|
lol @ christianity (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche |
do we not put faith in science and logic and all of these things as well? perhaps the concepts are easily comprehensible, but is it not also faith? |
|
|
| Orbax |
From Taoist to Infidel (2001)
( this text has not been reformated yet .. nothing is missing from the text it is just presented in a odd fashion .. Ill update this ASAP)
From Taoist to Infidel (2001) by Richard Carrier
My experiences with religion as a child were all good. My mother was a church secretary at a First Methodist Church only a block from our home, and I attended Sunday School fairly regularly, but my parents rarely insisted that I attend any sermons. The religion sold at this local business was a very liberal brand of Christianity. It was more like a preschool and social club, and that made it an excellent asset to the community, and a place of fond memories for me. Amidst arts and crafts, lunches, running and climbing about, and basic learning, the alphabet and numbers and whatnot, Sunday School had its story time. Bible stories were always on the menu, intermingled with other popular fables and parables, and it was never even suggested there was any difference. The Good Book was always treated as a collection of handy tales used as springboards for teaching moral lessons, not as a history book. Indeed, I was never once told that unbelievers go to hell or that I had to "believe on Christ" to be saved or anything like that. All good people went to heaven, so you'd better be good. That was it. Jesus in this version of Christianity was little more than a moral teacher. Being the Son of God made him an authority on the subject but had no other importance. Perhaps it was no accident that everyone who attended this church was very kind and jovial and all around just good folk. During my first few grades, whenever I had free time in school (and wasn't running and climbing about) I read for myself only the New Testament (red letter edition, of course--I think any child loves books with different colors in them). But the moment I got home my nose was in much bigger and better books: all manner of encyclopedias, my favorite reading material. The Bible was boring and not very informative, and hardly intelligible to a child, but it was the only book anyone ever gave me that would fit in my pocket. Yet I never had the feeling that I was doing anything religious, or what I was reading was special in any way, apart from the fact that everyone seemed happy or impressed to see me reading it, which I never understood since these same people thought I was weird for reading encyclopedias, which I knew, even at that age, were more educational. As I grew older, my social life expanded, and my spare time at school was spent completing homework, leaving no time for idle reading, and my appetite for knowledge grew to deeper levels of sophistication. The New Testament had given me no useful information about the meaning of life or the nature of the universe. Later I learned that people extracted from it such things, but they only did so by importing ideas and concepts that aren't in the book itself, and so just reading it alone I found it to be shallow and unsatisfying. Its message was obsessed with strange moral rules that no one around me ever followed. Instead of turning the other cheek, people called for more cops and longer prison terms. Far from giving thieves their cloaks, people kept baseball bats by their beds and hung signs that said Beware of Dog. While the very Son of God Himself defended a whore from moral condemnation, whores were routinely morally condemned, most ardently by the Devout. Then there was all this talk about the worm that never dies and morbid metaphors about
washing with blood, and so forth, that weren't very relevant to the world I saw and wanted to understand. Littered everywhere was exultation about the Good News, but God forbid should any passage ever clearly explain just which news that was supposed to be. At one moment it seemed to be the moral message, which I already observed was nonsensical, at another it was about a horrible End Times that hardly sounded good. No one around me thought a Nuclear War was good news, yet it sounded like the very same thing. At yet another moment it had something to do with Jesus dying for something called sin, even though it was never explained how he could die for it when I was always taught to seek forgiveness from the person I'd wronged. At yet another time it was the fact that there was an afterlife "so don't despair," which even as a child I found to be rather childish. And so on. It was confused, illogical, often unintelligible, but always irrelevant to the social and political reality in which I lived. Where was any explanation and defense of democratic values? Where was gender equality? What was wisdom? What was virtue? How come all my encyclopedias were full of the beautiful, wonderful things of the universe, yet not a single peep about them from the Son of God Himself? One would think he of all people would have had a kick ass science education, having the most powerful and knowledgeable father in the universe and all. I wanted to know what the fundamental nature of the universe was, what the fundamentals of a moral life really were, how to achieve happiness in this life. The Bible didn't help. Better moral wisdom came from mortal word of mouth around me, and far more knowledge from other books, and from school, where
