The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Loki, The Fallen]

Oh, it's SO on! I have so many books that prove the Great Unicorn (Blessed be her Hovves) is white! May I start with Core Book 3 of Dungeons and Dragons?

Those things are/were outlandish because there was no reason to think they were possible. Which is exactly what I'm getting at: what reason have you to believe the claims of any religion?

Why would one think it's possible? Well, one could read about it in books. There are a number of rather intelligent people who think it's correct. And then, perhaps one would believe that the entire theology is makes alot of sense, and they feel it to be the 'Right' way. Just look at the others who have posted thier reasons. Of course, since you believe we are Moist Robots, we are just physiologically pre-disposed to this belief, and we really have no way to go against it without drugs.

Number of counterpoints. First of all, those eugenics deplete the gene pool, so it would actually weaken the species in the event of a catastrophe.

Well, luckily we brought all the smart people with us, so we can fix those problems.

Second, try getting those "inferiors" to comply, and try even defining inferiority without having a biased definer. You're basically guaranteed to embroil the world in war.

Have you seen society lately? Their so afraid of appearing intolerant and mean that they will tolerate anything that doesn't effect them directly. Like Dafur. It'll take time. Luckily, we also have the smart and strong people, and they logically will be good at taking care of the lessers.

Third, and least, even weak/dumb/skill-less people have uses.

Emphasis mine. Isn't that illogical? And I'm sure the smart and strong could use them for something, perhaps organ donors.

*Note: I am SO not an advocate of this. I bring this up trying to explain that side of the argument.*

That's fine, really. Until you get "That's fine, really. Until you get "guess" theories (and theorists) that disagree with "scientific and backed by evidence" theories. And also until people start taking their theories more seriously than they should, like they're absolute truths when they're mere guesses. The acceptance of the fact that you could be wrong is very important.

We'll here is where we have a difference of people and belief. Some religions will kill for thier belief. Lately, it looks like some of them have matured enough to know when to kill and when to smile and nod, knowing that they can believe without forcing it on others. Which is why I think Logically (Oh noes!) that you can't FORCE someone to believe something and have it count as a true belief. (Hence why I don't even come close to agreeing on 'gunpoint conversions'.) That question and belief must be real, and arrived at by the individual for it to really 'count'.

Ah well, I digress from the true argument. The White Unicorn has spoken to me, and I shall now return to work! Farewell Infidels!

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Locke

Christianity is also almost entirely responsible for the continuing spread of AIDS in Africa. The preaching of the evils of contraception have laid waste to the African landscape in this sense. And I dare you to disagree on anything but a gut feeling you have.

Promiscuous sex is a sin, which basically makes using protection a sin in it's own right. It's people's own decisions to either not get tested for AIDS, or do get tested and not tell their partner which leads to the spread. I've personally never heard it preached that using protection is a sin, but I can see how sex for pleasure could be.

Originally Posted by Locke

Are you serious? Are religious people so far gone that they actually accept "it doesn't make sense, so make it make sense by making shit up" as a legitimate defense of their holy book?

How can there ever be a real dialogue on this with nonsense like that being spouted?

We don't make shit up, we read into the context and not take bible passages at face value. There are several instances where parts of the bible seem to contradict each other or not make sense. It's the same way if you read only the middle paragraph of a newspaper story. You don't know the full story or the context, so how can any of it make any sense to you?

[Edit]

Originally Posted by Locke

Wait...is this indierctly implying the age of the Earth? Because, if you're taking it as literal word that would mean you think the Earth is 6000-ish years old?

Yeah. And I'd love to debate you on it.

[Darth SS]

Promiscuous sex is a sin, which basically makes using protection a sin in it's own right. It's people's own decisions to either not get tested for AIDS, or do get tested and not tell their partner which leads to the spread. I've personally never heard it preached that using protection is a sin, but I can see how sex for pleasure could be.

Actually, the party line straight from the Vatican itself is that using anything that interferes with the natural events of baby-making is a sin. I.E. Contraception in any form except the "rhythm method" is wrong. Or, if you prefer effective contraception is wrong.


This of course opens up something that Krylo mentioned eariler, I.E. the villainization and enslavement of the human sex drive, but that's a whole new sub-topic for this thread.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

Actually, the party line straight from the Vatican itself is that using anything that interferes with the natural events of baby-making is a sin. I.E. Contraception in any form except the "rhythm method" is wrong. Or, if you prefer effective contraception is wrong.

That the same Vatican that thinks it can change anything in the Bible it wants at any time it feels like it? And also add and subtract sacraments? That Vatican?

[Loki, The Fallen]

Holy cow, the Vatican does NOT speak for ALL of Christianity, it speaks for Catholacism. Want to see the differences in Christianity? Go to a traditional Catholic Mass, (even if they flipped on the whole Latin Mass thing) and then go to an Assembly of God or Baptist Church. The Differences will Astonish you.

[Fifthfiend]

This of course opens up something that Krylo mentioned eariler, I.E. the villainization and enslavement of the human sex drive, but that's a whole new sub-topic for this thread.

Possibly the topic for our next Big Big Thread?

[Darth SS]

Yes, I know.

