TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Is religion beneficial?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You've just lost any credibility when it comes to questioning the validity or value of the Abrihamic religions. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion on any subject when you won't even take the time to understand what it is you're discussing.

im sorry to keep harping on good old moral hazard here, but given the love that i have for the man his comment has gotten right up my nose...

the problem here is moral's implicit assumption that a study of the texts in the bible can provide validity, when of course it cannot. if a study of the bible could provide validity, then we wouldn't have a bajillion different religions. the validity (or not) of the bible is a matter of faith, which isn't rational or scientific and thusly cannot be validated.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost True, the burden of proof rests upon the individual advancing the positive claim, but to what extent is the absence of evidence sufficient to reject those positive claims? Here's something of a brainstorm: The typical reply to 'the absence of evidence does not thereby mean the absence of existence, and thus, the rejection of opposing argument based upon the absence of evidence is unfounded' is something similar to the instance of the teapot you outlined above. If I were to say that simply because I lack the evidence to prove the presence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter, you shouldn't reject the idea of it being there, you would be right to dismiss this as a thoroughly insufficient reason to at least accept the possibility that there may be a teapot orbiting around Jupiter. But what if I were to tell you that there was, say, a woman giving birth three blocks down from you, though I had no evidence to prove this. Would you reject the possibility of it being true based upon this lack of evidence. Well, you would most likely take into account various factors here. Whether or not you knew me, how reliable I was if you did, perhaps even my appearance and apparent state of mind. The point is that there are various levels of plausibility when it comes to the issue of rejection based upon lack of evidence. There are things you would and would not reject despite me not being able to prove them, and for different reasons. You obviously feel that Theism lies within the same level of plausibility as an orbiting teapot, but it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why this is, in which case you have to do some positive arguing of your own. In other words, just because you feel that there is a lack of evidence to support the Theistic claim, it doesn't mean you're off the hook in terms of offering evidence of your own, as you still need to demonstrate why this particular type of claim falls within the category of being legitimately rejected due to the absence of evidence (as opposed to not accepting, but not rejecting, as is the case with other types of scenarios). The only way you could sit back and reject every non-evidential claim that comes your way is if you don't believe in anything unless there is an evidential basis to support it, in which case that is something of a different discussion.

right. i think i got all that. its a bit early for a refresher course in principles of argument!!

i can only answer with my regular stock answer in these situations: the more fantastic the claim the more fantastic the supporting evidence must be. i find the claim of a higher being to be a pretty fantastic claim.

Oh PKC, TA is so much nicer now that you're on ignore, I can actually CHOOSE to read your nonsensical spew now!

PS: What would Jesus do?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry to keep harping on good old moral hazard here, but given the love that i have for the man his comment has gotten right up my nose... the problem here is moral's implicit assumption that a study of the texts in the bible can provide validity, when of course it cannot. if a study of the bible could provide validity, then we wouldn't have a bajillion different religions. the validity (or not) of the bible is a matter of faith, which isn't rational or scientific and thusly cannot be validated.

Apparently, you're not familiar with the Traditionalist School of thought, or the 'Perennial Philosophy,' which states that each authentic religious tradition was revealed by the same Divine source, and at different points along human history.

Thus, while each religion is different, they are all equally authentic, and are the result of Divine will. There are adherents to this school of thought from Christianity and other religions, so the authenticity of one religious tradition does not thereby negate the authenticity of another.

If you disagree with this, it would be incumbent upon you to demonstrate the flaws in this school of thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Oh PKC, TA is so much nicer now that you're on ignore, I can actually CHOOSE to read your nonsensical spew now!

and here we have the typical theist tactic when confronted with things they don't wish to deal with: IGNORE. you'll find most religions engaging in this strategy at one time or another (about 50% of americans still deny evolution).

though i guess its a better result than strapping bombs to their chest or manipulating the legal framework to satisfy their myopia, so don't let anyone tell you religious nutjobs haven't made progress in the last 2000 years!!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN right. i think i got all that. its a bit early for a refresher course in principles of argument!! i can only answer with my regular stock answer in these situations: the more fantastic the claim the more fantastic the supporting evidence must be. i find the claim of a higher being to be a pretty fantastic claim.

You know pkr, we could simply cut right down to it and address your problems with Theistic evidence.

I'm sure we would all agree that there have at least been plenty of attempts to provide evidence for God's existence, and evidence for the Divine nature of almost every religious tradition.

You've repeatedly stated that there is none, but unless I have missed something (and I will admit to not following the entire conversation closely), there is a big gap that is present between these evidential supports and your conclusion that no evidence exists.