I majored in science and took and mastered every science course offered. So with the other childish things I put away as I approached my teen years, the Good Book was among them. And so I became a seeker. Rather stereotypically, I entered teenage hungry for truth, for
something that made sense of it all, for direction. The universe just didn't seem right. Hypocrisy was everywhere, problems abounded, along with contradictory opinions about how to solve them, and the most basic facts about the world were, or so I thought, unexplained by scientists, who were clearly those who were best able to get the answers. And yet the one book everyone said had all the answers was shallow, frequently confused or uninformative, unnecessarily verbose and obscure, and contradicted the society I found myself in. Worse, it read like a
preachy fable: no logical arguments, no demonstrations of evidence, just assertions, and vague ones at that. It had nothing to say about democracy or science or technology, the three things that most defined my world. How useless. So I lived a life of the mind, and thought and studied, always anchored by a stable home life and friendships. Logic alone led me to what I would later discover was an ambiguous form of agnostic deism. Then a miracle happened. At least, it was what believers would call a miracle. In a bookstore hunting for a dictionary for school, I had a feeling that told me to turn. I did, and the first thing I saw was a Jane English translation of the Tao Te Ching. I took it up, and, like Augustine, turned to a page at random and read. What it said was so simple, so true, so elegantly and concisely put, and so wise, I knew this was the answer. I bought the book and read it all through, and from that day I declared my faith in Taoism, my first real religion. In contrast, Christianity was never a religion for me--it was simply a fixture in my cultural atmosphere, and I never affirmed any faith in its principles. But I had faith in Taoism. I was a True Believer. And I am glad that, unlike most people, I made an informed choice, at an age when I had the capacity to choose sensibly. Religion was never imposed on me and no one in my family ever assumed I had to be Christian, and consequently I can say my one chosen religion was born neither of peer pressure nor indoctrination. I studied Taoism avidly, at one point I had eight different English translations of the Tao Te Ching and a few of the Chuang Tzu, and my Taoism became full and sophisticated: I was a Philosophical Taoist, a Chinese tradition that held to an adherence to the texts and the wisdom alone and scorned the surrounding superstitions and religious cult that grew around it as being against the very message of Taoism. In time I also discovered how Taoism was a response to Confucianism, and the relationship the two religious
philosophies had, and in the course of things I acquired some acquaintance with Buddhism as well. My life was transformed. I acquired a sense of discipline and focus I never had before, an
attraction to quiet, simple living, and a strong yet humble moral sense of things. All finally made sense, and I was happier than I ever imagined possible. In my holy text I had a toolbox for dealing easily and sensibly with every problem, from sexual angst to metaphysical doubt, from political debate to material danger. There was a verse in the Tao Te Ching for everything, and it was written beautifully and simply, often appealing, for evidence of its truths, to the one truly universal Bible: the world itself, as well as the undeniable evidence within the reader's own soul. It had a train of thought, an implied logical argument. In time I created my own version of the Tao Te Ching, selecting my favorite translations of every line from among the many I knew,
and carried this with me as the one devotional item we were allowed in boot camp. I read it nightly. The proof that this was the one true religion was manifold, and seemingly irrefutable. Apart from the "clearly" supernatural miracle of my discovering the faith, and the "self-evident" perfection of its sacred text, following its tenets I was led to peace of mind and a balanced life, to friendships and goodness. With it, all harm was defeated or of no consequence, and every benefit came easily and naturally. I learned to have fewer expectations, to care more about others and to worry less about what I didn't yet know. Things were of little importance next to contentment itself, and the good life was a life of friends and the mind, not of luxury or power. Above all, it told me the simple truth: that my humanity was a good and natural thing. From sex to humor, all had an accepted place, without being forced into unnatural modes of thought or behavior. Sin was the artificial deviation from the harmony of nature, and if you would simply stop meddling with things you would be free of sin. It explained everything, even