Yes you do make sense.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
God has given man free will. He is free to do good or evil. By obeying God he is doing good. I am here only speaking of the Christian faith and my understanding of it. As for natural evil, I assume you are referring to natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. In Christian belief, this life is very temporary and brief. Innocents who die in such disasters will have eternal life with God. No one is lost.
You won't 'know' anything when you're dead. I'll go back to my man Epicurus again: If death is annihilation, says Epicurus, then it is ‘nothing to us.’ Epicurus’ main argument for why death is not bad is contained in the letter to Menoeceus and can be dubbed the ‘no subject of harm’ argument. If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they’re not dead, and not for the dead, since they don’t exist.
No. Not really. Sounds like muddle minded agnosticism because you can't really be bothered to think about it and/or because the "I believe in something but not sure what" stance allows you the comfort of thinking that you won't ceasing to exist without the bother of all that religious nonsense.
Time to ditch the Epicurean verbiage, Pete. The only way he will not know is "If death is annihilation..." Have you proved that in your posts?
Epicurus really wasn't much cop. The next time you get a toothache, just remember that death is less harmful according to your main man.
I tend to think that I was technically dead before I was alive and that wasn't so bad was it?
I always quite liked Epicurus' line of thinking. The similarities between what he believed and Zen Buddhism are striking.
That's my frame of thinking too. We were in a state of non existence before we were born, and there's every chance that we were never even given the opportunity to live, so I don't see what's different.
It's a far more comforting thought than what religious people believe in IMO.
everyone here will help someone else if they can. If the motivation of an afterlife gives believers a strong motive to help others, what harm is there?
That's a bit like little kids being good so Santa won't pass them by. 'Sacred vertue is her owne reward, And Crowns her selfe, in spight of Fortunes Nayes'.
I would have thought that the number of evils acts large and small would make the answer to that self evident. We are coopertive social animals so we don't stop being nice to each other if we don't believe in God. In fact the atheists I know are universally caring, ethical, considerate and helpful. The religious range from lovely selfless moral people who do good wherever they go to genuinely evil bastards who should have been strangled at birth.
We are still discussing what colour your unicorn is rather than trying to find proof that there is such a thing as a unicorn.
I am aware you're a little slow on the uptake.
While I agree that we are ultimately social animals, I think there have been more than enough (non-religious) wars or other acts of destruction to show that being nice to each other is not a default behaviour for all humans.
I agree but we don't need another reason to kill each other. And we do kill each other a remarkable amount over religious ideology.
Irony just isn't a concept to you is it?
I suspect I have read a great deal more scripture in my time than you have. The difference is that the more I read the more I realised that it was complete nonsence. If Adam and Eve was just a morality tale, and it couldn't be real as we know for a fact the humans evolved and that Homo Sapiens didn't simply descend from one fully formed god created pair of humans, then the whole concept of original/ancestral sin is bullshit and this undermines just about the whole of Christian ideology. Of course much of even the New Testament bibles is also outright rubbish and provably so. Which isn't surprising given that they were written anything up to 400 years after the time Jesus was alleged to have lived. Lots of time to firm the story up. Which is exactly what happened. Myth fed on myth.
On a related note, after our convo last week I'm half way through this book on the historical basis of whether Jesus existed, which is pretty interesting stuff.
This is a book that claims from the start that Jesus exists, so that's its viewpoint quite clearly. The author is typically considered as an anti-Christian (for want of a better term) character since he's so outspoken against Christian fundamentalist views, but certainly believes in Jesus himself. Of course being a New Testament scholar means he could have a vested interest in Jesus existing, at least as a historical character.
So far the evidence is pretty compelling. But you know how it is, when you're in the middle of one side's argument it can seem that way, but less so when you hear the other side. I'll read something by Robert Price next who seems to be the most high profile & credible figure on the side of arguing against Jesus' existence.
OK.
What an interesting discussion I've stumbled into here on the caf!
My two cents are that it's more likely that "science" gives us a more reliable explanation regarding the origins of the universe than does the founding Christian text, but neither of their best theories can be disproved.
It's logically possible that "God" -- the dude with the beard and scornful gaze -- created a world 6,000 years ago that appears to us now to be millions of years old. I wouldn't say it's likely -- indeed, I suspect it's highly unlikely -- but it IS possible. How this would be possible presumably remains a mystery forever. But that's the problem: too many of the questions raised by the Bible can only be answered by "It's a mystery." Sorry, but that's not good enough for the rational animal. All that said, there are teachings in the Bible that well withstand critical scrutiny. Not all, but many.
