Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[Valjean]

Sticks & Stones. Your response is kind of infantile don't you think? Everyone's opinion is valid & valued. But, apparently not for the oversensitive name calling types?
As far as ignorance is concerned, you sure are projecting. Have some more of that cool aid & chill out. This is a discussion, not a war.

How are you defining 'valid'? Evidence-based beliefs are, in my opinion, more valid than faith based-beliefs.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes, it would be great if Christian beliefs aren't true, and it looks like nobody needs to worry that those beliefs are true. Christianity posits a really awful God that only a callous or sadistic person could love.

A simple, "Oh, I guess I goofed" would have sufficed.

 

[Valjean]

Very good. So dont call them facts. Thats against science.

Apparently you don't understand what a fact is, either. Scientific theories are generally facts and theories.

Who is this "we" group? Do they live with you? Is it an exclusive club? Who is this "we"? Is that a religious cult?

Mankind, and its understanding of the world

Please read a book on the philosophy of science.

Please explain what you mean.

I dont believe in anything with such blind faith like you just for the sake of argument. Thats your method of establishing faith. I have been taught to use reason and logic. No blind faith or group mentality like your "we" love.

You're projecting. It's religion that embraces faith. Science rejects it, and I'm certainly not trying to establish any faith.
But your beliefs are not based on reason and logic. They're based on faith -- unsupported belief. It's science that employs reason and logic.

 

[firedragon]

Apparently you don't understand what a fact is,

Can you give me a world of science, in which a book on philosophy of science that says 'science is about establishing facts'?

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you give me a world of science, in which a book on philosophy of science that says 'science is about establishing facts'?

Actually using the proper definition of what is a 'fact' concerning the physical nature of our universe, yes. The objective verifiable evidence supporting science are 'facts' and do not change, but the context of 'facts' may change over time. What changes over time is the increase and understanding of 'facts' due to discoveries and research.

 

[1213]

But they are facts -- and there is no "proof" ....

Ok. I think that means they are then beliefs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nor can i take away what wisdom are found in religious teaching

You and others keep calling these ideas wisdom. When I ask what it is, I get no answers. When I ask why it is considered wisdom, nothing concrete. If I call something wisdom, I can tell you why it deserves that title, because I use a clear definition of the word that allows me to decide if an idea constitutes wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge the facilitates lasting satisfaction, or essentially, knowing what to want. A wise person pursues things of value because he recognizes that they are valuable and when he achieves them, they make his life better. The fool chases after things that will not satisfy him.

By contrast, intelligence is knowing how to get what you want. Both the wise man and the fool can be intelligent enough to achieve their immediate goals, but only the wise man will find happiness there.

If I call an idea wisdom, what I mean exactly is that this idea will facilitate being content. Don't view marriage as a turf war where if she gets something you get something in return quid pro quo. Do not be attached to possessions. Do not get involved with addictive drugs. Avoid people who hurt you and then say that they were just joking and you can't take a joke. Learn several languages. Travel if that is an option. Every one of these ideas can be called wise, because they all give advice on what to pursue to be happier, the opposite bringing disappointment, sham, regret, whatever.

Having said all of that, what makes religious teachings wisdom? I found nothing useful there, no ideas that made my life better, but I did find ideas that made it worse.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Anyway, if the story of Jesus is true then that would mean great changes in the life of a nonbeliever. Thats the context of "You don't want it to be true" or I could say "You hope its not true" because you are invested in Atheism.

This is what others have been discussing. According to the faithful, unbelievers have some kind of defect, usually moral - rebellious, libertine, makes himself God - but if you saw my list above, also intellectual and spiritual.

I made great changes entering Christianity from atheism, and I made great changes returning from Christianity to atheism. I never made any analogous changes again. This has nothing to do with not wanting that religion or any other to be true.

They simply have nothing to offer somebody that has learned to live outside of them, nothing that would draw one back unless he were unhappy in a way that religion could help. I like to use the analogy of an old lover.

