Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 4, 2017 at 7:37 am)Brian37 Wrote: This is the problem with every religion, you cant even get members to agree how to view the writings....Both you and CL cant agree on interpretation, just like our two Muslims here Mystic Night and Atlas cant agree on how to interpret the Koran. How is it you think you are not doing the same thing other religions are doing, having their internal conflicts about interpretation?
In all fields of knowledge there are broad areas of agreement and hotly contested areas of debate. That is true of biology, of archaeology, history, linguistics, economics,...the list is endless. For you to the single out religion merely demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking.
Except that only in religion do we see people with personal relationships with the perfect deity who knows everything, as well as a holy book with the very word of that deity telling people what they should be believing and doing.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
This is your own fear of being wrong talking. You got sold a club, well so what, most of the world's population get sold a club. It isn't that religious people cant be good or do good, THEY CAN. What we doubt as skeptics is where our species morality is really coming from.
I love my species evolutionary ability to be compassionate. I simply don't assign that good aspect of reality to ANY religion or holy writing. I assign that to our species INDIVIDUAL ability to value that good aspect of our species.
You cannot force religion out of existence, not any, but all of them teach tribalism to greater or lesser degrees and all of them as umbrella labels have multiple sub sects that all claim to be the correct interpretations of the core umbrella label.
No holy book or holy writing has the magic power of making an individual only do good. There is not one nation, friend or foe alike that does not have hospitals or prisons. What makes a human good is their own individual empathy as an individual, it is not coming from a super natural place.
(April 4, 2017 at 9:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: In all fields of knowledge there are broad areas of agreement and hotly contested areas of debate. That is true of biology, of archaeology, history, linguistics, economics,...the list is endless. For you to the single out religion merely demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking.
Of course they are contested, because it is a horribly written book. It is not an instruction manual, it is a gang manual and not only 1 manual but many different versions.
Having knowledge of a history of religious claims does not make the claims true, it only proves a history of making those claims. It is as much a gang manual as the Koran and Jewish Texts.
Now again, I don't say that to demand an end to religion, but to explain to you that is because in antiquity humans formed competing rival city states and over centuries the writers would revise them and change them after the fact to suit their own agendas.
Shallow? How, so you think the KJV bible is the only version? Nope, you also have the NIV and Revised Standard and even the Book of Mormon. And again, how dare you falsely accuse me of singling out your religion.
Jews don't agree on the interpretations of the Torah and Talmud. Muslims compete over the interpretations of the Koran and Hadiths. Buddhist also have competing subs sects.
How about you instead of having a childish kneejerk reaction try to understand THAT WAS THEN, this is now. There is not one religion, or holy writing in human history that does not suffer the flaw of competing interpretations. Name me one religion in the world that does not have multiple sub sects. YOU CANT. Grow up.
I think you should re-read his posts; because he didn't say what anything about singling out his religion. His post seems to be questioning your logic and conclusion as a principle, and the consistency in which we can apply it.
This really doesn't have anything to do with what he said.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Of course they are contested, because it is a horribly written book. It is not an instruction manual, it is a gang manual and not only 1 manual but many different versions.
Having knowledge of a history of religious claims does not make the claims true, it only proves a history of making those claims. It is as much a gang manual as the Koran and Jewish Texts.
Now again, I don't say that to demand an end to religion, but to explain to you that is because in antiquity humans formed competing rival city states and over centuries the writers would revise them and change them after the fact to suit their own agendas.
Shallow? How, so you think the KJV bible is the only version? Nope, you also have the NIV and Revised Standard and even the Book of Mormon. And again, how dare you falsely accuse me of singling out your religion.
Jews don't agree on the interpretations of the Torah and Talmud. Muslims compete over the interpretations of the Koran and Hadiths. Buddhist also have competing subs sects.
How about you instead of having a childish kneejerk reaction try to understand THAT WAS THEN, this is now. There is not one religion, or holy writing in human history that does not suffer the flaw of competing interpretations. Name me one religion in the world that does not have multiple sub sects. YOU CANT. Grow up.
I think you should re-read his posts; because he didn't say what anything about singling out his religion. His post seems to be questioning your logic and conclusion as a principle, and the consistency in which we can apply it.
