealing it (except for cannabis on rare occasions). It's done more damage than anything else to this nation, driven by fearmongering nutcases who would make this country into a lockdown prison if they thought that would stop people from abusing illegal drugs (prescription drugs OTOH are just fine), and yet you're more worried about distractions like intelligent design and gay marriage.
Who's the nutcases?

Wow, you're being serious about that. I suppose your understanding of history hasn't made it past junior high school...

Now I don't know why you're bringing up drugs. You'll never hear atheists talking about much of anything, since they have no organizations like churches (nor can they ever have anything like them). Atheism is not a religion with values, if people wanted to repeal drug laws, they'd join NORML or something, not an atheist association.

Third, you have a nice little romanticized view of religions people, and that's keeping you from seeing how dangerous something some ID is. It is nothing less than trying to stop human scientific and technological progress because a bunch of retarded wackjobs find it offensive.

I'm having a hard time see the difference between you or them as whackjobs is what it is, Martin. You seem to think that because you've given yourself a certain label, and are living your life vicariously through that label, that that makes you better that those people who you attribute a different label to.

And my understanding of history hasn't made it past junior high school? :roll: You can fsck off with that one. 100 million people died last century to communism with a billion-plus more enslaved, and you say that that is no threat? Clearly your own faith causes you to pick and choose what you interpret just as bad as with any fundamentalist.

Yeah, I really don't fall of the whole "everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's and you can't question them because its intolerant". As if political correctness and religiosity weren't bad enough enough on their own, someone thought they'd combine them. I was driving past my old high school a few weeks and and saw a slogan on the announcements board that said "Doubt you doubts, not your beliefs". I thought it was very fitting phrase for this repulsive new alliance.

At this point I'd like to remind you the topic is atheism and when you try to bring communism like that, it does show a truly remarkable lack of understanding. I'm sure you can recall lots dates and figures, unfortunately those are meaningless unless you can appreciate their causes and consequences.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

Not that you need or want my affirmation, but I agree with everything except the bolded point.

I can think of no better way to live one's life than by the Golden Rule, Love thy Neighbor as thyself, and other such precepts laid down by the Teacher. Granted, it is not unique in this among the ancient texts, but from the philosophical standpoint, it is still a wealth of rich and helpful information.

There is certainly a wealth of information and philisophical tenets worth considering, but considered as a whole I find it a much more insidious text. People without the necessary faculties to consider the philosophy and nothing else are often left with a sense of mystical paranoia. Strictly followed, much of it seems to encumber the mind rather than enable it. You could easily find thousands of examples of this, and it manifests itself in various ways.

Anyway, this argument alone could probably go on for quite some time. There are far better texts for philisophical and moral (something that many people seem to always assume wouldn't exist without such doctrine) virtue.

That's just my opinion of course.

If you can cite better texts for such purposes than the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, I invite you do so. There aren't any that I am aware of.
Of course the compilation of texts we know as the Bible is not perfect taken as whole, but what is?
I can't accept your the-knife-is-too-sharp-for-the-children-they-might-cut-themselves argument.

Pursuing this argument will take a long time, so I won't jump into it too heavy.

I look at religious ideas like any other, and memetically speaking, (speaking in terms of memes; not sure memetically is even a word) there has to be a means by which these ideas pervade society and the individual. With no means of cognitive motility, ideas simply don't last.

So, my primary objection is that the motility of the Bible's memes is that of eternal consequence. Believe this or <insert some consequence here>. This can lead to a constant sense of metaphysical/mystical paranoia, whereby people are constantly worries that they're in conflict with these memes. I know people that put themselves through a fair degree of self torture (fasting to the point of dehydration, for example) simply to reduce that conflict.

The reality is that most people cannot separate the philosophy from everything else. I would be willing to bet that most of the people reading the use of philosophy in this context hadn't even considered it as such.

I could cite hundreds of books that I believe serve as a far superior philisophical foundation, but I'm no scholar and I don't have the time. I would consider Hindu philosophy as a solid foundation, because quite honestly it has a very basic structure that tends to correspond to some of the ideas presented before and during the Enlightenment, a period of transition from mysticism and materialism to rationalism. For those, I'd recommend the Vedas, Gita, etc. Post-Aristotelian Western Philosophy could then occupy a lifetime of internal thought. I find that my own philisophical considerations tends to align with what Descartes wished to achieve.

Sorry for detracting from the thread.

