Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Poisonshady313]

I don't have a lot of personal knowledge about this, but I don't think so. As we have been discussing, that personal relationship does not have to be based on reason or even knowledge of scripture. Christianity is an egalitarian, heart-based religion not dependent on reason or academic knowledge.

I don't think you can construe Martin Luther as one who favored reason, he seems to have had strong feelings against it:

Martin Luther on reason:

Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed ...

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight...

Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.


Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason.

Not only does he seem to be an enemy of reason, but of moral living.

Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

Apparently, to Luther and people who think like him, Jesus is the ultimate blank check... the eternal Get Out of Jail Free card.

 

[logician]

"There are many who CLAIM to be Christians who are not, and some who claim to NOT be a Christian who are"

Don't believe I've met many of these folks.

 

[lilithu]

I don't think you can construe Martin Luther as one who favored reason,

I'm not saying that he favored reason. I'm saying that he opened the door for the use of Reason by the arguments he made about priestly intercession not being necessary. People can come to God on their own by study of the bible. Yes, Luther did advocate actually reading the bible. Remember that this was happening at the time when the printing press was making the bible accessible to the general public for the first time. The Protestant Reformation opened the door for everything else that came subsequently that Luther couldn't even imagine at the time.

 

[lilithu]

His point is not that religion makes you sick, but that religions survive and reproduce because they have certain features and lack others.

Then he could have simply called it a meme, which it obviously is, and it would have been much more informative and less inflammatory. Or he could have compared it to any kind of organism, since according to evolutionary theory, the above argument is true for ALL organisms. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he used the word "virus." Cute little game being played here to intentionally use an obviously inflammatory word and then argue that people are unreasonable to be inflamed because that's not how he meant it. :sarcastic

 

[Yerda]

Then he could have simply called it a meme, which it obviously is, and it would have been much more informative and less inflammatory.

That is a fair point.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not saying that he favored reason. I'm saying that he opened the door for the use of Reason by the arguments he made about priestly intercession not being necessary. People can come to God on their own by study of the bible. Yes, Luther did advocate actually reading the bible. Remember that this was happening at the time when the printing press was making the bible accessible to the general public for the first time. The Protestant Reformation opened the door for everything else that came subsequently that Luther couldn't even imagine at the time.

Yes, I agree, at least he opened up the possibility of it. Nevertheless, he does embody that anti-reason strain that is part of the Christian heritage.

 

[Autodidact]

Then he could have simply called it a meme, which it obviously is, and it would have been much more informative and less inflammatory. Or he could have compared it to any kind of organism, since according to evolutionary theory, the above argument is true for ALL organisms. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he used the word "virus." Cute little game being played here to intentionally use an obviously inflammatory word and then argue that people are unreasonable to be inflamed because that's not how he meant it. :sarcastic

It's a metaphor, and a good one. People know what a virus is; they don't know what a meme is. Remember, he's a scientist.

 

[lilithu]

It's a metaphor, and a good one. People know what a virus is; they don't know what a meme is.

Yes, people do know what a virus is, and they know that viruses make people sick.

Remember, he's a scientist.

How can I forget?

 

[DallasApple]

I think this is standard for most Christians, particularly young ones. All they can really rely, on early in their Christian walk, is the words of others - the leaders or the other Christans who are acting as mentors.

It takes a lot of effort to go beyond that, to start studying the bible for yourself and coming up with your own interpretations. It's not easy, even when you claim to have the Holy Spirit guiding you. It took me about 15 years looking at scripture carefully and trying to bring my own interpretations on it. You have to drop the study books that try to guide you to a particular way of thinking and start to think for yourself. It takes a lot of that to actually be confident enough to start questioning what is being preached and what other Christians are claiming based on their interpretations.

My sister..who is 37 ...told me two days ago she "relys" on me for knowledge of the Bible...

I toldl her ...first of all ...if you want "knowledge " do not rely on me... 2nd of all...knowledge is overated...do not put that in one basket...learn it over life..and apply it...throw the rest in the trash where it belongs...and Keep being your sweet self...

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

I HATE viruses..

Especially the kind that make me THROW up and have DIAREA!

Shiver...

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Did y'all ever have the virus where you threw up...and had diareah?...and once that settled down (a little) you burped and it smelled like a fart???...And you hick-upped non stop?..Then you had muscle cramps in your back so bad that you begged the Rottweiller to walk on your back..(for relief..while dreaming of a masuese with Tiger Balm)...?????

I did...

Love

Dallas

 

[lunamoth]

Did y'all ever have the virus where you threw up...and had diareah?...and once that settled down (a little) you burped and it smelled like a fart???...And you hick-upped non stop?..Then you had muscle cramps in your back so bad that you begged the Rottweiller to walk on your back..(for relief..while dreaming of a masuese with Tiger Balm)...?????

