|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Feb 19, 2004 15:18:20 GMT -5
I can't reply to the other thread for some odd reason. It's all screwy. Anyway...I found the quote I was looking for (I hate searching online bibles). It's Matthew 25:31-46. Very works-based. So is the Sermon on the Mount.
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 19, 2004 15:35:17 GMT -5
Again, as I said before, the major idea of works in the Bible is that if you are truly sincere, you will do your utmost to help people, to do good when you can just because you feel you should. The people that Jesus commented on in the passage from Matthew, "you did not clothe me when I was naked or feed me when I was hungry" is chastising and warning against those who would say they are Christians, but not truly believe, who would speak for God in public with a "look at me, I'm a good Christian" attitude, but not really follow in their hearts.
-Magonus
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Shackleford on Feb 20, 2004 1:23:03 GMT -5
"I truly pity those who must use theology as a crutch, those with such small minds that they are incapable of believing in anything other than what they are told and indoctrinated upon. What empty lives they must lead."
You probably can't really understand it, but I can assure you that I live a much fuller life now than I ever did as a Christian. Your "meaning" and "substance" are detatched and distant, mine are real and in my hands. Life is something to experience, not to hope to catch a glimpse of once in a while. All Christians are just atheists who haven't learned enough about reality yet. Statistically, you'll find that out soon enough.
Rusty
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 20, 2004 12:09:26 GMT -5
Ironic. I take a ridiculous quote and change it to suit my own personality. You take the new quote that I have made and change it back to a paraphrase of the original.
As far as your argument itself, I haven't spent my entire life as a Christian, as most here probably assume. I was raised Christian, went to Catholic school for a few years, then started going to a protestant church through highschool. Once I got to college, things changed. I got disillusioned when I saw some of the cruel things that people who claim to be Christians were doing. became an agnostic for awhile, tried to find my own path. I then spent some time as an almost atheist. I say almost because rather than having faith in a lack of a deity, I more or less didn't care. Eventually I realized that something was missing. I had my friends, my family, my goals and my dreams. I wasn't searching for "meaning" or "substance", but just knew, deep down in my soul, that I was wrong to not care. So I became a Unitarian, believing that basically all religions were the same, that if you were a "good person" and all that, that was what mattered. And I also looked into other religions. I took a course on Hinduism, read up on Islam and Buddhism, as well as learning more about Christianity from an objective point of view. And I realized all the holes the other religions had, all the flaws and inconsistencies. Eventually I became a Christian again and now couldn't be happier. My life is as full as it has ever been.
-Magonus
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Feb 20, 2004 12:28:33 GMT -5
I got disillusioned when I saw some of the cruel things that people who claim to be Christians were doing. became an agnostic for awhile, tried to find my own path. I then spent some time as an almost atheist. I say almost because rather than having faith in a lack of a deity, I more or less didn't care. Eventually I realized that something was missing....... ..... Eventually I became a Christian again and now couldn't be happier. ::Sigh:: You were so close.
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 20, 2004 13:29:02 GMT -5
Well, I eventually came to the realization that these people who claimed to be Christians were not. And you're right, I was so close. It's a good thing I came to my senses when I did, as dangerous as things are today, one never knows when he might go, and never have the chance for redemption, hence spending eternity in the big toasty.
-Magonus
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 20, 2004 13:32:55 GMT -5
Atheists don't have faith in a lack of a deity, a common and irritating misconception. I can not speak for all atheists, each has her owb philosophy and I don;t want to generalize,but for me the basic jist is this-
Faith is a belief relying on a suspension of logic. Illogical beliefs are not neccessarily bad or uncalled for in all occasions, but since it relys on internal justification for accepting something, instead of basing it on testable analyses or theories based on real world observations, it is not reliable in the same way, say science is.
Science does not claim to have an answer for everything. theories, hypothesis, are posed based on evidence and experimentation and things are deemed to less or more likely based on this evidence. More evidence may prove this assumption wrong, and a new one is posed. There are gaps in scientific knowledge to be sure, but it is not blind faith that lets me believe in those gaps being filled, just an acknowledgement that nothing is 100% certain, the best theory may not be the absolute truth, but some theories and beliefes answer questions and are backed by testable, observable, and generally reliable occurences and phenomenom much more reliably than others ad those are the ones I accept for trth until it is either rejected or reinforced with data appearing to confirm greater reliability. That is the best man can do to know truth logicly, and I'm satisfied with it, as is most of the scientific community and the intelligensia of the world at large.
Faith is another way to find truth, but it is very much a personal choice, non-falsifiable and thus dubious, as far as logic goes. Whetther faith based believes are actually correct remain to be seen, but evidence I've seen so far points to no.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 20, 2004 13:44:07 GMT -5
There's no such thing as an objective loook at Christianity concerning anything outside of the historical context. And no one who has honestly viewed Christianity in the historical context could possibly consider follwing at a valid faith system. I seriously doubt that you were an agnostic, nor that you gave equal credence to all religions. Like many Christians, you do these things half heartedly so as to claim you've been fair but that your star still shined brightest. There's a reason why Christianity is the fastest declining major religion in the world, Maggie, and that's because more and more people are taking the much more honest look that you're too afraid to take.