This really doesn't have anything to do with what he said.
Road, seen this before. He's not concerned about protecting every religion, again, just like fine tuning, just like most people of every religion do, when you call them out it isn't about criticism of all religions, it really is a back handed way of saying don't pick on my religion.
It is about his religion, when you start saying they are all the same. Just like I say you cant use science to argue one religion over another, it is about his religion, otherwise he would not be here arguing his personal brand.
I am sure he, like you like Mystic think you are being objective. But every time you push a religious person on their logic, this is the type of dodge you get.
Now if one is willing to concede, as they should and rightfully so, that there are decent people in all religions, then instead of getting mad at me accusing me of hating all religions, which is really a passive aggressive way of saying "don't pick on mine", maybe YOU and he and any other person of any religion, consider that our species morality is in the individual and not being handed down to us.
He is hiding behind the dodge of protecting pluralism because he isn't really concerned about the skepticism of other religions, but he hates the lumping in because that takes away his own special pleading. It should not be about his personal religion. It should be about the reality that WE are the ones as individuals whom are moral.
He wants to sound like he protects everyone equally, but so what? He like you, mistake human rights for being the same as logic.
This is the same dodge as the "fine tuning"......
"Science=my club" to "I am not arguing a specific claim" only to go back to that specific claim.
"I have a personal relationship" to "You hate all religions" only to go back to defending a specific claim.
I really don't care if he or you, or a Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist are tying to argue an anti collectivist position, part of a official club or simply doing it without belonging to a club, the root of any religion is still rooted in an official past regardless of current trends.
I am a very strong social liberal when it comes to government protecting human rights. But my objections to both more individualistic liberals and more collective nationalistic sectarians of ALL religions you are still stuck with the same problem. It still causes humans do be divided.
"I am not like the others" yes, both the compassionate liberal empathetic pluralistic left and the paranoid hyper collectivist right in ANY RELIGION are still falling under the same umbrella labels as competing claims/interpretations. When I point that out I get accused falsely of hating both left and right, when the truth is both left and right don't want to face a challenge to their social norms.
One is an issue of western common law, and I will always value that, but we are talking about the divisions caused in all religions be the individual claims or a group, the downside is that it creates divisions. To ignore that to me is foolish. To not have that debate is foolish.
(April 4, 2017 at 11:23 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think you should re-read his posts; because he didn't say what anything about singling out his religion. His post seems to be questioning your logic and conclusion as a principle, and the consistency in which we can apply it.
This really doesn't have anything to do with what he said.
Road, seen this before. He's not concerned about protecting every religion, again, just like fine tuning, just like most people of every religion do, when you call them out it isn't about criticism of all religions, it really is a back handed way of saying don't pick on my religion.
It is about his religion, when you start saying they are all the same. Just like I say you cant use science to argue one religion over another, it is about his religion, otherwise he would not be here arguing his personal brand.
I am sure he, like you like Mystic think you are being objective. But every time you push a religious person on their logic, this is the type of dodge you get.
Now if one is willing to concede, as they should and rightfully so, that there are decent people in all religions, then instead of getting mad at me accusing me of hating all religions, which is really a passive aggressive way of saying "don't pick on mine", maybe YOU and he and any other person of any religion, consider that our species morality is in the individual and not being handed down to us.
He is hiding behind the dodge of protecting pluralism because he isn't really concerned about the skepticism of other religions, but he hates the lumping in because that takes away his own special pleading. It should not be about his personal religion. It should be about the reality that WE are the ones as individuals whom are moral.
He wants to sound like he protects everyone equally, but so what? He like you, mistake human rights for being the same as logic.
This is the same dodge as the "fine tuning"......
"Science=my club" to "I am not arguing a specific claim" only to go back to that specific claim.
"I have a personal relationship" to "You hate all religions" only to go back to defending a specific claim.
I really don't care if he or you, or a Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist are tying to argue an anti collectivist position, part of a official club or simply doing it without belonging to a club, the root of any religion is still rooted in an official past regardless of current trends.
I am a very strong social liberal when it comes to government protecting human rights. But my objections to both more individualistic liberals and more collective nationalistic sectarians of ALL religions you are still stuck with the same problem. It still causes humans do be divided.
