(November 17, 2012 at 3:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We don't even agree on that supernatural clause at the end there...hehehe. So much for our fucking religion...goddamned schisms.

I don't make a lot of use of a 'supernatural' category when considering new (to me) phenomena, but I do imagine there might be new and poorly understood aspects of the one quite natural reality which has so far eluded our powers of description. So it seems we can be all over the map regarding the supernatural too.

What you would put in the supernatural category I probably sort into what I assume is a category for deeper, unconscious aspects of myself.

[More later, gotta go pick up Lia's cousin at the BART station.]

(November 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I think this sort of "faith" would be worlds more compelling than the "it's twuuu it's twuuu it's twuuuu" variety. More like "Okay, it may not be - I certainly can't prove to anyone that it is- but I can't exactly control all of the things I believe (or don't), however - the reason that I would like for it to be true is thus, and thus, and thus"

(trying to imagine a "reasonable faith" is, to me, extremely difficult. I can't eve say that It's possible for me to do so..but I can imagine a faith (no reason required) that avoids making unreasonable claims.)

This raises the question of what separates a faith that doesn't feel the need to make claims - or even more, to get others to believe those claims - and one that does. (There are now in East Asia, and historically through East and West Asia, faiths that, largely indigenously, aren't about making claims and getting others to believe them. I think of local and Taoist gods in China, Shinto in Japan, and local gods and folk religion in India, not to mention the vast panoply of African, Slavic and Scandinavian traditions. Wee folk, anyone?)

I wonder if it is a necessary part of some faiths, bound up in the meaning of that faith. I also see that it wouldn't take but a slight push or small breeze to move one from one of these poles to the other. If that happens, then what is driving that movement.

I read Brian37's list and couldn't help but think that for some religious, say Christians, there isn't a mirror list of good things it would be inappropriate for you to keep to yourself.

Dennett in a Youtube video talks about a project that interviewed a half dozen or so "atheist clergy" - clergy who had lost their faith, yet remain in the closet as practicing clergy. It's all they know how to do, be a priest or pastor. What are their options? And if those are "out" in the confidentiality of this project, how many more are purely closeted? And if that's true of clergy, might it also be true of the laity as well, for a portion of them?

(ETA: I think it's telling that Christ was king of the Jews, and the most beloved of Jews, aside from Levi and the other priestly tribe, were the kings such as David and Solomon. Being a member of the Abrahamanic faiths seems to imply a strong political element, one concerned with binding and ruling people.)

(November 17, 2012 at 6:10 am)Kousbroek Wrote: You are defending a ... 'person' who stated : "don't Atheists know that you can't have morality without God?"

So what? It's hardly a personal attack on atheists, he's just expressing his own opinion. Many Christians have lacking morals in my opinion, and I don't mind saying so, doesn't that mean that I'm disagreeing with his statement? To an extent, however Christianity still builds good morals. I know someone - who doesn't know I'm an Anglican - who is an atheist, but has told me that out of all Christians he absolutely hates Catholics, but he has a great deal of respect for Anglicans because they have "Christian morals".

Now if he as an atheist can appreciate Christian morals, that means that Christianity does have morals and bring them to their followers. So yes, atheists have morals, just about everyone does. Christianity improves upon those, and it certainly doesn't diminish any existing morals. So you have no reason to be angry about a statement like "Atheists can't have morality without God" because I know at least one atheist who recognizes that Christianity does deliver morals.

---

(November 17, 2012 at 10:03 am)whateverist Wrote: I've always said it doesn't take a genius to be an atheist. This isn't rocket science. I too have seen atheists stoop to pick apart straw arguments which seem to miss a poster's real point. So being an atheist confers neither superior intelligence nor nobler intent.

But the sorts of literalism associated with religious fundamentalism really do seem to require a stunted intelligence and so often go hand in glove with bias and disingenuousness. I wouldn't paint every theist with the same brush however. There have been too many examples of exemplary individuals who somehow embrace religious faith. They just seem exceedingly rare.

Hey nice post.

This may explain it to you:

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matt 7:13-14)

And this:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1 Tim 4:1-3)

Trolls gotta troll.

"Now if he as an atheist can appreciate Christian morals, that means that Christianity does have morals and bring them to their followers."
No, Daniel, it means that your shadowy friend has an opinion -

(November 17, 2012 at 12:01 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Daniel's not a troll too? I've never gotten him to stay on topic and defend his viewpoints. I've asked him several times about the Tower of Babel story and he "trollingly" responds about how Noah's flood was localized.

The Tower of Babel, as I've explained to you, occurs "sometime" following Noah's flood. We don't know when that is. It could be as little as 5,300 years ago, or 30-40,000 years ago. If it's 30-40,000 years ago, yes all the languages of the world could have been derived from it. I already said that. If it was more recent, then it applies locally as the flood itself did. How that isn't answering your question is anyone's guess.

(November 18, 2012 at 12:21 am)Daniel Wrote: The Tower of Babel, as I've explained to you, occurs "sometime" following Noah's flood. We don't know when that is. It could be as little as 5,300 years ago, or 30-40,000 years ago. If it's 30-40,000 years ago, yes all the languages of the world could have been derived from it. I already said that. If it was more recent, then it applies locally as the flood itself did. How that isn't answering your question is anyone's guess.

Couldn't be 30-40, narrative wouldn't fit (ignoring the rest of the magic). The ability to manufacture giant boats (or giant wood anythings)? Domesticated animals? It would have to be after both of these things if the flood narrative is to be a sounding mark.
(The large majority of the biblical narrative has to be after domestication of animals and assumption of ag...if we're looking to reasonably place it in history or prehistory)

Yes, Gen 12 mentions domesticated donkeys under Abraham. It could represent an error in the text, or it could simply mean that donkeys were domesticated well before 4000 BC (there certainly isn't any definitive proof that they weren't).

(November 18, 2012 at 12:32 am)Daniel Wrote: Yes, Gen 12 mentions domesticated donkeys under Abraham. It could represent an error in the text,

The text -is- the error....but no worries...lol.

Quote:or it could simply mean that donkeys were domesticated well before 4000 BC (there certainly isn't any definitive proof that they weren't).

Look how quickly we abandon history, claiming to place Babel in time (or Noahs flood) becomes meaningless, all reference to an actual place in time must have been pretext. May as well place it in a time far far in the future. Maybe in a galaxy far, far away.....HG Wells "The Time Machine" places a complicated mechanical toy in the distant past..and there certainly isn't any definitive proof that there weren't complicated mechanical toys in the distant past.

Quote:The Tower of Babel, as I've explained to you, occurs "sometime" following Noah's flood. We don't know when that is. It could be as little as 5,300 years ago, or 30-40,000 years ago. If it's 30-40,000 years ago, yes all the languages of the world could have been derived from it. I already said that. If it was more recent, then it applies locally as the flood itself did. How that isn't answering your question is anyone's guess.

Are you having fun pulling this shit out of your ass? Where is your evidence for any of this bullshit?

Oh - right. Your fucking bible.

Meh, I mean fuck it Min, if somebody wants to use their bible as evidence for something that's their deal. But why can't they be satisfied with where that leads? The donkey is the known quality (in Daniels example, for example)..the timeframe is not. We place that at 4kbc or later, so that's when the narrative happened.

We explain the unknown by reference to the known...why is that so hard to understand?