Your religious beliefs are probably wrong

[Desert Snake]

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.

If you compare religions in actual deity conceptualization, they aren't 'equal' figures. the 'math' your doing is incorrect because you have assumed a 'realness' of character in say gods in the Norse religion, but have you noticed how Asatru is more human based? You are making a incorrect 'comparison'. There aren't that many religions to "compare", in reality. That's why most people in the world are Christian.

 

[serp777]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

"things pertaining to humans in certain geographic locations pertain to them moreso than people in other locations. Basic cultural geography, right?"[/QUOTE]
And obviously my counter argument to that exact statement was:

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?

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

No, it was popular because it was manipulative just like Islam. It was tailored by politicians and religious leaders to align with the values of the time. I was made to match society, rather than made by God for society to conform to. An important difference.

"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."

And your point is? Same with islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other faiths as proclaimed by their corresponding religious leaders.

"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."

Religious persecution certainly occurred, but the fact that it survived doesn't mean anything about the validity of Christianity--it just means that it appealed to the lower class extremely well and was embraced regardless. I could argue that you're similarly hopelessly convinced; in fact I am more open to argument because i am an agnostic. i don't assume that all other religions are invalid compared to Christianity. You're more of an atheist than I am ironically which gives you far more of a bias. Certainly the fact that it was oppressed at first is largely irrelevant to any point I was making.

"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."

You've failed to rebut my claim at all. Citing mark 8 doesn't magically disprove my argument. its a common argument because its a good argument. I mean your response is equally typical-- "You just don't understand Christianity and you can't see truth." Like I said, if God rearranged the stars in Aramaic to write yahweh is here, and it could be observed by the world, then that would convince me. If God loves us and cares about our beliefs, why not simply do that? he knows what it takes to convince us. WHy not just convince us? How am i supposed to take your word that Christianity is valid when there are so many clones from other religions that make the same arguments as you? How do I know which religion is valid? Simply saying I don't see the truth isn't a compelling argument whatsoever--you don't see the truth that there are a ton of religions to pick from, and even if something supernatural happened to me, I would have no idea whether that corresponded to Christianity, or Islam, or scientology. Again, your argument could be made by someone from any religion. God clearly doesn't care about your belief.

"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?"

What are you even talking about? Obviously I wouldn't want to watch my future children get murdered. And I wouldn't want God's son to be murdered. I find the fact that God let his son get murdered for non existent sins from a non existent Adam to be disgusting. Explain how God making his son a scape goat is reasonable. it would be like a judge acquiting a criminal who didn't even commit a crime, by letting his own son get murdered so that the alleged criminal could be forgiven by the court. Clearly you aren't understanding the simple semantic and sentences here.

"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."

This is so cliche. When a religious person finds someone who doesn't accept their assertions, you call them closed minded. Perhaps your mind is so open that your brain is going to fall out. But its completely hypocritical because you're closed minded to all the other religions out there. Like I said you have more atheistic beliefs than i do.

 

[serp777]

If you compare religions in actual deity conceptualization, they aren't 'equal' figures. the 'math' your doing is incorrect because you have assumed a 'realness' of character in say gods in the Norse religion, but have you noticed how Asatru is more human based? You are making a incorrect 'comparison'. There aren't that many religions to "compare", in reality. That's why most people in the world are Christian.

There are a huge amount of religions. Again your assumption here is that a religion is correct, or that the correct religion won't come in the future, or that there wasn't a correct religion which forgotten long ago. So the math is incorrect, but in the opposite direction you were referring to. its even lower.

Not to mention all the different interpretations, sects, and moralities that have changed time and time again throughout the centuries.

 

[Desert Snake]

There are a huge amount of religions. Again your assumption here is that a religion is correct, or that the correct religion won't come in the future, or that there wasn't a correct religion which forgotten long ago. So the math is incorrect, but in the opposite direction you were referring to. its even lower.

Not to mention all the different interpretations, sects, and moralities that have changed time and time again throughout the centuries.

Sure could be.

 

[Cephus]

If you compare religions in actual deity conceptualization, they aren't 'equal' figures. the 'math' your doing is incorrect because you have assumed a 'realness' of character in say gods in the Norse religion, but have you noticed how Asatru is more human based? You are making a incorrect 'comparison'. There aren't that many religions to "compare", in reality. That's why most people in the world are Christian.

Notice I said "possible gods". I didn't mean just those gods which have an attached religion, there are probably billions and billions of gods that man hasn't made up yet that are just as likely as any that they've decided to form a religion around. Given that, the question isn't which religion is correct, it's the almost certainty that all of them are wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

Notice I said "possible gods". I didn't mean just those gods which have an attached religion, there are probably billions and billions of gods that man hasn't made up yet that are just as likely as any that they've decided to form a religion around. Given that, the question isn't which religion is correct, it's the almost certainty that all of them are wrong.