the existence and nature of the universe, in a way that made perfect and beautiful sense. And it cultivated a tolerant mind like I had never seen Christianity do. The Chinese had known this for over two thousand years. I still cherish the memory of seeing a picture of three holy men travelling a road together, all laughing with each other. One was a Buddhist, another a Taoist, and the third a Confucian. This image is in fact a regular motif in China. There, the three religions, despite being so doctrinally and intellectually at odds, get along peacefully, even happily, a friendship that is celebrated in such artwork everywhere. What better proof is there of the goodness and truth of a creed that it inspires such jovial tolerance? Instead of holy wars, condemnations and combative debates, these religions interact in dialogues, and each accepts the other as possibly different facets of the same coin. They live comfortably with doubt and uncertainty, even thriving on it. They condemn no one to an eternal hell, and require no belief. I was a happy Taoist for many years. Burned out on schooling I chose to live a simple life, contented at gardening or ditch-digging for a living, doing everything from installing electrical fixtures to waiting tables. But eventually I signed up for a life in the Coast Guard, studying electronics and sonar and living at sea, until I yearned again for an education and thus embarked on a long career as a student of science and ancient history.
edit
(it didn't matter to a Taoist whether a god existed--an answer to his question "Do you believe in God?" that frustrated the hell out of him). Eventually he argued that you have to read the whole Bible before you can make an informed decision about it. He recommended the NIV Student Bible, which I purchased, and still have. I set down to read it all through, every word, front to back, Old Testament and New (I have since read the entire New Testament in the original Greek). I figured now, with my greater understanding and maturity, I might receive more from it than I did as a child. Instead, I was able to see far worse things in it than I ever did before. I saw a terrible, sinful God by the standards of the simple, kind wisdom of Taoism--a jealous, violent, short-tempered, vengeful being whose behavior is nonsensical and overly meddlesome and unenlightening. Later I was to find that the vast majority of Christians never actually read the Bible, and have no idea what is really in there, and the hypocrisy of them telling me I had to read the whole thing before I could make an informed choice is still palpable. In all I can say that the Old Testament disgusted me, while the New Testament disappointed me. In general, no divinely inspired text would be so long and rambling and hard to understand--wise men speak clearly, brilliantly, their ability at communication is measured by
their success at making themselves readily understood. The Bible spans over a thousand pages of tiny, multi-columned text, and yet says nowhere near as much, certainly nothing as well, as the Tao Te Ching does in a mere eighty-one stanzas. The Bible is full of the superfluous--extensive geneologies of no relevance to the meaning of life or the nature of the universe, long excurses on barbaric rituals of bloodletting and taboo that have nothing to do with being a good person or advancing society toward greater happiness, lengthy diatribes against long-dead nations and constant harping on a coming doom and gloom. I asked myself: would any wise, compassionate being eve
you copied and pasted that personal revelation |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
do we not put faith in science and logic and all of these things as well? perhaps the concepts are easily comprehensible, but is it not also faith? |
We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
- Bertrand Russell |
|
|
| djmetatron |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
Im quite aware of what he was doing, and he was doing it poorly. Try not to get personal, it adds nothing and takes away much. |
well it didn't seem like you knew what he was doing. i just get very frustrated when a good debate like this gets dissintegrated when someone cannot pick up on subtle wit.
| quote: | | and I dont even necessarily disagree with you here, I just wanted to know if you were putting it at the level of personal belief or universal truth. There are different levels of required analysis for the various levels of how hard youre pushing it. |
why should personal belief be any different from universal truth?
if by 'universal truth' you mean some sort of romantic notion of the truth of things (i.e. why we are here) then that is a different argument entirely.
but that's the difference between you and me on this subject. i don't have personal belief in anything. i simply accept proven theory and what looks to be very close to proven theory. i also make a few conjectures of my own but those are not out of the need to satisfy any emotional or human need. they simply seem like the most likely conclusion based on what is already known. |
|
|
| RapidFire |
| quote: | Originally posted by jdat
And you do realize the blunder you just made?