If you really were happy, you wouldn't be trolling atheist message boards.
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Feb 20, 2004 14:04:01 GMT -5
It's a good thing I came to my senses when I did, as dangerous as things are today, one never knows when he might go, and never have the chance for redemption, hence spending eternity in the big toasty. I hope you aren't saying you went back to religion in part to "cover your bases" when you die. Because that is impossible. What if the true god is a bright pink unicorn that demands human sacrifice in order for you to get into Magicland (aka Heaven)? You'd be screwed, and not in the fun way. -Laura "Some like it hot" McIntosh
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 20, 2004 14:44:08 GMT -5
Faith is another way to find truth, but it is very much a personal choice, non-falsifiable and thus dubious, as far as logic goes. Whetther faith based believes are actually correct remain to be seen, but evidence I've seen so far points to no. No. No it isn't. Faith is the exact, direct, and polar opposite of rational thought in exactly that way. Logic and deduction separate the true from the false. Rational thought is just that, it is thought, and as such by its own definition sorts through reality to destroy that which is not supportable or which is proven to be false. Faith does not do this. Faith will not let you examine pink unicorns and jehovah and come to the "truth" that pink unicorns exist whereas jehovah does not. Faith is only the action of not thinking, of turning off your filters for reality. Faith in no way shape or form supports or justifies a belief, and in fact does exactly the opposite. If you say you take something on faith, then by the very definition of the word you are admitting that there is no rational support for it, eg that you believe it even though there's no reason to. If you had a reason to believe it, then you wouldn't have or need faith in it. Logic and reason are completely superior to faith, and when we have logic and science to tell us that the earth's rotation will cause daylight to once again shine upon our country, it would be absurd to suggest any reason why you would want to, or still have faith in it. Faith is a terrible terrible thing. It is the cornerstone of any religion because all religions claim to know the unknowable, otherwise there would be no reason to tithe your 10%. Any person who claims to have faith in any thing at any time is a person who does not behave rationally. No exceptions. Faith lets us believe in gods with elephant heads and thousands of arms. It lets us believe in UFO's hiding behind comets. It lets us believe that if we dress real pretty for the animal spirits and dance around this fire then it will rain. It also lets us believe that some Jewish carpenter a couple thousand years ago got killed, came back, walked around, said "bbiab" to his lackeys and then got sucked into a cloud. It lets us tell ourselves that god REALLY cares where that man over there in the pink shirt puts his wang. It lets us tell ourselves that blacks are inferior creatures, the world is our gift from god to abuse as we like, and that it's okay to fly airplanes into buildings. Fuck faith. Reason might make you feel insecure when you try to go to sleep at night, but it's the only way to move closer to any universal truth, should such a thing actually exist.
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 20, 2004 15:44:27 GMT -5
There can be a very meaningful, powerful truth in some symbolic myths and religious stories. This is not to say the facts of the stories are true, but wisdom can be gleaned none the less. I've found, in a purely symbolic sense, that god indeed has a power-god it itself is a symbol of the unknowable, unobtainable, awesome aspects of the universe. Focusing on this symbol helps me think in ways I usually don't, and helps broaden my perspective. I've found god is most meaningful to me in things like poems, literary, purely imaginative media where symbols must make due where words can not express. This isn't to say I don't think god is a total myth with no real bearing or influence on the world at all, I surely do, but as a symbol, this has a power nonetheless. The problem arises when you base your hole universal system, moral and cosmological, on an abstract. Indeed, faith in this way is dangerous, but a little suspension of belief can sometimes have positive results, as long as it is tenpered with reason.
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 20, 2004 15:54:12 GMT -5
Wow, a lot happened while I was gone.
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth) n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm) n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The basis of my arguing that atheism is based upon faith in the non-existence of some sort of higher power is that, like the fact that you cannot prove the existance of a higher power, you likewise cannot disprove said existance. Going on those two definitions (which is the meaning I was going for, sorry that I didn't make it clear before) atheism is having faith that there is no god.
No, I didn't come back to religion to "cover my bases". The reference was to a near death experience I had recently but, ironicly, that happened a few weeks after I came back to Christianity, as opposed to the many who turn to religion after such an experience.
As far as looking at various religions objectively, I did so with a book on world religions (written, I believe but am no positive, by an agnostic). In it, he takes a number of religions and explains there core beliefs according to their sacred texts and examines them independantely (not comparing one to the other). And, as I said, I found holes in almost all of them (especially Hinduism, but perhaps that's because I spent the most time on it).
As far as faith being removed from logic, for some it may be. But, again, faith comes down to belief, one way or another, on something that cannot be proven, only supported. If you apply Occam's Razor (plurality should not be posited without necessity) to atheism v. theism (of any sort, not just Christianity) you will find that theism makes more logical sense. But, since it can still be neither proved nor disproved, you must take that last step as a step of faith, until such a time as you will be able to know.
-Magonus
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 20, 2004 16:55:02 GMT -5
faith-2)Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence- found at dictionary.com right below the definition you offered.
we can play the definition game all day long. The above was clearly the definition I and others were proposing for the working definition in this instance.