So what are your responses to some of the arguments in favor of God's existence, which have apparently resulted in your conclusion that there is no evidence to support this claim?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Apparently, you're not familiar with the Traditionalist School of thought, or the 'Perennial Philosophy,' which states that each authentic religious tradition was revealed by the same Divine source, and at different points along human history. Thus, while each religion is different, they are all equally authentic, and are the result of Divine will. There are adherents to this school of thought from Christianity and other religions, so the authenticity of one religious tradition does not thereby negate the authenticity of another. If you disagree with this, it would be incumbent upon you to demonstrate the flaws in this school of thought.

no, moral hazard has schooled me briefly on this position. its just fancy side-stepping of the real issue (imo), in that the bible cannot provide validity (for to do so would prove the existence of god).

if the bible cannot prove the existence of god, then whether it is valid or not is purely a matter of personal choice. if it is purely a matter of personal choice (faith) then why would a further study of the bible give me a greater ability to judge its validity (when for me, it is already invalid [because the bible is not evidence of anything])?

moral's criticism basically boils down to that i should finish the movie despite the fact that i thought the first hour or so was shit. since i believe we only have the one life, i have better things to do with that valuable time than read an archaic fantasy novel.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and here we have the typical theist tactic when confronted with things they don't wish to deal with: IGNORE.

@ in in context

I think a people oft have you on ignore for more then your religous arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost You know pkr, we could simply cut right down to it and address your problems with Theistic evidence. I'm sure we would all agree that there have at least been plenty of attempts to provide evidence for God's existence, and evidence for the Divine nature of almost every religious tradition. You've repeatedly stated that there is none, but unless I have missed something (and I will admit to not following the entire conversation closely), there is a big gap that is present between these evidential supports and your conclusion that no evidence exists. So what are your responses to some of the arguments in favor of God's existence, which have apparently resulted in your conclusion that there is no evidence to support this claim?

the only argument that i find particularly compelling is the argument that the universe couldn't have come from nothing. and i am the first to admit that i entertain the notion of god's existence. i am more than happy to be shown to be in error.

there's also an argument regarding the particular "rationality" (or design if you will) of the universe. in that there is such an elegant simplicity of the universe that it must've been designed. is there something like the 'god particle'? forgive me if im bastardising the terms my memory isnt the best, but its something to do with a component of quantum gravity which even if it was .0000000000001 degrees different, the universe could not have come into existance.

scientists counter this with parallel universe theory, but im sure im not alone with not really understanding all of that!

to be honest most of the (few) arguments i have come across involve circular reasoning with scripture which i just reject out of hand. if you have any though i'd love a refresher or to encounter some new ones

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, moral hazard has schooled me briefly on this position. its just fancy side-stepping of the real issue (imo), in that the bible cannot provide validity (for to do so would prove the existence of god). if the bible cannot prove the existence of god, then whether it is valid or not is purely a matter of personal choice. if it is purely a matter of personal choice (faith) then why would a further study of the bible give me a greater ability to judge its validity (when for me, it is already invalid [because the bible is not evidence of anything])? moral's criticism basically boils down to that i should finish the movie despite the fact that i thought the first hour or so was shit. since i believe we only have the one life, i have better things to do with that valuable time than read an archaic fantasy novel.

A couple of things, and again, I apologize if these are things you have addressed previously, and am simply overlooking:

You've dismissed the Bible as an 'archaic fantasy novel,' which indeed reflects severe criticisms against it, which have apparently led you to your conclusions.

What exactly are these criticisms? Where do you find reasons to support your conclusions, and what type of methodology have you adopted when looking at the Bible?

I simply ask these questions because, as I mentioned earlier, I see you passionately advancing these positions concerning God and the Bible, but am unable to recall many 'supporting moments' you have pointed out in the spirit of demonstrating why you believe what you believe (and again, I will admit to not being totally on top of this discussion, so I apologize if you have).

Secondly, I understand we are talking specifically about Christianity and the Bible here, but I was alluding to a more general issue regarding your atheism as a whole, and I understand that this is somewhat tangential to the central conversation you've been involved in.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter @ in in context I think a people oft have you on ignore for more then your religous arguments.

luckily for me i grew up at a time when making friends was something you did IRL, so the opinions of overly-sensitive internet personas doesn't make me lose any sleep at night

Fair call, however it's just a little silly to think that thats just because of your religious argument.

Bah, of course everyone has to go and quote his dumb posts so I have to see the shit anyway!

PKC, It's not that I don't want to deal with one side of the argument, I love arguing. It's that I don't want to listen to the typical, boring and moronic 12 year old shit that typical atheists spew.

The fact that I deny Genesis as being valid, and am open to other parts of the bible being completely false or blown out of proportion doesn't exactly make me a typical every day theist either, nor do I deny evolution or creationism in it's own right.

