Do you see any benefits to religious faith?

[Arkilogue]

I don't "believe" in the bible nor do I need to. I have found what I've needed and moved well beyond it.

Bullshit, you're some kind of fundagelical. This fact is evident in pretty much every post you make. All your points are to defend the biblical view of the world, from science through morality all the way to the supposed historical validity of the bible.

It's bloody annoying when people like you lie about your religion.

What is the "biblical" view of the world? I'm sure you came demonstrate internal consistency among the 66 books to support your claim that there is "a biblical world view". Or it's just your favorite egregore to summon and cast at people.

Where have I said the bible is historically accurate? Oh that's right, I didn't. I stated the near diametric opposite. You're confirmation bias is unzipped and your flaccid opinion is hanging out.

I view the bible as nearly entirely allegorical

Yeah, lying is bloody annoying.

[Arkilogue]

I gather that he's easily taken in by "deepities"; a "postmodern believer" who, in essence, thinks all religious are metaphors to describe "the super-real"; I am willing to bet that "everything is nothing and nothing is everything," and similar such declarations, which might impress a small group of hippies sitting around a fire tripping on LSD, would also describe the feelings of a believer like himself.  Like I said, a lover of deepities.  His posts are better examples than those which I could conceive.  That's my sense anyway.

I view all religions as various types fruit trees in various stages of feral growth. Most are far overgrown and no longer bearing good fruit. But I'm not limited to current fruit, I'm a spiritual recombinant geneticist. I can select the traits I want to consume and become and I am growing my own tree of Life, and after a great deal of growth, I too and in need of pruning. That is why I'm here, I tend the tree. I am it's creator preserver and destroyer and I retain artist license of my life.

I've never had a need or use for nothing. I doesn't really come up in my work.

Thanks for the complement! You inspire me....try this one: The universe is a sum thing from a Something for some things.

[Pat Mustard]

Bullshit, you're some kind of fundagelical. This fact is evident in pretty much every post you make. All your points are to defend the biblical view of the world, from science through morality all the way to the supposed historical validity of the bible.

It's bloody annoying when people like you lie about your religion.

I gather that he's easily taken in by "deepities"; a "postmodern believer" who, in essence, thinks all religious are metaphors to describe "the super-real"; I am willing to bet that "everything is nothing and nothing is everything," and similar such declarations, which might impress a small group of hippies sitting around a fire tripping on LSD, would also describe the feelings of a believer like himself.  Like I said, a lover of deepities.  His posts are better examples than those which I could conceive.  That's my sense anyway.

He describes himself as telestai. From the context given he probably means tetelestai, demotic Greek for it is finished, which appears twice in the bible in John 19:28&30 at the culmination of the crucifixion scene. Do a duck duck* go search of the word and you'll see it crop up in fundie circles a lot (fundies have a right grá for John despite it being mostly made up [ok compared to the synoptics]). And given the similarity of his prejudices with the avowed fundies on here (scientific illiteracy, demanding that we accept the bible as a literally true and accurate historical document, blindness to contrary evidence even when it's waved in his face, preaching), the conclusion that Arkilogue is a fundie evanvelical is inescapable.

* I say duck duck go because google locational context will skew the results.

[Edwardo Piet]

There are no benefits to religious faith.

[Mudhammam]

Did I not quote several popular historical non-biblical sources that used it in the same manner and supported my original claim that the founders of the Christian religion meant it in that manner from the source document the Christians use to support their entire religion??? Yes. I have.

You want it to mean what you want it to mean due to your atheistic confirmation bias.  It's plain as blinding day light.

I have accepted the burden of proof and provided a plethora of evidence from relevant source of the time.  But you, just like the spitting flip image of a religious fundamentalist cannot change perspective even when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

My "atheistic confirmation bias"?!? That's so cute! Did you come up with that one all on your own? Probably, because like so much else of what you've said, it's irrelevant here. Nothing in my remarks hinges on whether or not I believe in this or that god, or no gods at all. My point has been simple. I'll repeat it once more so please pay attention this time:

Unless you've demanded and received the same evidence that Thomas requested and was granted, then your belief in the claims of the books (including the words and "works" of "the founder") rests, according to Christ himself, on blind faith. And this is what both he and yourself would seem to encourage.

[Edwardo Piet]

Guys, guys, play nice.

[Cyberman]

There are no benefits to religious faith.

... which cannot be achieved by purely secular means.

[Edwardo Piet]

Exactly.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There are no benefits to religious faith.

What about motivating people like Bonhoeffer, Wilberforce, and Dr. King?

[bennyboy]

There are no benefits to religious faith.

What about motivating people like Bonhoeffer, Wilberforce, and Dr. King?

Yeah, I'm really not sure how anybody could claim faith has NO benefits.  I mean-- it makes someone feel good.  It gives them a sense of peace.  It prevents them from getting kicked out of their family's church.  Those are all obviously benefits.

The real discussion should be whether the benefits of faith outweigh the benefits of not having faith.  That's a lot more grey.