the right religion

[waitasec]

Since, even if true you have no possible way to know no religion is correct then to post it as a fact says you are willing to be intellectually dishonest for the sake of rhetoric.

ooh ooh....question.

if he has no possible way to know no religion is correct
what makes you think you have a way to determine yours is correct?

 

[waitasec]

May I join your conversation?

One can that the bible and prove that of God is truth, by the scriptures! When I say bible, I am referring to the inspired word of God.

believer "all men are blue"
non believer "how do you know all men are blue"
believer "because the bible says so"
non believer "have you actually seen all men"
believer "no"
non believer, "so what criteria makes you think the bible is right"
believer "the bible"

 

[1robin]

May I join your conversation?

One can that the bible and prove that of God is truth, by the scriptures! When I say bible, I am referring to the inspired word of God.

You are most welcome, but I did not understand your question could you restate it please.

 

[1robin]

ooh ooh....question.

if he has no possible way to know no religion is correct
what makes you think you have a way to determine yours is correct?

OOH, OOH you think you are on to something don't you. Sorry to dissapoint you. You are turning into my great white whale like Ahab and Moby Dick.

Here is the statement: "Since, even if true you have no possible way to know no religion is correct then to post it as a fact says you are willing to be intellectually dishonest for the sake of rhetoric." If you reread this I was saying that there is no way to know that none of the religions are correct. In other words you can't prove them all wrong. That statement is technically correct grammer wise (I think) but probably could have been better written. Regardless I do not think you understood it.

 

[waitasec]

OOH, OOH you think you are on to something don't you. Sorry to dissapoint you. You are turning into my great white whale like Ahab and Moby Dick.

Here is the statement: "Since, even if true you have no possible way to know no religion is correct then to post it as a fact says you are willing to be intellectually dishonest for the sake of rhetoric." If you reread this I was saying that there is no way to know that none of the religions are correct. In other words you can't prove them all wrong. That statement is technically correct grammer wise (I think) but probably could have been better written. Regardless I do not think you understood it.

exactly. having that said, i am asking you.... how do you prove your religion is right if there is no way to know that none of the religions are correct?

 

[confused453]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion

Correct, it's called science.

but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

By looking for the truth based on empirical evidence.

 

[1robin]

exactly. having that said, i am asking you.... how do you prove your religion is right if there is no way to know that none of the religions are correct?

All right slow down here, I said there is no way to prove all religions are false. I did not say that many of them could not be proven wrong. That would require volumes to explain. Since I never said I could prove mine correct at least suffeciently to satasfy someone who has a preconception that will not allow it. I have always said that Christianity according to every test I can think of is the most likely candidate for truth and I have even given the criteria. So what is it I have said before that makes you think this statement requires some new defence that I have not posted in the past.

 

[waitasec]

All right slow down here, I said there is no way to prove all religions are false.

you also said this

If you reread this I was saying that there is no way to know that none of the religions are correct. In other words you can't prove them all wrong.

so what are you saying?

I did not say that many of them could not be proven wrong.

If you reread this I was saying that there is no way to know that none of the religions are correct

Since I never said I could prove mine correct at least suffeciently to satasfy someone who has a preconception that will not allow it.

which is usually equated to a refusal...

"allowing" is not an action remember....????
careful, you are contradicting yourself here.

I have always said that Christianity according to every test I can think of is the most likely candidate for truth and I have even given the criteria.

faith?

So what is it I have said before that makes you think this statement requires some new defence that I have not posted in the past.

the implication that faith is to be understood and objective empirical evidence.

 

[1robin]

you also said this

I said there is no way to prove all religions are false

I said here that there is no way in which you can prove all religions to be false.

there is no way to know that none of the religions are correct

I said here that there is no way in which you can prove all religions to be false.

there is no way to know that none of the religions are correct

I said here that there is no way in which you can prove all religions to be false.

so what are you saying?

This: I said here that there is no way in which you can prove all religions to be false.

You sure are wasting a lot of time to no avail with this strange line of reasoning.

which is usually equated to a refusal...

"allowing" is not an action remember....????
careful, you are contradicting yourself here.

I can't even begin to understand what you are saying here.

faith?

Is the word faith a question?

the implication that faith is to be understood and objective empirical evidence.

I will be happy to address any coherent claim or question you wish to provide at any point but this isn't one.

 

[1robin]

Correct, it's called science.

