Your religious beliefs are probably wrong

[catch22]

And that is when man created the gods (including yours) while fumbling for that answer.

You're so smart, I didn't see that logic coming at all!

Imagination.... or it's written on your heart by the One who made you. Hrrmmm. Guess we all gotta decide.

 

[serp777]

What, exactly, constitutes "right" and "correct?" Sounds like you're creating a straw man argument to me.

God either exists or he doesn't for example. Christianity is correct if God exists and incorrect if he doesn't. Its pretty simple; i fail to see where your confusion is coming from. If you'd like to look up the definition of right and correct you're welcome to use the search feature on google. In what way does this reflect a strawman? usually when you make allegations of an argumentative fallacy you have to show why, otherwise its pretty meaningless.

 

[sojourner]

God either exists or he doesn't for example. Christianity is correct if God exists and incorrect if he doesn't. Its pretty simple; i fail to see where your confusion is coming from. If you'd like to look up the definition of right and correct you're welcome to use the search feature on google. In what way does this reflect a strawman? usually when you make allegations of an argumentative fallacy you have to show why, otherwise its pretty meaningless.

The straw man is in insisting that "God exists or not." What if God is existence, itself? That, also, is a Christian belief. A religion is "right" if it benefits the believer. A religion is "correct" if it accurately reflects the cultural tenets of its adherents.

 

[Desert Snake]

The straw man is in insisting that "God exists or not." What if God is existence, itself? That, also, is a Christian belief. A religion is "right" if it benefits the believer. A religion is "correct" if it accurately reflects the cultural tenets of its adherents.

Looks like a riddle. Or meaningless.

 

[serp777]

Statistically speaking, you shouldn't exist. But here you are, breathing all over your keyboard.



So, this is meaningless. Guess what? The same is true of language. It doesn't mean you can't speak Japanese outside of Japan, it's just more rooted where it came from. The fact Christianity is so wide-spread says something contrary to your clever rhetoric. I mean, Jesus was a jew. From the middle east. Oops!



What's your point? People will try to leverage your emotions to take your money? What do you say about car salesmen? Or the guy selling you an engagement band for your girlfriend? Or politicians? Or people on facebook?

The Bible hasn't changed like you think it has. There's evidence to support this. And there's one thing I can't fault my Jewish comrades for and that is lack of detail on maintaining history. They are perfectionists when it comes to sacred texts.

I get it. The modern TV-take-your-money evangelicals have left a sour taste in your mouth and you distrust the authenticity of what they say. I'm with you.



Consider something, will you? Consider that maybe God does care about your genitals and your sunday mornings. Also consider He won't strike you down for doing what's opposite of His desire for your life, but that doesn't mean He hates you or is angry at you. Consider that despite whatever you do, He loves you anyway just because you're His. He loves you so much and doesn't want to lose you, that He would do what's necessary to give you the opportunity to reside with Him for all eternity by bending over backward and making a huge sacrifice for you.

Let me know if you see that in the Quran or in buddhaland... or anywhere else for that matter.



Resurrection yes, reincarnation no. Multiple gods is a kind of thing; people can call them gods but I can call you a Toyota. It doesn't make you one.

"So, this is meaningless. Guess what? The same is true of language."

In what way is language the same as religion? You've just used a false analogy. Language doesn't make claims about what caused the beginning of the universe, or if we have a purpose, or if God cares about our genitals. My argument is not meaningless, however, because it shows religion to be a geographical phenomena that emerged as a result of culture and societal values, rather than emerging as the true word of God. People have tried to formulate thousands of different religions for tens of thousands of years, so why is Christianity somehow so much more likely to have been more accurate than all the other religions that came before and after?

"The fact Christianity is so wide-spread says something contrary to your clever rhetoric"

Christianity became popular because of the religious values supported. It appealed to the poor and offered salvation to those who had nothing. it offered easy forgiveness and a pillow to cry and an explanation when a disaster occurred. It gave families solace knowing that criminals would be burning in the after life, and that their children taken early would be going to heaven. it offered a powerful tool to political leaders to control peasants by claiming to be a vessel for the word of God (like the pope did with the crusades). There are a variety of reasons why Christianity became widespread--mainly because it was calibrated well for lower class individuals to achieve ever lasting glory, even though their current lives sucked. it looks very much like a tool to manipulate and control people. But essentially nowadays religious belief depends on where your born, and regardless of the fact that its widespread, it means that your religion of choice is most likely determined by your family, the community, and various external influences rather than the validity of the religion.