Sometimes, you miss them, feel like you made a mistake leaving them, and want what you once had, the present seeming lacking relative to the past. And sometimes you don't have such feelings, you don't miss the pass, and you're happy to have moved on. That's how I view my former relationship with religion.

Incidentally, why doesn't your comment apply to you mutatis mutandis? If the story of Jesus were false, then that would mean great changes in life the believer, because he is vested in Christianity. This is actually more likely the case. I know from experience that it is much easier to move into religion from outside of it than the reverse. And I know how much more willing faith-based thinkers are to reinvent reality to defend a belief than critical thinkers.

what we learn in religion is that the "self" cannot be its own savior. Only salvation from self can carry one beyond the grave.

This is the learned helplessness that another poster referenced. Humanism contains no such disabling ideas as man needing salvation. It is about the potential in man, developing that potential with education, and providing social and economic opportunity to enable people to pursue happiness as they understand it. From the Affirmations of Humanism:

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

This is the exact opposite of Christian theology.

I speak American not English.

American is not the name of your language. Americans speak American English. I have the same issue in Mexico, where the language is called Spanish, not Mexican, and the local variant, Mexican Spanish, is different from Spanish in Spain or Venezuela.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Religious apologists tend to get frustrated with their failing to convince skeptics. The solution to this problem appears to be to attack the skeptic as having a character deficit of some kind.

Agreed. Another place we see this is when one leaves a religion, his faith was defective.

Also, if we fail to see what the spritualist or religionist calls truth, we are myopic, excessively materialist, or into scientism.

Finally, if the skeptic disagrees about the meaning of scripture, he is unqualified to do so. I collected several statements to that effect, several of which I'll share here, since I consider it a fun read and hope others do as well

Spoiler: reasons you aren't qualified to interpret scripture

[17] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek

[19] You have clearly not studied the ancient peoples who wrote those things or you would not come up with the conclusions you have.

[20] Sorry, but attending a church for a few years doesn't make you any sort of Biblical expert.

[22] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.

[24] In any other field, like medicine, engineering, technology, electronics, software, computer, unless you have qualifications and experience, you are not allowed to open you mouth.

[25] You have no reference in the knowledge of God to know our experience in Christ Jesus. The Word has to be embedded in one's heart, and that can come from God only.

[27] Dont fall in the trap of being a one verse wonder. You need to understand the passage and true meaning of the verse.

[28] You're only making a fool out of yourself trying to argue over something that you are not Blessed to understand.

[30] A doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer are so used to reading their professional documentation literally, that metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, and analogies are like another language unto themselves.

[31] You are not bright or educated enough to spew against Bible

[32] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.

[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.

[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.

[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!

[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.

[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.

[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.

[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.

[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.

[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.

[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana

[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.

[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.

[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

[61] Its cute you cherry picked from a cherry picked verse because you dont know anything else. Very cute. Can you explain what "yakaffara bissilahi" mean in Quranic arabic?

[62] So you are an expert in arabic right?

[65] The words are the proof, even by themselves, but you need a certain spiritual susceptibility to them.

[66] The problem is you read all these hadiths without the notion of Quranic wisdom

[67] There are two atheists who claim they can make exegesis of the Qur'an with out even a Childs knowledge in the arabic language. Im sorry to say but that is not exegesis, but learning off some website.

 

[firedragon]

You're projecting. It's religion that embraces faith. Science rejects it, and I'm certainly not trying to establish any faith.
But your beliefs are not based on reason and logic. They're based on faith -- unsupported belief. It's science that employs reason and logic.

Lol. See, accusing others of "projecting", telling me what my religion or faith or beliefs are based on reading my brain like God, it is you who is "projecting".

Mate. Let me tell you. Your blind faith is based on blind faith. It is based on a faith that you are indoctrinated to believe others are by default "projecting", inferior, unscientific, illogical, unreasonable, but by making a bigoted decision like that it is you who is being unscientific, illogical and unreasonable.