-5 for trying to use R Dawkins awkward meaningless jargon FTL...

:roll: Sometimes I hate Dawkins. Now anyone that has anything to say they ignorants will immediately say, "Stop trying to be like Dawkins."

My endeavors began long, long before Dawkins went on his most recent diatribe binge. You'll probably find very similar comments of mine in threads from many years ago on these forums alone.

The Bible is not meant to be a book of personal philosophy on how to be a good person.

Who said it was? Vic and I were discussing it as a valid philisophical treatise. Whether you disagree with that or not isn't what's at issue.

The book demonstribly is a guide on how to pleasethe christian God.

Which was precisely my point in my reply to Vic. People like you fail to see it for anything but such a guide.

There are lots of books which can tell you how to be a good person, but just being a good person is insufficient.

So you say. I'm not going to argue this as it's merely going to result in your references to scripture and personal opinions on how people should be. Living my life is plenty sufficient.

The Bible is meant to be controversial and divisive. It calls you to step out of the every day world and step into something better, the spiritual path to pleasing YAHWEH.
The new convenant completes & fulfills the old one. It does not contradict it nor remove it.

Yikes. I'll leave that one alone.

And since everyone else can quote the bible... I shall post my favorite here also...

1 Corinthians 1:18-31

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things?and the things that are not?to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God?that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."[d]

The things we think we know is exactly that... nothing.

Ahh, it all makes sense now. I'm mistaken and I've seen the light. Wasn't it the Apostle Paul who said that? The comment "wise by the world's standards" is an oft-quoted (I've quoted it myself in fact) but oft-misunderstood statement.

 

[Ramma2]

If there is a god he should come down here and tell us if the plane takes off or not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Third, proselytizers do bother me when they try to bend society's laws in their favour. Maybe you'd enjoy a theocracy, but I know I sure as hell won't.

Proselytizers, evangelicals, and other religionists are far from the only ones guilty of that offense. It seems like almost everyone has an agenda to use society's laws in order to screw their neighbor. I don't single out certain groups while turning a blind eye to others when it comes to that offense. Neither should you. I wouldn't enjoy a communism anymore than I would a theocracy.

I think you're having trouble distinguishing between what's real and what isn't. Examples:
- nutcases promoting intelligent design: real
- nutcases banning gay marriage because it offends their religion: real
- armies of godless atheists seeking a communist revolution... not real.

Really?

And what about the drug prohibition? Its very basis is in the Protestant ethic ("How dare anyone do anything but work?"), yet I never hear of any atheists talking about repealing it (except for cannabis on rare occasions). It's done more damage than anything else to this nation, driven by fearmongering nutcases who would make this country into a lockdown prison if they thought that would stop people from abusing illegal drugs (prescription drugs OTOH are just fine), and yet you're more worried about distractions like intelligent design and gay marriage.
Who's the nutcases?

Wow, you're being serious about that. I suppose your understanding of history hasn't made it past junior high school...

Now I don't know why you're bringing up drugs. You'll never hear atheists talking about much of anything, since they have no organizations like churches (nor can they ever have anything like them). Atheism is not a religion with values, if people wanted to repeal drug laws, they'd join NORML or something, not an atheist association.

Third, you have a nice little romanticized view of religions people, and that's keeping you from seeing how dangerous something some ID is. It is nothing less than trying to stop human scientific and technological progress because a bunch of retarded wackjobs find it offensive.

I'm having a hard time see the difference between you or them as whackjobs is what it is, Martin. You seem to think that because you've given yourself a certain label, and are living your life vicariously through that label, that that makes you better that those people who you attribute a different label to.

And my understanding of history hasn't made it past junior high school? :roll: You can fsck off with that one. 100 million people died last century to communism with a billion-plus more enslaved, and you say that that is no threat? Clearly your own faith causes you to pick and choose what you interpret just as bad as with any fundamentalist.

Yeah, I really don't fall of the whole "everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's and you can't question them because its intolerant". As if political correctness and religiosity weren't bad enough enough on their own, someone thought they'd combine them. I was driving past my old high school a few weeks and and saw a slogan on the announcements board that said "Doubt you doubts, not your beliefs". I thought it was very fitting phrase for this repulsive new alliance.

At this point I'd like to remind you the topic is atheism and when you try to bring communism like that, it does show a truly remarkable lack of understanding. I'm sure you can recall lots dates and figures, unfortunately those are meaningless unless you can appreciate their causes and consequences.