I happen to go to a school that's largely Lutheran.

I cite the Vatican because, as much as this may piss people off, the differences are usually in details. Whenever the Vatican makes a grand statement like "Contraception is a sin," the rest of Christian denominations tend to either A) Adopt the exact same policy, or B) Adopt effectively the same policy, minus or plus a few details.

[Lockeownzj00]

GAH. My mistake for posting too early...the post was too long according to NPF. LOKI, the rest of my post is here, with more replies.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

"boatloads of super smart people say so"?

So, we shouldn't trust experts. Again, the most rational and choice that makes the least assumption is automatically Scientist > Priest. Every single time.

How can you so blithely belittle intelligence, like that? Yes! Super smart people do say so. And we have a reason to believe them!

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

Consider the following sources of information:

1. The anchorman on the evening news says that a large fire is burning in the state of Colorado. One hundred thousand acres have burned, and the fire is still completely uncontained.

2. Biologists say that DNA is the molecular basis for sexual reporduction. Each of us resembles our parents because we inherit a complement of their DNA. Each of us has arms and legs because our DNA coded for the proteins that produced them during our early development.

3. The pope says that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected bodily after death. He is the son of God, who created the universe in six days. If you believe this, you will go to heaven after death; if you don't, you will go to hell, where you will suffer for eternity.

What is the difference between these forms of testiomny? Why isn't every "expert opinion" equally worthy of our respect? Given our analysis thus far, it should not be difficult to grant authority to 1 and 2 while disregarding 3.

Proposition 1: Why do we find the news story about the fire in Colorado persuasive? It could be a hoax. But what about those televised images of hillsides engorged by flame and of planes dropping fire retardant? Maybe there is a fire, but it is in a different state. Perhaps it's really Texas that is burning. Is it reasonable to entertaint such possibilities? No. Why not? Here is where the phrase "common sense" begins to earn its keep. Given our beliefs about the human mind, the success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings, and the degree to which we all rely no the news, it is scarcely conceivable that a respected television network and a highly paid anchroman are perpetrating a hoax, or that thousands of firefighters, newsmen, and terrified homeowners have mistaken Texas for Colorado. Implict in such commonsense judgments lurks an understanding of the causal connections between various processes in the world, the likelihood of different outcomes, and the vested interests, or lack thereof, of those whose testimony we are considering. What would a progessional news anchor stand to gain from lying about a fire in Colorado? We need not go into the details here; if the anchor on the evening news says that there is a fire in Colorado and then shows us images of burning trees, we can be reasonably sure that there really is a fire in Colorado.

Proposition 2: What about the "truths" of science? Are they true? Much has been written about the inherent provisionality of scientific theories. Karl Popper has told us that we never prove a theory right, we merely fail to prove it wrong. Thomas Kuhn has told us that scientific theories undergo wholesale revision with each generation and therefore do not converge on the truth. There's no telling which of our theories will be proved wrong tomorrow, so how much confidence can we have in them? Many unwary consumers of these ideas have concluded that science is just another area of human discourse and, as such, is no more anchored to the facts of this world than literature or religion are. All truths are up for grabs.

But all spheres of discourse are not on the same footing, for the simple reason that not all spheres of discourse seek the same footing (or any footing whatsoever). Science is science because it represents our most committed effort to verify that our statements abotu the world are true (or at least not false). We do this by observation and experiment within the context of a theory. To say that a given scientific theory is may be wrong is not to say that it may be wrong in its every particular, or that any other theory stands an equal chance of being right. What are the chances that DNA is not the basis for genetic inheritance? Well, if it isn't, Mother Nature sure has a lot of explaining to do. She must explain the results of fifty years of experimentation, which have demonstrated reliable correclations between genotype and phenotype (including the reproducible effects of specific genetic mutations). Any account of inheritance that is going to supersede the present assumptions of molecular biology will have to account for the ocean of data that now conforms tehse assumptions. What are the chances that we will one day discover DNA has absolutely nothing to do with inheritance? They are effictively zero.

Proposition 3: Can we rely on the authority of the pope? Millions of Catholics do, of course. He is, in fact, infallible in matters of faith and morality. Can we really say that Catholics are wrong to believe that the pope knows whereof he speaks? We surely can.

We know that [n]no[/b] evidence would be sufficient to authenticate many of the pope's core beliefs. How could anyone born in the tentieth century come to know that Jesus was actually born of a virgin? What process of ratiocination, mystical or otherwise, will deliver the necessary facts about a Galilean woman's sexual history (facts that run entirely counter to well-known facts of human biology)? There is no such process. Even a time machine could not help us, unless we were willing to keep watch over Mary twenty-four hours a day for the months surrounding the probably time of Jesus' conception.

Visionary experiences, in and of themselves, cna never be sufficient to answer questions of historical fact. Let's say the pope had a dream about Jesus, and Jesus came to him looking fresh from Da Vinci's brush. The pope would not even be in a position to say that the Jesus of his dream looked like the real Jesus. The pope's infallibilty, no matter how many dreams and visions he may have had, does not even extend to making a judgement about whether the historical Jesus wore a beard, let alone whether he was really the Son of God, born of a virgin, or able to raise the dead. These are just not the kinds of propositions that spiritual experience can authenticate.