If you educated yourself a little about other people and their so called "faiths" maybe you will find yourself a little better as a person.

You dont even know what science is all about. I mean its so bad, you dont even know your dogma properly. Maybe you love your superiority complex to feel good, but why dont you find knowledge or learning to feel good instead? Or maybe humility and wisdom to feel good? Do you really need to make others inferior to feel good in life?

Your statements about science is so sad, you dont even know your own faith. Just like an evangelical hyper dogmatic priest.

See. Thats your own medicine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lol. See, accusing others of "projecting", telling me what my religion or faith or beliefs are based on reading my brain like God, it is you who is "projecting".

There is no projection. A person said he is a messenger of God, the information that he has been chosen by Allah is supposed to have been brought by the Jibreel, angel of Allah. He used that to form his group, and in time won most of Arabia. Later. the messages were conveyed over a long period of time, as and when required (whether it was marriage with Zaynab bint Jahsh or that episode with Mariah al-Qibtiya). What facts should we look for?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok. I think that means they are then beliefs.

Not only devoted to an ancient belief, but also a poor comprehension of the English language.

 

[Colt]

This is what others have been discussing. According to the faithful, unbelievers have some kind of defect, usually moral - rebellious, libertine, makes himself God - but if you saw my list above, also intellectual and spiritual.

I made great changes entering Christianity from atheism, and I made great changes returning from Christianity to atheism. I never made any analogous changes again. This has nothing to do with not wanting that religion or any other to be true.

They simply have nothing to offer somebody that has learned to live outside of them, nothing that would draw one back unless he were unhappy in a way that religion could help. I like to use the analogy of an old lover.

Sometimes, you miss them, feel like you made a mistake leaving them, and want what you once had, the present seeming lacking relative to the past. And sometimes you don't have such feelings, you don't miss the pass, and you're happy to have moved on. That's how I view my former relationship with religion.

Incidentally, why doesn't your comment apply to you mutatis mutandis? If the story of Jesus were false, then that would mean great changes in life the believer, because he is vested in Christianity. This is actually more likely the case. I know from experience that it is much easier to move into religion from outside of it than the reverse. And I know how much more willing faith-based thinkers are to reinvent reality to defend a belief than critical thinkers.



This is the learned helplessness that another poster referenced. Humanism contains no such disabling ideas as man needing salvation. It is about the potential in man, developing that potential with education, and providing social and economic opportunity to enable people to pursue happiness as they understand it. From the Affirmations of Humanism:

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

This is the exact opposite of Christian theology.



American is not the name of your language. Americans speak American English. I have the same issue in Mexico, where the language is called Spanish, not Mexican, and the local variant, Mexican Spanish, is different from Spanish in Spain or Venezuela.

Somehow you never found God who is within you, rather you only found religious fellowship.

The religion of Jesus isn't the religion about Jesus.

Salvation offers life beyond the grave. Humanism offers death as the crowning reward of life. Thats not very optimistic, that's the epitome of despair. The ignorance of humanism or materialism is a dogma all on its own. Lucifer tried to leave God and set up his own kingdom which was delusional! It was undoable but pride can even infest the high sons of God.

Speaking American was meant to be a joke.

 

[firedragon]

There is no projection. A person said he is a messenger of God, the information that he has been chosen by Allah is supposed to have been brought by the Jibreel, angel of Allah. He used that to form his group, and in time won most of Arabia. Later. the messages were conveyed over a long period of time, as and when required (whether it was marriage with Zaynab bint Jahsh or that episode with Mariah al-Qibtiya). What facts should we look for?

Thats irrelevant. And your knowledge is so poor its not worthy of wasting time. If you wish to discuss a new topic, open a new thread.

You should explain why you are such a dogmatic, hyper muslim fanatic who believes in ahadith without question. But of course hypocritically believe a few ahadith that helps you insult Islam and find solace. So please do make that explanation and then we will see if its worthy to even discuss something.