"The Bible hasn't changed like you think it has. There's evidence to support this."

It has certainly changed. The catholic church in the council of Nicea decided to form political consensus and so they chose religious texts and elements that would appeal to most members of society so that they could control people through religious cohesion. By selecting the bits that aligned with the current values at the time, politicians could further their agenda through religion.

"Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and promulgation of early canon law.[4][7]"
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those are some pretty big determinations and changes if I do say so myself. Numerous gospels were also thrown out, such as Mary Magdelin and a variety of dead sea scrolls.

"What's your point? People will try to leverage your emotions to take your money? What do you say about car salesmen? Or the guy selling you an engagement band for your girlfriend? Or politicians? Or people on facebook?"

And i'm inherently skeptical and untrustworthy of these people. They want to make money off of me, or a politician is trying to pursue a political agenda fueled by lobbying interests. Regardless of that, the point is to show that religion is an incredibly powerful tool for influencing people and raising money. Elron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, said that if he ever wanted to get rich, he would start a religion. Ulterior motives naturally make any religion suspect and subject to a high amount of scrutiny. Based on the history of religious frauds it is ridiculous to say that religion is inherently trustworthy.

"Consider something, will you? Consider that maybe God does care about your genitals and your sunday mornings. Also consider He won't strike you down for doing what's opposite of His desire for your life, but that doesn't mean He hates you or is angry at you. Consider that despite whatever you do, He loves you anyway just because you're His. He loves you so much and doesn't want to lose you, that He would do what's necessary to give you the opportunity to reside with Him for all eternity by bending over backward and making a huge sacrifice for you."

What would the evidence be for this cosmic sadam hussein? How do you know your particular interpretation is correct? Why is God so petty as to care about partially evolved apes as opposed to other sentient animals, and particularly how we manage our genitals? Why wouldn't he just easily convince me right now of a particular interpretation since he is omnipotent and knows what would convince me? Why not just convince everyone by rearranging the stars in aramaic to say "Yahweh is here"? Seems like he doesn't care at all about beliefs since he makes it so ambiguous and questionable to believe.

He loves you so much and doesn't want to lose you, that He would do what's necessary to give you the opportunity to reside with Him for all eternity by bending over backward and making a huge sacrifice for you.

It would be really easy for him to convince me by just rearranging the stars, or performing some miracle that clearly defies the laws of physics and sending an angel down to say that God did it. if he loves me so much and doesn't want to lose me then why doesn't he simply convince me? I am wide open to believing if he would just show me and the rest of the world that he is the one true God.

And lets talk about this "sacrifice."

God set up his son, which is actually himself, to become a scapegoat for the non existent sins of a non existent fore bearer (adam) in order to forgive us from himself, in order to save us from himself. its a thoroughly incomprehensible plan. Can you explain how this can be considered reasonable?

 

[serp777]

The straw man is in insisting that "God exists or not." What if God is existence, itself? That, also, is a Christian belief. A religion is "right" if it benefits the believer. A religion is "correct" if it accurately reflects the cultural tenets of its adherents.

Then that would be God exists. Its not a strawman to say that if God is existence itself then God exists. By the assumptions given by your question, God exists. Also what you're proposing isn't a strawman, its a false dilemma. But that's like saying that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a false dilemma. Well there can't really be half something right? That would still be something after all. Partially something would just be something instead of nothing.

Benefiting a believer doesn't change the facts of reality or determine if something is right. Just because the belief that the world is flat benefits some believers doesn't mean the world is flat for example. Human belief does not determine reality or what is right.

 

[serp777]

Chicken or the egg? Man can't explain something, he looks up and wonders why it is the way it is. Animals don't do it, but we do. It's not a point worth arguing, granted, because neither side can be right for lack of empirical evidence. But to say something that existed before teaching existed refutes, at the very least, your point.

If it was really that ludicrous of an idea for a few people to come up with and perpetuate, it would have died out long ago with the unicycle.