Right, but you aren't applying that 'math' to other things, like the chance you are totally incorrect, /pretty high/, or various other 'unknowns' that you might even think are 'fact etc.
But really, you may choose to believe that you cannot choose the right religion, your probably right in that regard; but it doesn't mean that I'm unable to choose the right religion. You are equating your 'stats' to mine, that isn't kosher. 'Speak for yourself' as they say.
ie you could say, "I'm most likely going to choose the wrong religion".
~disciple

 

[catch22]

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?

Maybe because it's... true, right, on to something. You decide. Of those thousands and thousands of religions, which are the most prominent? How come?

Oooh black helicopters. People in power used it for power that they already had to manipulate people they already manipulated to get more money when they had all the money already...

Yeah. Keep rolling with that.

No, it was popular because it was manipulative just like Islam. It was tailored by politicians and religious leaders to align with the values of the time. I was made to match society, rather than made by God for society to conform to. An important difference.

You need to re-read your history. Are you educated? Was it paid education? Get your money back. They stole from you.

Religious persecution certainly occurred, but the fact that it survived doesn't mean anything about the validity of Christianity--it just means that it appealed to the lower class extremely well and was embraced regardless. I could argue that you're similarly hopelessly convinced; in fact I am more open to argument because i am an agnostic. i don't assume that all other religions are invalid compared to Christianity. You're more of an atheist than I am ironically which gives you far more of a bias. Certainly the fact that it was oppressed at first is largely irrelevant to any point I was making.

Labels. So many labels. You're more open minded because you're an agnostic, huh? How old are you? Yes it matters. I'm not going to go round in circles with a 17 year old who argues for the sake of arguing rather than actually seeking truth. I'm "more atheistic" because I believe in one God and there's a bajillion invented in human history, as if lack of belief has a scale. Yeaaah.

That's probably a pretty offensive comment. To atheists, anyway.

You've failed to rebut my claim at all. Citing mark 8 doesn't magically disprove my argument. its a common argument because its a good argument. I mean your response is equally typical-- "You just don't understand Christianity and you can't see truth." Like I said, if God rearranged the stars in Aramaic to write yahweh is here, and it could be observed by the world, then that would convince me. If God loves us and cares about our beliefs, why not simply do that? he knows what it takes to convince us. WHy not just convince us? How am i supposed to take your word that Christianity is valid when there are so many clones from other religions that make the same arguments as you? How do I know which religion is valid? Simply saying I don't see the truth isn't a compelling argument whatsoever--you don't see the truth that there are a ton of religions to pick from, and even if something supernatural happened to me, I would have no idea whether that corresponded to Christianity, or Islam, or scientology. Again, your argument could be made by someone from any religion. God clearly doesn't care about your belief.

Did you read Mark 8? The answers were in there. The rebuttal is clear as day... but you'd have to, you know, read it.

No, it's not a good argument, it's a foolish argument. "Show me so I'll have faith" is no faith at all. Here, I'll give you a square peg and you must put it in this circular hole. Oh, it doesn't fit. Not compatible. It's quite simple. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but alas, you have it.

Once you get over that, then you can move on. Faith is met with faith. Try it sometime.

What are you even talking about? Obviously I wouldn't want to watch my future children get murdered. And I wouldn't want God's son to be murdered. I find the fact that God let his son get murdered for non existent sins from a non existent Adam to be disgusting. Explain how God making his son a scape goat is reasonable. it would be like a judge acquiting a criminal who didn't even commit a crime, by letting his own son get murdered so that the alleged criminal could be forgiven by the court. Clearly you aren't understanding the simple semantic and sentences here.

Of all the things you wrote, I love where you said, "I wouldn't want God's son to be murdered."

Maybe you'd need to consider He wouldn't let His son die for no reason, then. Maybe it's all real and it's all meaningful, Adam existed, Jesus exists, God exists. Jesus was a man, not some child with no say so in His life. He entered the world on His will to fulfill the plan He and His Father put together. Doesn't make it unreasonable because you can't understand it, it just means you don't understand it.

It doesn't necessarily make sense to humans. It should be no surprise to you to realize that because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't there or doesn't exist.

The difficulty is not my misunderstanding, but projecting what I say to you back to me doesn't help much. Yes, there is misunderstanding. No, it is not on my part.

So you don't like the concept of sin. Great. You and God are on the same team then. Maybe work with Him, not against Him, eh?

This is so cliche. When a religious person finds someone who doesn't accept their assertions, you call them closed minded. Perhaps your mind is so open that your brain is going to fall out. But its completely hypocritical because you're closed minded to all the other religions out there. Like I said you have more atheistic beliefs than i do.

It's not cliche if it's the truth, though. Maybe your heart is hard, and your mind is closed to the truth. If you'd read anything I offered, perhaps you'd come to realize it. So how about a deal then, read what I mentioned to help you find your answers, and we'll talk more.

I'm not going to go back and forth with a child who refuses to read the answers for their own benefit. I hear "prove God to me BUT YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE!" all day long. Here, fix my pontiac without the mechanic's guide. WHAT YOU CANT?! PFF!