It is the nature of every form of collectivist thought that it requires its individual adherents to accept a known and obvious fallacy as a rite of passage and badge of identification. It is in this fashion that collectivists expose their particular group-thought identity almost like a secret lodge handshake. Equally, the acceptance of the fallacy has to be invisible to the adherent so as to demonstrate absolute allegiance to the collective group. In communism, among those fallacies is that religion is the cause of all wars, and that purging religion from humanity is necessary to save humanity from itself, or that science firmly disproves all religious concepts. Those who bring that up expose themselves for what they are. There was no lack of understanding.

Don't get me wrong. The religionists have their own fallacies to be sure. Things like a "literal" interpretation of the Bible (just WTF is that?), or the use of the Bible itself to validate the Bible (i.e. the logic loop), etc.

Maybe this will help you understand why I address P&N the way I do. As far as I'm concerned, Dems and Pubs are far more alike than they are disparate. And of course, except for the self-attributed labels, they are.

 

[Descartes]

Somehow I double posted...

 

[saiku]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
I don't even need the gold. I want the son of a bitch to show up and explain the killing, raping, pedophilia, torture and wars that his followers claim were done for him, in his name and with his approval,

AMEN to that !

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth
I'm not wrong.

Yeah. :roll:

I'm sure in your eyes, that's true. Continue believing what you wish and saying what you want. It's only you that is looking stupid. That doesn't hurt my feelings any.

 

[50cent1228]

but what if they find the holy grail

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes
Pursuing this argument will take a long time, so I won't jump into it too heavy.

I look at religious ideas like any other, and memetically speaking, (speaking in terms of memes; not sure memetically is even a word) there has to be a means by which these ideas pervade society and the individual. With no means of cognitive motility, ideas simply don't last.

So, my primary objection is that the motility of the Bible's memes is that of eternal consequence. Believe this or <insert some consequence here>. This can lead to a constant sense of metaphysical/mystical paranoia, whereby people are constantly worries that they're in conflict with these memes. I know people that put themselves through a fair degree of self torture (fasting to the point of dehydration, for example) simply to reduce that conflict.

The reality is that most people cannot separate the philosophy from everything else. I would be willing to bet that most of the people reading the use of philosophy in this context hadn't even considered it as such.

I could cite hundreds of books that I believe serve as a far superior philisophical foundation, but I'm no scholar and I don't have the time. I would consider Hindu philosophy as a solid foundation, because quite honestly it has a very basic structure that tends to correspond to some of the ideas presented before and during the Enlightenment, a period of transition from mysticism and materialism to rationalism. For those, I'd recommend the Vegas, Gita, etc. Post-Aristotelian Western Philosophy could then occupy a lifetime of internal thought. I find that my own philisophical considerations tends to align with what Descartes wished to achieve.

Sorry for detracting from the thread.

I don't see the detraction, nor I think would the OP.

I can't disagree with you, other than to say I've read those other texts and they are not perfect either. Certainly the Vedas and the Gita contain more than their fair share of mysticism (beyond that of the Bible even I would say).
It is true that an obsession with "salvation" as described in the NT could lead one to a kind of disfunctional paranoia (or more likely, an anxious obsession with perfection, possibly leading to psychological depression), however, it is not unique in this either, and the difficulty comes more from interpretation than anything else as the text itself repeatedly warns against this (for example, Matthew 7:9-12).

Yes, and I believe totally that God does not want people to live in fear or to live an unhappy life, not at all, in fact, like Vic pointed out, the NT is an excellent guide on how one should live his/her life.

And no, it is not the only one. In fact, I, like many others, also believe it to be very possible for non-Christians to enter Heaven. "There are many paths up the mountain, but only one view from atop," at least I think that's how the saying goes.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Just some comments after reading a little of this thread ... can't really answer the title question.
I'm not really prepared to be drawn into a huge debate ATM, but it's hard to sit back and not say anything.


The fact that God exists is an inconvenient truth for many people. They don't like being accountable for their actions. This is why they go through such contortions to avoid the fact. They really don't WANT find out they are wrong.

Unsaved people cannot understand the spiritual truths of the Bible. The Bible states this. You have to believe before you can understand. Spiritually dead people cannot discern spiritual things. I cannot emphasize it enough. No wonder you people have trouble with it.

FYI, Christians are encouraged to critically study the Word of God to see whether what it says is true. Christians don't function with their brains off. They are constantly looking for evidence that what they believe is true. They see God work in people's lives. They observe that both science and archaeology corroborate the Bible. So believing comes naturally.