...er wait.

How do you know animals don't do it? You talked to a lot of animals lately? You know the psychology of dolphins or the level of consciousness of elephants? These are highly intelligent creatures that probably wonder some of the same things we do. Its arrogant to say, no offense, that were the only creatures on the planet capable of such actions.

 

[serp777]

And that is when man created the gods (including yours) while fumbling for that answer.

The funny thing is that most religious people would believe that most humans Gods are invented except their own. Religious people are actually more atheistic than my agnostic position since all the other Gods have to be wrong. Its mildly amusing and ironic.

 

[sojourner]

Then that would be God exists. Its not a strawman to say that if God is existence itself then God exists. By the assumptions given by your question, God exists. Also what you're proposing isn't a strawman, its a false dilemma. But that's like saying that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a false dilemma. Well there can't really be half something right? That would still be something after all. Partially something would just be something instead of nothing.

Benefiting a believer doesn't change the facts of reality or determine if something is right. Just because the belief that the world is flat benefits some believers doesn't mean the world is flat for example. Human belief does not determine reality or what is right.

No. Things exist. Things are part of creation. God isn't part of creation, so God isn't a thing that has existence. God is the reality of that which does have existence. That's the logic behind omnipresence. God doesn't exist. God is existence, itself. The straw man lies in setting up some false criteria for religion that can be easily knocked down. For example, by insisting that there is some "right" or "correct" religion, which prompted my questions as to what those terms meant. Religion doesn't rest on fact. It rests in imagination and creative principle. To insist that a religion is factually "right" is to create a straw man. Same as insisting that we can't know if a religion is "right" if we can't know if God "exists." It's a straw man, because that's simply not what religion is, and you can't knock it down by refuting it using those criteria.

 

[sojourner]

Looks like a riddle. Or meaningless.

Huh?

 

[serp777]

No. Things exist. Things are part of creation. God isn't part of creation, so God isn't a thing that has existence. God is the reality of that which does have existence. That's the logic behind omnipresence. God doesn't exist. God is existence, itself. The straw man lies in setting up some false criteria for religion that can be easily knocked down. For example, by insisting that there is some "right" or "correct" religion, which prompted my questions as to what those terms meant. Religion doesn't rest on fact. It rests in imagination and creative principle. To insist that a religion is factually "right" is to create a straw man. Same as insisting that we can't know if a religion is "right" if we can't know if God "exists." It's a straw man, because that's simply not what religion is, and you can't knock it down by refuting it using those criteria.

You're arguing from semantics. Things refers to anything that isn't nothing, in other words that which isn't nothing.

I don't see how you're making the conclusion that existence itself doesn't exist. Similarly it don't get how God himself wouldn't exist. Either way its really just semantic. If you want me to change the true/false question, it just becomes: Is God existence itself? That's just another particular religious belief that is either correct or not correct. It certainly doesn't constitute as a strawman.

 

[thau]

How many astronomers do you know that stare at the sun with their bare eyes? Your "miracle" has been debunked. No rational unbeliever is going to take it seriously. Let it go.

Well Jesus did say “an evil age will be eager for a sign but no sign shall be given them except that of Jonah.” I guess this is what he meant. No matter what sign is given they will reject it even for the lamest of reasons, because they do not want to see. They want to remain blind.

Three scientists on the scene gave their written testimonies of the inexplicable phenomenon and you laugh them off along with all the rest. That’s very scholarly of you.

 

[sojourner]

You're arguing from semantics. Things refers to anything that isn't nothing, in other words that which isn't nothing.

I don't see how you're making the conclusion that existence itself doesn't exist. Similarly it don't get how God himself wouldn't exist. Either way its really just semantic. If you want me to change the true/false question, it just becomes: Is God existence itself? That's just another particular religious belief that is either correct or not correct. It certainly doesn't constitute as a strawman.

I don't know how you're arguing that existence has itself.

Is that factual? I dunno. It doesn't matter, since religion isn't driven by fact but by myth. Therefore, a religion's "correctness" isn't measured by its "factual veracity," but by how well its mythic dimensions move us to contemplate creatively and intuitively the metaphysical and existential dimensions of the human condition and the world.