Since much of science is faith based it is not too off the mark to consider large potions of it a religion. Scientists just won't admit it but we will.

By looking for the truth based on empirical evidence.

The empirical evidence only crowd are too narrow minded. Why limit yourself to only the portion of reality that can be detected by one method? Many of the truths we hold as very dear defy materialistic evaluation. Love, morality, human worth, astetic value, etc......Your world must be very boring. Can you prove by empirical methods that reality didn't just begin 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (memory, wear, acumulated knowledge etc....)?

 

[confused453]

Since much of science is faith based it is not too off the mark to consider large potions of it a religion. Scientists just won't admit it but we will.

Science can change its views when new or better evidence is found. Try changing the view of one pretty known religion and you'll be called a witch in no time.

The empirical evidence only crowd are too narrow minded. Why limit yourself to only the portion of reality that can be detected by one method? Many of the truths we hold as very dear defy materialistic evaluation. Love, morality, human worth, astetic value, etc......Your world must be very boring. Can you prove by empirical methods that reality didn't just begin 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (memory, wear, acumulated knowledge etc....)?

But science uses a lot of methods to look for answers. A good example would be viewing the universe in electromagnetic spectrum below and beyond optical one. Or using microscopes to examine the micro part of the universe. There's nothing like that in religion, which is just fiction anyway. Love, morality, human worth and values have nothing to do with religion.

 

[Oryonder]

I thought I said in my post and I know I have in threads before that Jefferson was not a Christian by any standard, he was a theist, he cut any part of the bible out with scissors that he didn't like. That makes his appeal to our creator for the justification of equality and inalienable rights all the more remarkable. There is a princile in Juric Prudence called the principle of embarassment that states that if someone makes a claim that emberasses them then that claim has a high degree of reliability.

Thomas Jefferson: “We are all endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights”, etc.
Thomas Jefferson: “We are all endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights”, etc. « Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now
In the context of my comment it matters not what creator he referred to even though the best guess would be the biblical one. My point was that only God is a suffecient source and justification for the moral needs of society.

It is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. These people just came from countries where the secular government incorporated the Church and enforced their rules on it and ruined it. They did not want that happening here. And so they said that they government could not establish or dictate a certain religion. That is probably why Jefferson used a general term like Creator instead of specifically Christian God. There is no seperation of Church and state clause in the constitution.

Obviously Jefferson's "creator" was not the God of Abraham. Regardless, he clearly states that the state should not be of any religion .. the laws could not be based on religion and you alude to this.

The structure of society in relation to the law, was then not to be based on religion.

The Constitution includes freedom "from" religion. Jefferson states this, as do others.

Freedom of religion is just part of the state not dictating any religion.

 

[1robin]

Science can change its views when new or better evidence is found. Try changing the view of one pretty known religion and you'll be called a witch in no time.

The fact that my religion has never had a need to change is an argument for it's higher than man author. I did not discount science I said it can only access a small section of reality. If it is relied upon exclusively in almost religous reverence then large sections of reality can't be accessed.

But science uses a lot of methods to look for answers. A good example would be viewing the universe in electromagnetic spectrum below and beyond optical one. Or using microscopes to examine the micro part of the universe. There's nothing like that in religion, which is just fiction anyway. Love, morality, human worth and values have nothing to do with religion.

All of it's methods are supposed to be empirically based however in practice faith becomes a major contributer. The fact that scientists like Dawkins applie faith so liberally in science and then dismisses it so readily in other areas is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, and useless.

 

[1robin]

Obviously Jefferson's "creator" was not the God of Abraham. Regardless, he clearly states that the state should not be of any religion .. the laws could not be based on religion and you alude to this.

Since by all measures he leaned towards a strange version of Christianity more than any other then how did you determine this? Regardless it is irrelevant for this issue. He appealed to a standard beyond us.

The structure of society in relation to the law, was then not to be based on religion.

Without an appeal to an absolute standard free from human opinion our systems of morallity are meaningless. Without God all you have left is opinion and preference, hardly suffecient. Virtually every one assumes objective morals existbecause they are necessary and instinctual but only the religous have a suffecient source.

The Constitution includes freedom "from" religion. Jefferson states this, as do others.

No it does not. The statemnt freedom from religion does not appear in the constitution. However freedom of religion does.

Freedom of religion is just part of the state not dictating any religion.

And the only claim you made actually in the constitution. Your ability to warp the constitution into what you find convenient is a symptom of the liberal movement.

