I'd Like an Argument, Please

[Demonslayer]

Tell me, have you died and arisen so that you know the concept of an afterlife is false ?

No I haven't. No one has.

Why should anyone expect to get anything from religion ?

Why else would one spend so much time dedicated to it? It must give you something positive or why bother? What's the point?

It seems to me that you are really confused on a number of issues.

It's entirely possible.

What did Mother Teresa "get" from her religion ? A life of poverty, working with the absolute dregs of society.

Presumably she got great joy from helping the poor. However millions of people help the poor every day without religion. You can help the poor, and derive joy from it, without being religious. I should know, I donate a sizeable amount of charity both money and my time. I get a good feeling from it.

By your lights she was insane, right ?

Nope, although she wasn't the saint everyone makes her out to be but that's a story for another day. If she was happy doing what she was doing, good for her. My point is it doesn't require religion to dedicate yourself to helping unfortunate people.

I think there is much to be achieved that you are incapable of understanding. So, don't try

Is that your positive Christian message?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So I'm a Christian without a religion, as I'm unsure what denomination gets it. Thought it might be fun and I might learn something to debate some topic regarding Christianity, such as why one denomination is better than another, or why some other religion is better than Christianity in general, or why atheism why atheism is better than any religion. I'm easy. Suggest a topic of discussion.

[emoji4]

IN spite of theist opinion, atheism is not a religion.

 

[Spockrates]

That basically sounds like Pascal's Wager, which is fundamentally flawed on multiple grounds.

Please explain.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about what you actually believe - I don't think we can actively chose that anyway. My argument is against labelling yourself with a specifically (though often inconsistently) defined label on the basis on a long and hard search to find a denomination you can just about squeeze yourself to fit.

OK

You can believe, say and do all of the same things without that label and without having to follow (or ignore) all the varying specific rules of the specific denomination you choose.

Are you speaking of the label Christian, or the label of some denomination?

 

[Spockrates]

May I suggest that you begin with which God it is that you are looking for....the impotent God of the fragmented churches, or the God of Jesus Christ? They are not the same God.

Then ask yourself if he is looking for you? Are you the sort of person he wants as a worshipper? (John 6:44)

Hi Deeje. Sorry for the delay in my reply. What is the true church of Jesus Christ?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

The denomination that is best for each person is the one that works best for him or her.

Then why are you so against the JW's? If it works best for them......

 

[HonestJoe]

Please explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

It’s basically an old philosophical idea that we should choose to believe in God because if we’re right we get eternity in heaven but if we’re wrong we lose nothing while if we don’t believe in God, if we’re right we get nothing but it we’re wrong we get an eternity in Hell.

There are lots of issues with this, some of which are detailed in the Wikipedia article, but the key ones I’d say are the false idea that we can choose to believe and the assumption it’s a simple binary proposition with a singular right or wrong answer.

Are you speaking of the label Christian, or the label of some denomination?

Both, and anything else like them. Why limit yourself to a set menu when you can order a la carte?

 

[Spockrates]

Depends on the individual, certainly. The whole point of the thread is to give you some topics, right?

That's the crux of the whole thing.
Are you certain that there's a God?
Are you secure in your faith?
If so, why?
What standards do you hold yourself to when answering what is possibly the greatest single question of our existence?

I am too. But the vast majority of your denominations don't feel that way.
And if you take your reasonable position one step further, I'd ask why you're even bothering with one particular faith system at all... It's most likely what you grew up with and what you're accustomed to. But is it really the best path for your personal growth?

I'm of the opinion that settling on any one particular faith system is limiting, spiritually. It's necessarily exclusive.

Are you suggesting a mix of religions?

 

[Spockrates]

I'd say there are a lot more denominations of Christians than atheists, because atheists are far more likely as a group to follow a single authoritative opinion, e.g. anything an academic consensus claims goes 'cause they're the experts, they should know!

But for skeptics of atheism, it's more like trying to herd cats, there is less restraint of a peer pressure review system, we are more likely to nit pick academic consensus, demand deeper understanding on a personal level. The acknowledgement of personal faith opens to door to much more widely varying viewpoints, and that's a good thing.

it's no coincidence that our most pioneering scientists tend to buck the academic trend of atheism

Interesting. Yes, I suppose one doesn't see atheists congregating to support one another or work for some cause. I guess they could use a good atheists club?

 

[Spockrates]

It's not really a matter of condoning it's a matter of simplicity as opposed to over and subjective interpretation.

Please provide an example

 

[Spockrates]

Five pages in twelve hours. I am not going to read them.

I think religion is about settling. Settling is not what Father Abraham did. Genesis 17:5

Not sure I understand. Please explain in what way religion is like settling.