 

[Hawkins]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. There is no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

You don't seem to understand how science works. Science with its accuracy is about a formulation on how a repeatable phenomenon projects itself into the future. As a result, the accuracy of science goes with its falsifiability and predictability. The13.6 billion years claim is always subject to adjustment simply because it is never falsifiable in terms of science.

Not falsifiable = it is out of human capability to detect if this claim is not true. It simultaneously says it is out of human capability to actually and scientifically determine whether it's true or false! That is, you can believe so as a current consensus, however, it is not with any scientific accuracy as long as the claim itself is not falsifiable! To put it another way, you assumed its accuracy simply based on the fact that it's a consensus but not on the fact that the claim itself is not scientifically falsifiable!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Somehow you never found God who is within you

That or you found yourself in you and mistook it for a god. I consider that much more likely. If a god is discernible to anybody, it is discernible to all that can sense and reason. Your earlier comment that unbelievers are unbelievers because they don't want there to be god is a window into the kind of thinking that concludes that he experiences a god when so many sincere, intelligent people can't find what you say you've found.

The believer can offer nothing as evidence that that is incorrect. There ought to be something demonstrably true about the world if he is correct that would not be true if there were none. If no such difference can be demonstrated, there is no reason to believe that the believer is correct or that he who says that the believer is misunderstanding his experience is incorrect.

Salvation offers life beyond the grave. Humanism offers death as the crowning reward of life. Thats not very optimistic, that's the epitome of despair.

To somebody that has not learned to live without the hope of an afterlife, and who considers this life of no value except as a staging area before something better, the idea that there might be no afterlife could be imagined as despair.

The universe rewards reason, not faith. A humanist could argue that this is evidence that if there is consciousness after death and the universe discriminates among different kinds of post-mortem consciousnesses after death, that it is the reasoning one that will be saved. It's easy to make such predictions, and call them facts and promises, but it's not in the humanist's nature.

It is, however, in the nature of religions to do so. Christianity offers pie in the sky, promises that cannot be verified and which need not be kept. It also offers a flawed system of morals and goals I found not worth pursuing, ideas that degraded life relative to what it became outside of religion. Included among them is the idea that man is born defective, deserving punishment, and dependent on a deity.

Humanism offers a path to an authentic life of reason and decency and a live well lived that ends. The humanist is content knowing that death is probably the end of his consciousness. There is no despair there. But there is dignity relative to the Christian view of man, who has no inherent worth.

Speaking American was meant to be a joke.

OK, but perhaps you've noticed that there is no way to discern that on the Internet. Face to face, I'd have your facial expression and the tone of your voice that might indicate that you were joking. You'd probably have smiled after making the comment. On the Internet, it becomes impossible to distinguish between somebody who knows that American is not the name of a language and the many people who don't. You probably know that "Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied" This rarely happens face-to-face for the reasons just given.

 

[Colt]

That or you found yourself in you and mistook it for a god. I consider that much more likely. If a god is discernible to anybody, it is discernible to all that can sense and reason. Your earlier comment that unbelievers are unbelievers because they don't want there to be god is a window into the kind of thinking that concludes that he experiences a god when so many sincere, intelligent people can't find what you say you've found.

The believer can offer nothing as evidence that that is incorrect. There ought to be something demonstrably true about the world if he is correct that would not be true if there were none. If no such difference can be demonstrated, there is no reason to believe that the believer is correct or that he who says that the believer is misunderstanding his experience is incorrect.



To somebody that has not learned to live without the hope of an afterlife, and who considers this life of no value except as a staging area before something better, the idea that there might be no afterlife could be imagined as despair.

The universe rewards reason, not faith. A humanist could argue that this is evidence that if there is consciousness after death and the universe discriminates among different kinds of post-mortem consciousnesses after death, that it is the reasoning one that will be saved. It's easy to make such predictions, and call them facts and promises, but it's not in the humanist's nature.