I did...

Love

Dallas

Uh...no. And glad not to have!

 

[Magic Man]

Then he could have simply called it a meme, which it obviously is, and it would have been much more informative and less inflammatory. Or he could have compared it to any kind of organism, since according to evolutionary theory, the above argument is true for ALL organisms. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he used the word "virus." Cute little game being played here to intentionally use an obviously inflammatory word and then argue that people are unreasonable to be inflamed because that's not how he meant it. :sarcastic

I admtted it was inflammatory, just like the use of the word "delusion", but that doesn't mean he's trying to insult people, just get their attention. It's the same principle as nice guys finishing last, they don't get noticed. Him calling it a virus gets much more attention, and many more people to look at it than if he used a perfectly nice, non-offensive word, although many people would then still take offense either because of his word choice or because of how he painted religion with the analogy anyway. So, maybe he uses it for the shock value, but it sure did get some attention, didn't it? Once you get past that, you can look at the actual argument, and debunk it...or not.

 

[Apex]

I admtted it was inflammatory, just like the use of the word "delusion", but that doesn't mean he's trying to insult people, just get their attention. It's the same principle as nice guys finishing last, they don't get noticed. Him calling it a virus gets much more attention, and many more people to look at it than if he used a perfectly nice, non-offensive word, although many people would then still take offense either because of his word choice or because of how he painted religion with the analogy anyway. So, maybe he uses it for the shock value, but it sure did get some attention, didn't it? Once you get past that, you can look at the actual argument, and debunk it...or not.

So he did use it that way just to **** people off so he would sell more books. It sounds to me that he was more concerned about making money then making an honest attempt at broaching the subject of religion.

 

[Magic Man]

So he did use it that way just to **** people off so he would sell more books. It sounds to me that he was more concerned about making money then making an honest attempt at broaching the subject of religion.

No, he didn't use it to "**** people off". He used it to get get their attention, I'm sure. I'm also sure he was a little concerned with making money, as we all are. But I doubt he was more concerned with making money than making an honest attempt at broaching the subject of religion. As has been said, his analogy is honest and descriptive and true. He does broahc the subject of religion honestly. He may not be right on everything, but who is? He's still trying to discuss the subject objectively.

 

[Scuba Pete]

He used it to get get their attention, I'm sure. I'm also sure he was a little concerned with making money,

This is why I see him as the Rush Limbaugh of atheism. Who knows WHAT his base motivational factors are: he just wants ATTENTION. Just like Miss Piggy.

 

[Imagican]

Having been discussing theological issues for years now, i have found that when ASKED, MOST Christians have NEVER read The Bible. I believe that from my experience, it ends up being about 50 percent that CLAIM to have read The Word.

Now, if only FIFTY percent have actually READ the Word, HOW much of it do you reacon the ONE TIME reader is able to REMEMBER? When you start breaking it down in such a manner, it becomes TOTALLY believable that the statistics offered are relatively ACCURATE.

And when we consider HOW MANY different denominations exist, we can clearly see that even those that DO read are NOT able to come to the SAME conclusions of TRUTH that the Bible IS composed of. How do you reacon that happens?

MEC

 

[lilithu]

I admtted it was inflammatory, just like the use of the word "delusion", but that doesn't mean he's trying to insult people, just get their attention. It's the same principle as nice guys finishing last, they don't get noticed. Him calling it a virus gets much more attention, and many more people to look at it than if he used a perfectly nice, non-offensive word, although many people would then still take offense either because of his word choice or because of how he painted religion with the analogy anyway. So, maybe he uses it for the shock value, but it sure did get some attention, didn't it? Once you get past that, you can look at the actual argument, and debunk it...or not.

You've been on RF for a while now. *IF* ones desire is truly to dialogue, how well do you think it works when someone posts an intentionally inflammatory post and then spends the rest of the time arguing "but that's not how I meant it" versus when they make a reasoned argument in the first place?

Yes, Dawkins is smart. He set it up so that those who already agree with him would be willing to overlook the way in which he puts forth the message and those who do not agree with him would be offended, thereby convincing those who already agreed with him that theists are irrational and there's no reasoning with us. The divide is wider than it has ever been, pitting people who otherwise had got long against each other, and hardening lines. Worked great.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes, Dawkins is smart. He set it up so that those who already agree with him would be willing to overlook the way in which he puts forth the message

As I mentioned earlier, he makes this kind of bigotry palatable. Sad that.

 

[gnomon]

As I mentioned earlier, he makes this kind of bigotry palatable. Sad that.

So.....anyone who agrees with Dawkins is a bigot?