Of course, we could imagine a scenario in which we would give credence to the pope's visions, or to our own. If Jesus came saying things like "The Vatican Library has exactly thirty-seven thousand two hundred and twenty-six books" and he turned out to be right, we would then begin to feel that we were, at the very least, in dialogue with someone who had something to say about the way the world is. Given a sufficient number of verifiable statements, plucked from the ethers of papal vision, we could begin speaking seriously about any further claims Jesus might make. The points it that his authority would be derived in the only way that such authority ever is--by making claims about the world that can be corroborated by further observation. As far as proposition 3 is concerned, it is quite obvious that the pope has nothing to go on but the Bible itself. This document is not a sufficient justification for his beliefs, given the standards of evidence that prevailed at the time of its composition.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

Really, it's everyone's choice on how and what to believe. If I don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2, the only one who really suffers is me, because I will be getting fired while screaming that my boss owes me $4.75 instead of the $2 he really did. It’s a whole freedom thing. It's one of those things that was given to us. (Like the freedom to not believe, if we see fit.)

This is where you are again mistaken and have repeatedly ignored my previous posts. These beliefs aren't so harmless as 1 + 1 = 2 (though if everyone followed your logic, the economies of the world would be in ruin). The exact literal second stem-cell research began being bogged down by religious morals, you became wrong. The exact second the planes hit the WTC, you became wrong. In your arguments, you continually try to paint religion as a harmless indulgence, but what it's about is massive, group unthinking, and this is NOT up to you. Beliefs are reflections about THE WAY THE WORLD IS. If billions of people think the world is a way which is so inconsistent and skewed that it brings about tragedies like 9/11 or the halting of stem-cell research, what you are saying is clearly false.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

Humans are the strangest creatures, are they not? But (now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) are you saying that unless it's based PURELY on science, unless a bunch of people in white coats say it's LAW, that we SHOULDN'T think a certain way?

No. You have misread me. Science in these cases is used as a solid example, but the point is scientific thought. Thought which resembles science: logical, deductive. This is the only way that ever produces results in anything, ever. In relationships, in school, in video games, in philosophy, there is not "other" kind of logic. This is how humans verifiably reason their way through situations The invention of "faith" is created by logic itself! Believing in this concept of faith is an act of attempted (albeit failed) reason.

The point is beliefs are not innocuous.

On Misc.

Originally Posted by B_real_shadows

But my scenario is exactly the same. Because, in this case, just like with God, you can't see, feel, smell, taste, or hear the rock. I did not say where the rock was, in correlation to you. As far as you're concerned your 5 senses don't sense the rock. Can you prove to me that the rock exists? This goes exactly with God. I can't prove him to you, but I beleive he exists, just as you can't prove the rock to me, just as you beleive the rock exists.

What does this even mean? Your entire argument is based off of the statement: "there is a rock."

You're basically arguing that Europe doesn't exist. I, once again, dare you to prove Europe exists. It is the exact same argument as what you are using. It is patently ridiculous and a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

Regarding the person you refer to as "Sam 'The Man' Harris", why do you cling to him so? It seems many of your posts offer some quote from him. He must be quite inspiring to read; perhaps I'll look him up. Any recommended reading material?

I am quoting Sam Harris over and over again because he wrote a 300 page book on this very subject called "The End of Faith which is the most systematic and well-thought out treatise against religion and magical thought I have ever read. He also wrote "Letter to a Christian Nation," a much shorter incarnation of the same arguments directed at American Christians.

ON REDUNDANCY

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

Bad things are done in the name of religion. Do I defend them? No. Does that make all religion bad? I think not.

This point has been made by the theists ad nauseam. It has been phrased basically as is, over and over again. And likewise, we have responded with very lengthy, coherent replies, only to be met with the same tautology.

This isn't to say I'm surprised. This is a massive topic. It just seems that the argument goes full circle, people forget that this issue was addressed, and bring it up again (perhaps because the previous debate wasn't currently fleshed out). I honestly think the counter-point to this has been articulated 8 jillion times and quite effectively. So, I donno. EXASPERATION!


I've lost so much sleep cos of this thread. And not necessarily in a bad way. It's fun. I just have. I wonder if it's worth even writing so much--posts get drowned out seconds after they're written, and editing them seems to go unnoticed.

HEH!

[Loki, The Fallen]

Like priests not being allowed to marry? Or how about the whole confessional thing? They can be RADICALLY different.

For anther example of differences in the Christian Church, we could look at the Mormons. I'm not sure, but I think the only real thing Christians have in common is the book, and perhaps the one belief all of Christianty hinges on. Lots of the other rules are denomination specific.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

I've lost so much sleep cos of this thread. And not necessarily in a bad way. It's fun. I just have. I wonder if it's worth even writing so much--posts get drowned out seconds after they're written, and editing them seems to go unnoticed.

HEH!

I notice!

It does feel almost like a forum game. Only, I feel like I'm losing points as fast as I'm gaining. And the oversleep from this has actually made me late for work.

On that note, /sleep.