I have confident belief in the non-existence of god based on my knowledge of history, philosophy, physics, biology, geology,etc. All of which fall in the realm of logic and science.
I can't logically disprove the existence because it is a non-falsifiable arguement, nothing to test against, and thus falls outside logic's parameters. The very nature of god is non-falsiable, as is the nature of magical pyxies. You can't actually disprove the existence of these pyxies or god, the burden of proof lies on the prove-er. So far, evidence for pyxies' existence is low enough to deem that pyxies very likely do not exist. The same argument stands for god. All proof so far that I've seen is admissible and dubious.
I ask you this-which of the two seem the simpler explanation...
A- Some supernatural force existed outside the universe and worked within it fashioning the universe and existed for ever. Sometimes this force is attributed with omniscience, omnipotence, and transcendance. Reading ancient books and compilations of myths can tell us about this force, as some cultures on the tiny planet of earth are blessed by this force and privy to its motivations in some form.
B-we don't know exactly how the universe and to a lesser extent life started. Using evidence from the natural world offers theories such as the big bang/crunch theory, and theory of evolution, that adequately explain how some of the processes that govern the universe may have operated. Exploration and further experimentation in these fields continue to yield evidence that support these theories
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 20, 2004 17:00:35 GMT -5
Oopsy, you forgot to add the second definition for faith, specifically the one that's relevant in these and all other of our conversations. "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." And yes, you can go to dictionary.com and double check if you want. And again, even though I've had this conversation at least twelve fucking times in the past four months, atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism are not based on faith. Your using the inappropriate definition of faith here is useless and nothing more than a distraction. So your faith is a synonym for belief? Then say belief, not faith, because faith has a whole slew of connotations with it, especially in this conversation where the only definition you'd possibly want to use is the second one. You said that faith comes down to belief, and you're right, it does, but faith is not equal to belief. You and other followers of revealed religions are telling me that you're right, everyone else is wrong, and I'm going to hell if I don't join your little bigots club. Logic is removed from faith not just for some people, for ALL people. It is by definition the opposite of thought. And I really love how you misapply Occam's Razor. First, it's only useful in situations where the theories (THEORIES, NOT RELIGIONS) are on equal footing, meaning they have somewhat equivalent support. There is no support for the correctness of Christianity, let alone the existance of a God. If you really want Occam's Razor to mean what you think it does, then let's just "apply it" some more and conclude that since the theory that we are all a giant ass-wart on the body of a cosmic turtle is simpler than all the trash x-tianity is made up of, it must be true. Also, you said you found holes in almost all the religions. Almost all? Well shit, if one of those religions didn't have any holes in it then why isn't it the right one? ALL religions have holes, especially Christianity, and you've somewhat indicated that you are aware of some of the less complex ones. If you compare theism to atheism and conclude that there's more logical support for theism, then the only conclusion you should be making is that you didn't look very hard. Now finally, guess what Magonus. Nothing can ever be proven. We are all individual creatures individually experiencing reality. So ask yourself how we support something if it can't be proven? We do it with logic. With reason, and scientific evidence we support theories and hypotheses and discard those that don't make the cut. If you can support an assertion, you're doing it with logic, and faith is no longer a part of the picture. If you can't get to your viewpoint all the way by actually using your head and processing information, then you shouldn't be holding that viewpoint. If I have scientific evidence and inductive and deductive support for the notion that I will not turn into a rabbit tomorrow, then I am not ever allowed to "take that last step of faith" by saying that the reason this won't happen is because tomorrow I'll turn into a wolf instead. You and people like you are trying to use your superstitions and beliefs to govern the world and shape our social and legal policies. Your quaint myths and superstitions are no longer needed, and if you absolutely have to hold on to them, then you need to keep them to yourself. If God wants my soul to be saved, then he knows where to find me. All it would take is a brief suspension of the laws of physics and I'd be the first one to hop on board. Oh, wait...but miracles don't happen. Funny how the sun doesn't move backwards any more. Ooo, and that water-to-wine thing would be a great party trick.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 20, 2004 19:28:40 GMT -5
You found holes in all the religions except for Christianity? I knew you weren't taking this even remotely seriously.
Quite honestly, no major modern religion (the top that is) is as inconsistant and hole-ridden as the Christian faith. Beleive in it all you like, but when you start to make empirical claims (such as those that rest on historical record) and your faith becomes useless in the light of rational thought. If you want to beleive in Jesus despite the evidence the world around you offers, fine, knock yourself out, but don't pretend that you have the full support of reason and sensibility - you don't.
Faith is fine to have, many people need it as something to fall back on when they fall down hard (real or not, the plecebo effect is evident), but to use it to replace rational cognition is a crime against one of the few things in this world we can actually know. 0 does not equal 1. When you use faith to supercede what logic clearly tells you is otherwise, your wasting not only everyone elses' time and energy, but your own as well.
If you have to cling to your religious faith, by virtue of having had it too long, do so to fill in the small spaces science hasn't done for you, not to replace the few things you actually knew were true.
|
|