I have observed that there is some truth in every religion. It is my opinion that nothing should be all right or all wrong.

Agreed

The denomination that is best for each person is the one that works best for him or her.

I think atheism is wrong because 1. the world is too wonderful and cooperative to be without GOD and 2. there is power in the universe that could not have come from nothing imo.

Thanks

 

[savagewind]

Not sure I understand. Please explain in what way religion is like settling.

Any religion is about settling on what it believes is true. There are some religions, I have heard, where you can learn that every which way can be right. But a person believing in God's will be done can't be welcome there, so even those freedom religions have something to settle on.

Abraham was a nomad. He did as the Lord commanded. He did not let preconceived notions hinder him.

My fingers communicated notions are nothings as that is what I wrote. Weird! I wrote, He did not let preconceived nothings hinder him. Then I changed it because it was too weird for me. Imagine!

 

[Spockrates]

If you would like to hear about the Buddhist version of Pascal's wager, you can find it in the Kalama Sutta (which is one of my favorite suttas)
{Please note: this is referring to someone who has a mind free of the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion and has developed the four immeasurables of loving kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, and equiaimity, as can be seen earlier in the sutta.}

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."​

Is a premise of the Kalamas Sutra that there are consequences for evil done but not for evil thought?

 

[Spockrates]

All Wise or All Knowing

I would suppose the Almighty to be such because He cannot be deceived or cheated

I believe He is moving with us in this linear motion of time

He doesn't need to know the future
but He can call the shot better than we can

So time travel or existing outside of time is beyond the Almighty's capabilities?

 

[Spockrates]

I'm not sure it's necessary to with respect to the questions. In fact, doing that might start muddying up the waters a bit, so to speak (e.g., comparing things that don't have much to do with the monotheism-polytheism distinction but happen to be present in religion X and religion Y). If you want to, though, I'd pick one that's more familiar to you.

Yes, for the sake of the argument I seek, please do!

 

[Spockrates]

IN spite of theist opinion, atheism is not a religion.

Acknowledged

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, for the sake of the argument I seek, please do!

Lol... no, no, let me rephrase. You pick some non-monotheist religion that you are more familiar with to use, if you think it's important to focus on a specific polytheistic religion (and again, I don't think that it is). The idea is not for me to pick this for you, because I have no idea what you are and aren't familiar with.

 

[Spockrates]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

It’s basically an old philosophical idea that we should choose to believe in God because if we’re right we get eternity in heaven but if we’re wrong we lose nothing while if we don’t believe in God, if we’re right we get nothing but it we’re wrong we get an eternity in Hell.

There are lots of issues with this, some of which are detailed in the Wikipedia article, but the key ones I’d say are the false idea that we can choose to believe and the assumption it’s a simple binary proposition with a singular right or wrong answer.

Both, and anything else like them. Why limit yourself to a set menu when you can order a la carte?

I see, or perhaps I don't. Are you saying I have no choice of religion, for the religion I choose is predetermined?

 

[Spockrates]

Lol... no, no, let me rephrase. You pick some non-monotheist religion that you are more familiar with to use, if you think it's important to focus on a specific polytheistic religion (and again, I don't think that it is). The idea is not for me to pick this for you, because I have no idea what you are and aren't familiar with.

OK. The Ancient Greek pantheon, then--Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Poseidon, Pan and the like. Are you saying you will argue for this form of pantheism, demonstrating why it's superior to Christianity?

 

[crossfire]

Is a premise of the Kalamas Sutra that there are consequences for evil done but not for evil thought?

No. The premise of the Kalama Sutta is that the propagation of greed, hatred, and delusion as a religious or philosophical doctrine leads to long-term harm, no matter how much pretzel logic is used in order to try to justify it.

 

[Quintessence]

OK. The Ancient Greek pantheon, then--Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Poseidon, Pan and the like. Are you saying you will argue for this form of pantheism, demonstrating why it's superior to Christianity?

That is polytheism, not pantheism.

I get the impression you're taking a much different approach to this than I expected, though. The original questions were:

How can you be satisfied worshiping only one god for your entire life? Or thinking that there is only one god, when there's so much diversity in the world? Why monotheism? And is Christianity really monotheistic (of the Abrahamic religions, it strikes me as the least genuinely monotheistic given the trinity and the plethora of saints and other semi-divine beings)?

I'm really not interested in engaging in posturing about who is superior to who. Just looking for a clarification of "why monotheism?" My culture is dominated by monotheist thinking, and it is comparatively rare for that to be challenged. The questions that get asked are of the non-monotheists, as if they are some sort of aberration and monotheism is the default normal of some sort. My intention behind these questions was to turn that on its head and give monotheism a piece of its own medicine.