I don't go to church because for 10 years I've known more about the bible than any idiot evangelical pastor I've encountered, I also question the validity of practically every claim in the bible. In this thread alone I've offered a number of books, articles and a few other "facts" that managed to scare that other guy off it seems, or maybe he's just taking a shit, whatever.

All you've offered is opinionated nonsense and you expect everyone to just agree with you or be served the ultimate judgment: Being on PKC's idiot list.

quit arguing, lets play FA

jesus, youre not asking for much are you!! i shall do my best in the time i have. i really should be doing some work!

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost What exactly are these criticisms?

the contradictory nature of the bible. for any "rule" or "truth" littered throughout its pages, you can find another rule or truth saying the exact opposite. the fact that there are many downright dehumanistic components of the bible makes me doubt the veracity of the document as the word of a higher being. the bible's hangups on sexual activities alone shows that it is the word of man, and not of a deity.

now, since the bible is the work man, how are we to identify the truths from the bias? what is god's word and what is man's bullshit? this can only ever come down to interpretation. there are three problems here.

firstly, the bible means whatever anyone wants it to mean. i dont need to spell out the problems inherent here.

secondly, how can i take a document seriously when god has not deemed his word to be worthy enough of an unabridged, accurate version?

thirdly, why would a god expect thorough and exhaustive study of his word before enlightenment is achieved? what about all the poor humans whose intellectual capacity was less than what is required to adequately "understand" the bible? why is it ok for some of his chosen to miss out on the deeper meaning(s)?

and if it all comes down to"faith" then an understanding isn't all that important anyway, is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Where do you find reasons to support your conclusions, and what type of methodology have you adopted when looking at the Bible?

im not quite sure what you mean here. what kind of methodologies do you use when watching a movie? or reading a novel? i will admit that i never read the bible with the view of writing a dissertation on the topic, and my problematic efforts at reading it where as an adolescent so my memory aint the best.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost I simply ask these questions because, as I mentioned earlier, I see you passionately advancing these positions concerning God and the Bible, but am unable to recall many 'supporting moments' you have pointed out in the spirit of demonstrating why you believe what you believe (and again, I will admit to not being totally on top of this discussion, so I apologize if you have). Secondly, I understand we are talking specifically about Christianity and the Bible here, but I was alluding to a more general issue regarding your atheism as a whole, and I understand that this is somewhat tangential to the central conversation you've been involved in.

my concerns with religion are far less related to the validity (or not) of the bible (or any other holy book) and the manner in which religion manifests itself in the public sphere. i dont have an issue with a religion that minds its own business and exists on a personal level, as i am a firm believer in freedom of choice and freedom of religion. but that freedom also means freedom FROM religion, which doesn't exist in any modern society that i know of, and it certainly doesn't in any developing nation either. i have a problem with religion's historical tendency to be used as a form of social control.

problems start when a certain religion prophecizes to be the only way to God.

I recommend reading:

A HISTORY OF GOD , by Karen Armstrong

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Bah, of course everyone has to go and quote his dumb posts so I have to see the shit anyway! PKC, It's not that I don't want to deal with one side of the argument, I love arguing. It's that I don't want to listen to the typical, boring and moronic 12 year old shit that typical atheists spew. The fact that I deny Genesis as being valid, and am open to other parts of the bible being completely false or blown out of proportion doesn't exactly make me a typical every day theist either, nor do I deny evolution or creationism in it's own right. I don't go to church because for 10 years I've known more about the bible than any idiot evangelical pastor I've encountered, I also question the validity of practically every claim in the bible. In this thread alone I've offered a number of books, articles and a few other "facts" that managed to scare that other guy off it seems, or maybe he's just taking a shit, whatever. All you've offered is opinionated nonsense and you expect everyone to just agree with you or be served the ultimate judgment: Being on PKC's idiot list.

whatever man. i don't give a shit.

You care.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail quit arguing, lets play FA

hehe, im at work mate!

find krypton. he's always up for a game. i'd prefer you get some games under your belt before we play. right now there wouldn't be much fun for either of us

I can't wait to see you all rotting and burning in hell

This thread has gone COMPLETELY off-topic, it was never supposed to be an argument about whether or not a higher being exists.

However, tossing that aside, I'll join the current discussion...

Alex, I am well versed with the bible, I studied it from age 5 to 18.

How THE FUCK does being well-versed with the bible influence one's belief in God? To call an athiest's arguments unsubstantial purely because they are not versed with the bible is ridiculous.

I haven't read the Qur'an, yet I don't believe in Allah, and I deny that he exists. I'm sure you would deny that he exists too. Have you read the Qur'an yet? I've never read Hindu scriptures, yet I don't believe in Vishnu or Krishna. Do you? Have you read Hindu scriptures?

My disbelief in God, or ANY higher being, is based on what I observe in the world around me, as a rational, thinking being. As pkc so aptly put it, I don't need to eat a shit sandwich to know it tastes like shit, I can observe that with my own reasoning and deductional skills, rather than reading a 2000 year old book which tells me that the sandwich tastes the way it does.