As for Epicurus, don't overlook Lucretius.
My two cents are that it's more likely that "science" gives us a more reliable explanation regarding the origins of the universe than does the founding Christian text, but neither of their best theories can be disproved.
It's logically possible that "God" -- the dude with the beard and scornful gaze -- created a world 6,000 years ago that appears to us now to be millions of years old. I wouldn't say it's likely -- indeed, I suspect it's highly unlikely -- but it IS possible. How this would be possible presumably remains a mystery forever. But that's the problem: too many of the questions raised by the Bible can only be answered by "It's a mystery." Sorry, but that's not good enough for the rational animal. All that said, there are teachings in the Bible that well withstand critical scrutiny. Not all, but many.
As for Epicurus, don't overlook Lucretius.
It's not really logically possible if we can prove the earth and things on it are older than 6,000 years old though, is it? Or am I missing something?
I feel totally comfortable with my atheist friends...and cannot stand to have a reasonable discussion with one or two of my 'ultra religious' family.
There is a fundamental difference between those who practice the faith and those who call themselves 'religious'.
It's the concept of God creating things with an appearance of age. God didn't create a baby Adam and Eve. He created a mature Adam and Eve. By the same token, He would have created a mature Universe. It is only uniformitarianism that says He must have worked His way from the simple to the more complex.
It comes down to your presuppositions.
Oh right, so bullshit in other words.
All the old Greeks are pretty good. Mind you both Epicurus and Lucretius are way wide of the mark on sex.
I think the Old Testament is really a history of the Jewish people and prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. I don't accept Genesis verbatim. I believe the world is as old as scientists say it is. But so what.
I am still amazed that he is totally absent until some Greek bloke mentions him a long time after he died. I am yet to see any convincing evidence of either the crucifiction or any other significant event for that matter.
Right...
What's apparent even at this point is that the case for his existence is fairly strong. The various writings of Josephus and several non-Jewish sources like Tacitus aren't relevant to the argument being made, since they mostly confirm the existence of early Christians rather than of Jesus.
Instead the case is being based on text and authenticity analysis of the gospels, and by looking at the translation process from aramaic to greek (and back again).
Anyway, as I say I'm still going through it.
This is the worst case of fitting the evidence to your beliefs I've ever seen. You might as well be saying "God exists because the colour blue".
Yeah, of course, I gave too much credit to my audience by assuming they'd be able to differentiate between me outlining a view and making an argument for it.
Chaucer?
That's ironic, I could say the same about you. I hope you realize "you" doesn't always mean you personally.
That "something" is reading in context. I'd ask that you please read Genesis 1. "And God said..." "And God saw that it was good." Six days of creation, and rest on the seventh. Notice any linguistic or culturally significant patterns arising?
What I'm trying to point out here is that every part of the Bible, just like any piece of literature ever written, is written in a certain style with a certain intent. I'd urge you to consider the poetic nature of Genesis 1 before you completely rubbish Christianity on logical grounds.
If you wish to continue the line of argument against Christianity based on the content of Genesis 1, then come back to me after you've read "In Flanders Fields" to give me the watertight, 100% accurate description of the events at Ypres in WWI from your analysis of that poetry.
Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated from the analysis of any evidence/argument in light of the hypothesis, "God does (not) exist". As much as I recognise that Herman may be guilty of confirmation bias in some of his arguments, please do consider that, like it or not, you (as you said, "you" not always used personally) are guilty of the same confirmation bias. Likewise I am, as is anyone involved in the discussion of the existence of God (i.e., EVERYONE).
I don't really agree with that, actually. There simply is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. And even if it were true, that doesn't mean that all bias is the same. You can't deny that the idea that the Universe was "created old", more or less to fool people, is a ludicrous statement.
And dinosaur bones were planted to weed out all the non-believers.
I wasn't assuming you made an argument. I was assuming you outlined a view, which quite clearly bullshit.
All irrelevant. My point was it is impossible to prove that the earth is 6,000 years old as there is overwhelming evidence that the earth and many things on it are far, far older than that. Anyone who believes or tries to prove otherwise is an idiot or a charlatan.
It's a test. Or at trap.
So do you believe this or not?