 

[Connie Sue]

believer "all men are blue"
non believer "how do you know all men are blue"
believer "because the bible says so"
non believer "have you actually seen all men"
believer "no"
non believer, "so what criteria makes you think the bible is right"
believer "the bible"

Believer, "Faith comes by the word of God."
Non believer, "how do you know faith comes by the word of God?"
Believer, "Romans 10:17, KJV."
Non believer, "How do you know what faith to believe?"
Believer, "The bible teaches "One" faith!" Ephesians 4:5.
Non believer, "So what criteria makes you think the bible is
truth?"
Believer, "The Word of God!" Look around you, loved one's are dying every day! The bible is the only true book that can explain why people die and go back to the dust of the ground and what they can do to avoid the second death. "What other book do you know that has led science to know where the sea lines are?" Psalm 8:8 paths of seas...Look up the history on the great "pathfinder of the seas." and how he knew the seas paths were there. Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873), he took the word of God for what it said and he knew that there had to be paths of the sea.

 

[Connie Sue]

You are most welcome, but I did not understand your question could you restate it please.

Sorry, I didn't asked a bible question, just a statement.... I do contend for the work of God!!

"One can take the bible and prove that God is truth, by the scriptures! When I say bible, I am referring to the inspired word of God."

 

[confused453]

The fact that my religion has never had a need to change is an argument for it's higher than man author. I did not discount science I said it can only access a small section of reality. If it is relied upon exclusively in almost religous reverence then large sections of reality can't be accessed.

What do you say about that?
groupings within Christianity

All of it's methods are supposed to be empirically based however in practice faith becomes a major contributer. The fact that scientists like Dawkins applie faith so liberally in science and then dismisses it so readily in other areas is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, and useless.

Give some examples please. I pretty much agree with this guy that "belief that is not based on evidence is one of the world's great evils". (he's just using religious kind of language; nothing to do with faith).

 

[Twig pentagram]

The fact that my religion has never had a need to change is an argument for it's higher than man author.

You cant possibly know the history of christianity if you think it has never
changed.

 

[Nakosis]

Believer, "The Word of God!" Look around you, loved one's are dying every day! The bible is the only true book that can explain why people die and go back to the dust of the ground and what they can do to avoid the second death. "What other book do you know that has led science to know where the sea lines are?" Psalm 8:8 paths of seas...Look up the history on the great "pathfinder of the seas." and how he knew the seas paths were there. Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873), he took the word of God for what it said and he knew that there had to be paths of the sea.

No doubt Maury was inspired by the Bible, but he used research and observation to create his navigational charts. People get inspired by numerous things which motivates them to do what they do. Including fiction.

Not to say the Bible is fiction but this argument doesn't necessarily support the Bible being God's word. It just means people have used the Bible for inspiration. Sometimes that leads to success, sometimes not. You can't just myopically view the successes and ignore the catastrophes of religions.

 

[Oryonder]

Since by all measures he leaned towards a strange version of Christianity more than any other then how did you determine this? Regardless it is irrelevant for this issue. He appealed to a standard beyond us.

Without an appeal to an absolute standard free from human opinion our systems of morallity are meaningless. Without God all you have left is opinion and preference, hardly suffecient. Virtually every one assumes objective morals existbecause they are necessary and instinctual but only the religous have a suffecient source.

No it does not. The statemnt freedom from religion does not appear in the constitution. However freedom of religion does.

And the only claim you made actually in the constitution. Your ability to warp the constitution into what you find convenient is a symptom of the liberal movement.

There you go ... making absolute statements again with no back up. Why on earth are you bringing the liberal movement into this ? Rather you should be looking to the folks like Goldwater who abohred the actions of the religious right to exert control over the state. You are making nonsense straw man arguments.

You have clearly not studied the issue. These men came from a time where religious persecution was that norm. It is because of this persecution that many came to the USA to begin with.

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-8 , from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258

The intent is clear .. "natural authority of the people alone" .. how does God figure into that picture ?

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

These men knew their history and it was their "formost" intent to create a society that was free from religious persecution. Freedom "from" religion.

Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.-- James Madison, explaining to Congress during the House Debate what the First Amendment means to him, 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789), That his conception of "establishment" was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi (directly above this entry)

Whad does the first ammendment mean to James madison ?

That Congress shall niether establish a religion, nor make laws on the basis of religion, nor compel men to be religious.

Freedom "from" religion is the basis of his comments.