You are making the mistake of believing that all Athiests are either

a) Well versed with the bible and refute it.

b) Are not well versed with the bible and are using unbased arguments.

I, on the other hand, am very well versed with the book, but I do not even consider it when forming the views and opinions I have on God and higher beings.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog This thread has gone COMPLETELY off-topic, it was never supposed to be an argument about whether or not a higher being exists. However, tossing that aside, I'll join the current discussion... Alex, I am well versed with the bible, I studied it from age 5 to 18. How THE FUCK does being well-versed with the bible influence one's belief in God? To call an athiest's arguments unsubstantial purely because they are not versed with the bible is ridiculous. I haven't read the Qur'an, yet I don't believe in Allah, and I deny that he exists. I'm sure you would deny that he exists too. Have you read the Qur'an yet? I've never read Hindu scriptures, yet I don't believe in Vishnu or Krishna. Do you? Have you read Hindu scriptures? My disbelief in God, or ANY higher being, is based on what I observe in the world around me, as a rational, thinking being. As pkc so aptly put it, I don't need to eat a shit sandwich to know it tastes like shit, I can observe that with my own reasoning and deductional skills, rather than reading a 2000 year old book which tells me that the sandwich tastes the way it does. You are making the mistake of believing that all Athiests are either a) Well versed with the bible and refute it. b) Are not well versed with the bible and are using unbased arguments. I, on the other hand, am very well versed with the book, but I do not even consider it when forming the views and opinions I have on God and higher beings.

yeah, its like saying you need to have read lord of the rings to have an opinion on the existence of elves.

Alright pkr, I have some work to do as well, and this is also becoming more prolonged than I would have hoped.

So while I don't mean to a drive-by, 'post n' run,' I'm afraid it will more or less come down to this (but I fully intend to read your reply).

Anyway, here's a response to some of your remarks:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the contradictory nature of the bible. for any "rule" or "truth" littered throughout its pages, you can find another rule or truth saying the exact opposite. the fact that there are many downright dehumanistic components of the bible makes me doubt the veracity of the document as the word of a higher being. the bible's hangups on sexual activities alone shows that it is the word of man, and not of a deity.

I think the most significant element involved here (and this relates to my question of 'methodology,' as you remarked upon later) is a proper understanding of historical context (and perhaps context in general). The Bible is undoubtedly trans-temporal, but there is much within it that needs to be understood relative to the context of culture and history.

Without this understanding, you're likely to walk away with the type of impression you outlined above.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN firstly, the bible means whatever anyone wants it to mean. i dont need to spell out the problems inherent here.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Some place a great emphasis upon personal interpretation and personal meaning derived from Biblical passages, but I don't think any theologian will accept the legitimacy of any Biblical interpretation, as I believe there are guidelines involved when doing this.

There may also be things that everyone understands the same, but have differing understandings as to its personal meaning (though I'm not qualified to say).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN thirdly, why would a god expect thorough and exhaustive study of his word before enlightenment is achieved? what about all the poor humans whose intellectual capacity was less than what is required to adequately "understand" the bible? why is it ok for some of his chosen to miss out on the deeper meaning(s)?

I would argue that is precisely in the struggle for understanding and meaning that one attains a sense of meaningfulness, and the effort exerted in trying to attain a deep level of meaning is as important as the attainment of meaning itself Some would argue that that with every religious text, there are different levels by which you would read it, and whatever your capabilities are in doing so is right for you.

I would say the extent by which you are able to understand it relative to someone else is insignificant relative to the idea of searching for meaning, via whatever capacity you have to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not quite sure what you mean here. what kind of methodologies do you use when watching a movie? or reading a novel? i will admit that i never read the bible with the view of writing a dissertation on the topic, and my problematic efforts at reading it where as an adolescent so my memory aint the best.

This relates to the points I made earlier. There are different ways to go about approaching the Bible. Some people do so in a purely literal sense, others in a purely metaphorical or allegorical sense, and others a combination of both. Some people understand passages relative to their historical context, and others don't.

In other words how you read it will dramatically affect what type of sentiments or impressions you walk away with.

The types of arguments you've advanced above reflect very common criticisms I've come across, and I am most confident as to there being a plethora of material and scholarly works that address them far better than I ever could.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog I haven't read the Qur'an, yet I don't believe in Allah, and I deny that he exists.

A common misunderstanding is that 'Allah' is understood by Muslims to be some other deity, when actually, it is simply the Arabic word for God.

Arab Christians, for example, use the word 'Allah' for this same reason.

So while this doesn't change your opinion that God does not exist, it's incorrect to approach Islam as submission to anything other than God, the Divine.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.