 

[Nietzsche]

Well Jesus did say “an evil age will be eager for a sign but no sign shall be given them except that of Jonah.” I guess this is what he meant. No matter what sign is given they will reject it even for the lamest of reasons, because they do not want to see. They want to remain blind.

Three scientists on the scene gave their written testimonies of the inexplicable phenomenon and you laugh them off along with all the rest. That’s very scholarly of you.

I would not trust an astronomer to tell me that a virgin birth had occurred. I'd ask a biologist to do it because that's what he does.

 

[thau]

I would not trust an astronomer to tell me that a virgin birth had occurred. I'd ask a biologist to do it because that's what he does.

Look. I can see you are capable of honest discourse.

However, when your responses become so quaint it makes me think you know you have lost this one, but do not feel like being too open about it.

Seriously, there is no defense against Fatima. It was he sign from heaven the Virgin Mother promised.

 

[Nietzsche]

Look. I can see you are capable of honest discourse.

However, when your responses become so quaint it makes me think you know you have lost this one, but do not feel like being too open about it.

Why not explain why the "scientists" at the event are qualified to make the claims you say they make? A dentist can be a scientist, but I wouldn't ask him what he thought about astrophysics.

Seriously, there is no defense against Fatima. It was he sign from heaven the Virgin Mother promised.

Because that's what you want to believe, and it comforts you. There is nothing wrong with that. But you keep saying there is no other possible explanation and yet we keep bringing them to you and you keep dismissing them out of hand.

 

[Cephus]

God either exists or he doesn't for example. Christianity is correct if God exists and incorrect if he doesn't. Its pretty simple; i fail to see where your confusion is coming from. If you'd like to look up the definition of right and correct you're welcome to use the search feature on google. In what way does this reflect a strawman? usually when you make allegations of an argumentative fallacy you have to show why, otherwise its pretty meaningless.

False premise. Even if God exists, that doesn't mean that Christianity is correct. That would be true if, any only if, a particular Christian sect's views of God are actually correct. ***MOD*** You have no way of knowing.

 

[catch22]

In what way is language the same as religion? You've just used a false analogy. Language doesn't make claims about what caused the beginning of the universe, or if we have a purpose, or if God cares about our genitals. My argument is not meaningless, however, because it shows religion to be a geographical phenomena that emerged as a result of culture and societal values, rather than emerging as the true word of God. People have tried to formulate thousands of different religions for tens of thousands of years, so why is Christianity somehow so much more likely to have been more accurate than all the other religions that came before and after?

I didn't say language was the same as religion, I said guess what -- things pertaining to humans in certain geographic locations pertain to them moreso than people in other locations. Basic cultural geography, right?

Yes indeed. Why is it so widespread when by all rights it probably shouldn't be? Similar to the exponential chances of you sitting on the other side of this forum talking back at me. Not likely, yet there it is. Must be a random coincidence.

Christianity became popular because of the religious values supported. It appealed to the poor and offered salvation to those who had nothing. it offered easy forgiveness and a pillow to cry and an explanation when a disaster occurred. It gave families solace knowing that criminals would be burning in the after life, and that their children taken early would be going to heaven. it offered a powerful tool to political leaders to control peasants by claiming to be a vessel for the word of God (like the pope did with the crusades). There are a variety of reasons why Christianity became widespread--mainly because it was calibrated well for lower class individuals to achieve ever lasting glory, even though their current lives sucked. it looks very much like a tool to manipulate and control people. But essentially nowadays religious belief depends on where your born, and regardless of the fact that its widespread, it means that your religion of choice is most likely determined by your family, the community, and various external influences rather than the validity of the religion.

Right, so it was popular because it was awesome. Gotcha.

By no means was it setup in any way, shape, or form to be successful. In all likelihood it should have disappeared within a few months, let alone a few years. Yet, here it is, from one end of the earth to the other, just like Christ said.

It has certainly changed. The catholic church in the council of Nicea decided to form political consensus and so they chose religious texts and elements that would appeal to most members of society so that they could control people through religious cohesion. By selecting the bits that aligned with the current values at the time, politicians could further their agenda through religion.

"Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and promulgation of early canon law.[4][7]"
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those are some pretty big determinations and changes if I do say so myself. Numerous gospels were also thrown out, such as Mary Magdelin and a variety of dead sea scrolls.