It is not merely scientific fact but a pure and simple theory that we as humans are the results of millions of years of so called evolution.
Free to each and everyone to think what they want but evolution could be as bogus as the world could be round.
We think we know but truthfully none of us have any idea.!!! |
whats more relative to the way we live today? The ridiculous stories from the bible which we can't connect to anything physical or pure scientific research which has links to our past through fossils and other such evidence?
as tiesto14 said, we're not special. theres nothing to warrant us being special other than our own arrogant philosophies... |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
you copied and pasted that personal revelation |
and your point? his writing is exactly how i feel....i have spoken with Ricahrd several times via email and have thanked him over and over again for writing to elequently the way i feel...nothing wrong with that...or am i being graded on this?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| djmetatron |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
- Bertrand Russell |
\
great quotes man! |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| Religion over the centuries has been directly responsible for countless deaths, imprisonments, needless suffering, torturing, genocide, the oppression of people on grounds of sex, race, color, sexuality or belief, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, witch trials in Europe and America, persecution of heretics - e.g. Galileo for daring to suggest that the earth orbits the sun, children dying because their parents refused them medical treatment on religious grounds; relying instead on faith healers and prayer, slavery, supported by scripture (slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ. St.paul, Ephesians 6:5) holy wars in the name of benevolent, loving and merciful gods, the destruction of great works of art considered being pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists, censorship of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought, persecution of blasphemers, serial killers believing they are doing the work of Satan (or sometimes Jesus), whole societies divided by minor differences in belief or doctrine, resulting in violence. Mass suicides of cult-members following a charismatic leader who believes the world is about to end, the discouragement of rational, critical thought the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. aids) due to churches prohibiting the use of condoms. suicide bombers taught to believe that martyrs go straight to paradise, the indoctrination of children into the religion of their parents, giving them an arbitrary, life-long belief that is almost entirely dependent on their place of birth, women treated as second-class citizens or even slaves, hatred of gays and lesbians, abuse of power, authority and trust by religious leaders (for financial gain or sexual abuse of followers and even children), cults stockpiling weapons to defend themselves from the armies of Satan (the police and gov). |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by djmetatron
well it didn't seem like you knew what he was doing. i just get very frustrated when a good debate like this gets dissintegrated when someone cannot pick up on subtle wit. |
I wouldnt call what he does "subtle wit" hehe.
| quote: | why should personal belief be any different from universal truth?
if by 'universal truth' you mean some sort of romantic notion of the truth of things (i.e. why we are here) then that is a different argument entirely. |
I meant a universal truth as in necessary truth. as in it having a state of being. If there is a truth of the nature of the world and more relevantly , a truth regarding the relationship between man and religion it should be able to be expressed in such a way to be understood. as in 1+1 =2 . That is a truth, thats the way it is. But to say there is this necessary truth that we arent seeing and to just posit it as that...I mainly just wanted to see more thoughts on the subject to see if there is depth as well as breadth
| quote: | | I don't have personal belief in anything. |
That must be exhausting (Big lebowski quote) |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
you copied and pasted that personal revelation |
lol always going for the most irrelevant argument possible :shock: |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
- Bertrand Russell |
i know plenty of people who would disagree with that statement and say that 2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true...i don't have the advanced math or philosophy knowledge to explain it so i won't try...
but i'll just say that no evidence is complete and in that sense we take everything we know in faith. we might have stronger evidence for some things, but the puzzle will never be complete. we have the ability to rationalize as humans and for some the rationalization is different than others.
and who said there is NO evidence for religion? |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
and your point? his writing is exactly how i feel....i have spoken with Ricahrd several times via email and have thanked him over and over again for writing to elequently the way i feel...nothing wrong with that...or am i being graded on this?:rolleyes: |
Aww you rolled your eyes. That added much to your argument. If you cant express what you think and must rely on others to do so, I would question your stake in the whole thing. |
|
|
|
|