It is, however, in the nature of religions to do so. Christianity offers pie in the sky, promises that cannot be verified and which need not be kept. It also offers a flawed system of morals and goals I found not worth pursuing, ideas that degraded life relative to what it became outside of religion. Included among them is the idea that man is born defective, deserving punishment, and dependent on a deity.

Humanism offers a path to an authentic life of reason and decency and a live well lived that ends. The humanist is content knowing that death is probably the end of his consciousness. There is no despair there. But there is dignity relative to the Christian view of man, who has no inherent worth.



OK, but perhaps you've noticed that there is no way to discern that on the Internet. Face to face, I'd have your facial expression and the tone of your voice that might indicate that you were joking. You'd probably have smiled after making the comment. On the Internet, it becomes impossible to distinguish between somebody who knows that American is not the name of a language and the many people who don't. You probably know that "Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied" This rarely happens face-to-face for the reasons just given.

When I said I speak American not English then Im sure most people saw that as humor. Maybe you take things too seriously?

God is a subjective experience. One must be born again, born of the spirit to perceive the things of the spirit. But God never asserts his will against our will. If you are self-satisfied, reject God and don't want to continue on after this world then that's your choice.

Jesus didn't teach some of the Christian doctrines that you disagree with. Humans are imperfect regardless of speculation as to why.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God is a subjective experience. One must be born again, born of the spirit to perceive the things of the spirit. But God never asserts his will against our will. If you are self-satisfied, reject God and don't want to continue on after this world then that's your choice.

What I reject are the pie in the sky claims. They come from people, not gods, and they are just promises that we have no reason to believe will be or even can be kept.

There is no reason to believe that Christians are going anywhere after death that everybody else isn't also going, which I believe is oblivion, but even if there is an afterlife, and even if we are going to be sorted according to our premortem beliefs, I would expect that those who have given their minds and hearts to reason will be selected for, since this is a fundamental quality of reality. Reality is mathematical. It is comprehensible to a reasoning mind. Reason reveals many of its secrets and allows one to anticipate its motions.

What creator of such a world would ask you to subvert that gift as well as the gift of moral intuition to dogma, and reward those rejecting these gifts? That would be unreasonable of that creator. And immoral.

Jesus didn't teach some of the Christian doctrines that you disagree with. Humans are imperfect regardless of speculation as to why.

I reject theism because I have no reason to accept it. I reject religion because I find no value there - not because of any specific doctrine. No theist, holy book, or other experience has given me a reason to think otherwise.

When I said I speak American not English then Im sure most people saw that as humor. Maybe you take things too seriously?

I hear that mistake made frequently, so I had no reason not to assume that you didn't mean it:

 

[Colt]

What I reject are the pie in the sky claims. They come from people, not gods, and they are just promises that we have no reason to believe will be or even can be kept.

There is no reason to believe that Christians are going anywhere after death that everybody else isn't also going, which I believe is oblivion, but even if there is an afterlife, and even if we are going to be sorted according to our premortem beliefs, I would expect that those who have given their minds and hearts to reason will be selected for, since this is a fundamental quality of reality. Reality is mathematical. It is comprehensible to a reasoning mind. Reason reveals many of its secrets and allows one to anticipate its motions.

What creator of such a world would ask you to subvert that gift as well as the gift of moral intuition to dogma, and reward those rejecting these gifts? That would be unreasonable of that creator. And immoral.



I reject theism because I have no reason to accept it. I reject religion because I find no value there - not because of any specific doctrine. No theist, holy book, or other experience has given me a reason to think otherwise.



I hear that mistake made frequently, so I had no reason not to assume that you didn't mean it:

View attachment 62106

Jesus proved life after death.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sticks & Stones. Your response is kind of infantile don't you think? Everyone's opinion is valid & valued. But, apparently not for the oversensitive name calling types?
As far as ignorance is concerned, you sure are projecting. Have some more of that cool aid & chill out. This is a discussion, not a war.

Well, that's not true. All opinions are not valid and valued. Especially when it comes to matters of science.