 

[tealk]

[/quote]

Yes, and I believe totally that God does not want people to live in fear or to live an unhappy life, not at all, in fact, like Vic pointed out, the NT is an excellent guide on how one should live his/her life.

And no, it is not the only one. In fact, I, like many others, also believe it to be very possible for non-Christians to enter Heaven. "There are many paths up the mountain, but only one view from atop," at least I think that's how the saying goes.
[/quote]


One way to heaven, and one way only. Through Jesus Christ himself(God). Excepting him as your personal savior, is the only way. = Faith

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Just some comments after reading a little of this thread ... can't really answer the title question.
I'm not really prepared to be drawn into a huge debate ATM, but it's hard to sit back and not say anything.


The fact that God exists is an inconvenient truth for many people. They don't like being accountable for their actions. This is why they go through such contortions to avoid the fact. They really don't WANT find out they are wrong.

Unsaved people cannot understand the spiritual truths of the Bible. The Bible states this. You have to believe before you can understand. Spiritually dead people cannot discern spiritual things. I cannot emphasize it enough. No wonder you people have trouble with it.

FYI, Christians are encouraged to critically study the Word of God to see whether what it says is true. Christians don't function with their brains off. They are constantly looking for evidence that what they believe is true. They see God work in people's lives. They observe that both science and archaeology corroborate the Bible. So believing comes naturally.

:laugh: @ the "my religion is superior to yours" argument.
That could just as easily be reworded to come off from an islamic viewpoint, and then you'd probably deride it as terroristic.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

No. You post irresponsible claims, give a healf-hearted attempt using vague pronouns and copy and paste things out of google you don't understand and offer random disjointed facts - and when people press you on points you ignore them. This forum is full of those people. Whats your reason for ignoring the question of the origin of the name Jesus then?

I made a point that the four Gospels all claim Jesus's divinity, and clearly well predate the council of Nicea in 325. You unequivocally claim they don't.

Even people who don't accept Christ as their Savior do not generally disagree on that point, and it is not circular reasoning because no one is asking you to believe it.

It is only asking you to acknowledge when the claim was made. Since you dispute the widely accepted notion, like gnostics do, I'm only asking you to support your claim.

If you can't, admit it. Or go back to google - I'm sure there'll be something there you can copy from.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Just some comments after reading a little of this thread ... can't really answer the title question.
I'm not really prepared to be drawn into a huge debate ATM, but it's hard to sit back and not say anything.


The fact that God exists is an inconvenient truth for many people. They don't like being accountable for their actions. This is why they go through such contortions to avoid the fact. They really don't WANT find out they are wrong.

Unsaved people cannot understand the spiritual truths of the Bible. The Bible states this. You have to believe before you can understand. Spiritually dead people cannot discern spiritual things. I cannot emphasize it enough. No wonder you people have trouble with it.

FYI, Christians are encouraged to critically study the Word of God to see whether what it says is true. Christians don't function with their brains off. They are constantly looking for evidence that what they believe is true. They see God work in people's lives. They observe that both science and archaeology corroborate the Bible. So believing comes naturally.

:laugh: @ the "my religion is superior to yours" argument.
That could just as easily be reworded to come off from an islamic viewpoint, and then you'd probably deride it as terroristic.

I could not agree more with what FeuerFrei said, but then, I also agree with what nakedfrog said. Christianity, as with all other religions, can be a copout. Reason and logic, at least from a believer to a nonbeliever, will NEVER make sense.

Faith is intangible and God has not made Himself available for scientific proof. If you shrug this off and don't care, it means that you are hardened to Him, unregenerate or even reprobate.
If anyone leaves some room in their hearts to consider this, or if there is a lingering feeling in their heart that this world does not satisfy them, they should ask that God reveal to them their sinful nature and need for Him in their lives. And if they are sincere, He will meet them where they are.

I do understand that most people here are hardened in our stances toward religion. But you cannot prove God. He has not left that option open to us. For non-believers, you can call it a copout. But believers will stand behind this copout. Any attacks on this copout will prove fruitless, because our hope is based upon faith in God. For non-believers, your faith is in the world - science, medicine, hollywood, money, whatever.

 

[azazyel]

not really on topic but I really like this quote but I don't know who said it.


"When asked why I don't believe in god I tell the person that when you figure out why you don't believe in any other god than your own you will know why I don't believe in yours."

or something like that