"I am not like the others" yes, both the compassionate liberal empathetic pluralistic left and the paranoid hyper collectivist right in ANY RELIGION are still falling under the same umbrella labels as competing claims/interpretations. When I point that out I get accused falsely of hating both left and right, when the truth is both left and right don't want to face a challenge to their social norms.
One is an issue of western common law, and I will always value that, but we are talking about the divisions caused in all religions be the individual claims or a group, the downside is that it creates divisions. To ignore that to me is foolish. To not have that debate is foolish.
Yep... still doesn't address what he had said, but only the straw man in your head.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Road, seen this before. He's not concerned about protecting every religion, again, just like fine tuning, just like most people of every religion do, when you call them out it isn't about criticism of all religions, it really is a back handed way of saying don't pick on my religion.
It is about his religion, when you start saying they are all the same. Just like I say you cant use science to argue one religion over another, it is about his religion, otherwise he would not be here arguing his personal brand.
I am sure he, like you like Mystic think you are being objective. But every time you push a religious person on their logic, this is the type of dodge you get.
Now if one is willing to concede, as they should and rightfully so, that there are decent people in all religions, then instead of getting mad at me accusing me of hating all religions, which is really a passive aggressive way of saying "don't pick on mine", maybe YOU and he and any other person of any religion, consider that our species morality is in the individual and not being handed down to us.
He is hiding behind the dodge of protecting pluralism because he isn't really concerned about the skepticism of other religions, but he hates the lumping in because that takes away his own special pleading. It should not be about his personal religion. It should be about the reality that WE are the ones as individuals whom are moral.
He wants to sound like he protects everyone equally, but so what? He like you, mistake human rights for being the same as logic.
This is the same dodge as the "fine tuning"......
"Science=my club" to "I am not arguing a specific claim" only to go back to that specific claim.
"I have a personal relationship" to "You hate all religions" only to go back to defending a specific claim.
I really don't care if he or you, or a Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist are tying to argue an anti collectivist position, part of a official club or simply doing it without belonging to a club, the root of any religion is still rooted in an official past regardless of current trends.
I am a very strong social liberal when it comes to government protecting human rights. But my objections to both more individualistic liberals and more collective nationalistic sectarians of ALL religions you are still stuck with the same problem. It still causes humans do be divided.
"I am not like the others" yes, both the compassionate liberal empathetic pluralistic left and the paranoid hyper collectivist right in ANY RELIGION are still falling under the same umbrella labels as competing claims/interpretations. When I point that out I get accused falsely of hating both left and right, when the truth is both left and right don't want to face a challenge to their social norms.
One is an issue of western common law, and I will always value that, but we are talking about the divisions caused in all religions be the individual claims or a group, the downside is that it creates divisions. To ignore that to me is foolish. To not have that debate is foolish.
Yep... still doesn't address what he had said, but only the straw man in your head.
I'm only reading his responses because his density amuses me.
April 4, 2017 at 12:42 pm (This post was last modified: April 4, 2017 at 12:47 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(April 4, 2017 at 12:34 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(April 4, 2017 at 12:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yep... still doesn't address what he had said, but only the straw man in your head.
I'm only reading his responses because his density amuses me.
I am starting to wonder... is it a reading comprehension deficiency, a dodge, is it deliberate, or is Brian just special? I am curious now.
Unfortunately if he has any somewhat legitimate point, it will be lost, because of football, pancakes, motor oil.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(April 4, 2017 at 1:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote: He's beating you two clowns like rented mules and you have your heads so far up your own asses that you can't see it!
Let me know if you find fucking jesus up there.
They are not used to someone cutting to the chase whom has played chess far longer. They don't like that I don't play their long winded dance.
It is the same no matter the religion.
"I am not like the others".
Me, "Yes you are."
If anyone of any label had anything they'd be at the patent office and win a Nobel Prize by now. (Wait for it...)
But as far as "beating them like rented mules". If you want to put it like that you can. They are still my fellow human beings, but sure, I do think they are full of it. I don't hate every single religious person as an individual though.
They won't find Jesus or Allah or Vishnu or Yahweh or Buddha.