How much variation was there in the texts between a modern bible and the dead sea scrolls?

The rest of what you said is mostly a misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Canonizing your book for distribution is hardly criminal nor telling. What ends up in it and what ends up out of it are important, yes, but apocrypha is it's own topic; maybe we can do that in another discussion.

And i'm inherently skeptical and untrustworthy of these people. They want to make money off of me, or a politician is trying to pursue a political agenda fueled by lobbying interests. Regardless of that, the point is to show that religion is an incredibly powerful tool for influencing people and raising money. Elron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, said that if he ever wanted to get rich, he would start a religion. Ulterior motives naturally make any religion suspect and subject to a high amount of scrutiny. Based on the history of religious frauds it is ridiculous to say that religion is inherently trustworthy.

Yes, you are right. People do it with Christianity, too. Look at LDS or the Watchtower. Look at Islam as a whole. Yes, I'll drop the Jim Jones card.

Christ said there would be false prophets, and it would get worse in worse as time went on. See, He told you in advance so you'd know.

If you can honestly look at the rise of Christianity (I'm talking pre-Rome here) in nation(s) that did everything they could to stymy and destroy it, and see the political, monetary, financial gains in the first, I dunno, 200 years of it... then you're hopelessly convinced to a predisposition about the whole thing, and we shouldn't bother talking anymore.

What would the evidence be for this cosmic sadam hussein? How do you know your particular interpretation is correct? Why is God so petty as to care about partially evolved apes as opposed to other sentient animals, and particularly how we manage our genitals? Why wouldn't he just easily convince me right now of a particular interpretation since he is omnipotent and knows what would convince me? Why not just convince everyone by rearranging the stars in aramaic to say "Yahweh is here"? Seems like he doesn't care at all about beliefs since he makes it so ambiguous and questionable to believe.

It would be really easy for him to convince me by just rearranging the stars, or performing some miracle that clearly defies the laws of physics and sending an angel down to say that God did it. if he loves me so much and doesn't want to lose me then why doesn't he simply convince me? I am wide open to believing if he would just show me and the rest of the world that he is the one true God.

This is such a typical argument from so many in your position. "Shout from the heavens to convince me and remove all doubt," "do something amazing so all the world will know!"

Mark 8. Just read it. You might have to embrace the idea you are simply a fool, as well. Sorry, we all have been there, I promise.

You wouldn't be open to believing at all. You aren't now, you wouldn't be then. That's the WHOLE point. There's so much before you and still you cannot see truth. Even if something supernatural happened to convince you, you most likely wouldn't believe it, or explain it away. Chances are you already have. What you're asking for isn't faith. So no, no sign will be given.

Ask for faith. I bet you'll tell me you prayed and there was no answer. Guess what I got for that? Yeah, another reading reference. James 4.

And lets talk about this "sacrifice."

God set up his son, which is actually himself, to become a scapegoat for the non existent sins of a non existent fore bearer (adam) in order to forgive us from himself, in order to save us from himself. its a thoroughly incomprehensible plan. Can you explain how this can be considered reasonable?

I can't even explain simple semantics to you, how would I explain salvation to you? Where do I even begin? Do you have children? Would you want to watch yours get murdered?

I'm not sure what you want from me with this. I don't know, man, read 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. Then read Romans 1:18-34.

There's virtually no reason to continue discourse with you -- you speak another language, I guess, and your mind, eyes, and key point, heart, are not opened to hear or reason on truth. I tried... peace and blessings of God upon you, Luke 9:5.

 

[serp777]

False premise. Even if God exists, that doesn't mean that Christianity is correct. That would be true if, any only if, a particular Christian sect's views of God are actually correct. God might think all Christians are dicks. You have no way of knowing.

That's true I mispoke. What I meant to say is that if God doesn't exist then Christianity is false, but if God does it exist then Christianity could be correct.

 

[Cephus]

That's true I mispoke. What I meant to say is that if God doesn't exist then Christianity is false, but if God does it exist then Christianity could be correct.

But given the number of potential gods that could exist, the chances that Christianity is actually correct is terribly small. The same goes for any other religious belief. I wouldn't be holding my breath.