If you refuse to read the bible then just admit it and we can be done. Otherwise, give it a try.

 

[Cephus]

Right, but you aren't applying that 'math' to other things, like the chance you are totally incorrect, /pretty high/, or various other 'unknowns' that you might even think are 'fact etc.
But really, you may choose to believe that you cannot choose the right religion, your probably right in that regard; but it doesn't mean that I'm unable to choose the right religion. You are equating your 'stats' to mine, that isn't kosher. 'Speak for yourself' as they say.
ie you could say, "I'm most likely going to choose the wrong religion".
~disciple

The chances that you are going to choose the wrong religion are overwhelmingly high and you know it. This is especially true because no religion actually has any objective evidence that the claims that it makes are factually true. It isn't impossible that you're going to pick the right religion, any more than it's impossible that you're going to win the lottery 500 times in a row, it's just absurdly unlikely.

And while I'm not saying you do this, you have to admit that the overwhelming majority of theists do not claim that they've picked a religion, essentially at random, and are going to take their chances, they state that they have the right religion and everyone else ought to adopt it too. Your chances of being right are no better than mine. My chances of being right are no worse than yours. However, the chances that *ANYONE* will *EVER* be right are minuscule at best, especially considering the inordinately high chance that the "right" religion might be something nobody on Earth has ever come up with.

 

[sojourner]

"things pertaining to humans in certain geographic locations pertain to them moreso than people in other locations. Basic cultural geography, right?"
And obviously my counter argument to that exact statement was:

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?



No, it was popular because it was manipulative just like Islam. It was tailored by politicians and religious leaders to align with the values of the time. I was made to match society, rather than made by God for society to conform to. An important difference.



And your point is? Same with islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other faiths as proclaimed by their corresponding religious leaders.



Religious persecution certainly occurred, but the fact that it survived doesn't mean anything about the validity of Christianity--it just means that it appealed to the lower class extremely well and was embraced regardless. I could argue that you're similarly hopelessly convinced; in fact I am more open to argument because i am an agnostic. i don't assume that all other religions are invalid compared to Christianity. You're more of an atheist than I am ironically which gives you far more of a bias. Certainly the fact that it was oppressed at first is largely irrelevant to any point I was making.



You've failed to rebut my claim at all. Citing mark 8 doesn't magically disprove my argument. its a common argument because its a good argument. I mean your response is equally typical-- "You just don't understand Christianity and you can't see truth." Like I said, if God rearranged the stars in Aramaic to write yahweh is here, and it could be observed by the world, then that would convince me. If God loves us and cares about our beliefs, why not simply do that? he knows what it takes to convince us. WHy not just convince us? How am i supposed to take your word that Christianity is valid when there are so many clones from other religions that make the same arguments as you? How do I know which religion is valid? Simply saying I don't see the truth isn't a compelling argument whatsoever--you don't see the truth that there are a ton of religions to pick from, and even if something supernatural happened to me, I would have no idea whether that corresponded to Christianity, or Islam, or scientology. Again, your argument could be made by someone from any religion. God clearly doesn't care about your belief.



What are you even talking about? Obviously I wouldn't want to watch my future children get murdered. And I wouldn't want God's son to be murdered. I find the fact that God let his son get murdered for non existent sins from a non existent Adam to be disgusting. Explain how God making his son a scape goat is reasonable. it would be like a judge acquiting a criminal who didn't even commit a crime, by letting his own son get murdered so that the alleged criminal could be forgiven by the court. Clearly you aren't understanding the simple semantic and sentences here.



This is so cliche. When a religious person finds someone who doesn't accept their assertions, you call them closed minded. Perhaps your mind is so open that your brain is going to fall out. But its completely hypocritical because you're closed minded to all the other religions out there. Like I said you have more atheistic beliefs than i do.

I don't want to reply to this particular post, but I needed to quote something so I can respond to you. I'm still waiting for you to fill me in on what you mean by "right" and "correct." You have yet to do that. In the meantime, you've filled up the thread with posts like this one that are so biased and put such a spin on history that it's ridiculous. Why don't you just save everyone some time, and come right out and say that religious people are all deluding themselves, and that religion is stupid? Because that's really what you're saying anyway. Stop hiding behind some pseudo-intellectual agenda. Perhaps, if you'd presented some valid evidence to support your OP claim, I might be inclined to hear what you have to say. but so far all I've gotten is vapid rhetoric.

What, in your Infinite Wisdom, would make a religion "right?" Or "correct?" Answer those and, perhaps, you've got something upon which we can proceed.

 

[sojourner]

The chances that you are going to choose the wrong religion are overwhelmingly high and you know it.

How do you know? Are you privy to some cache of spiritual truth that the rest of us have, somehow, missed?

This is especially true because no religion actually has any objective evidence that the claims that it makes are factually true.

Religions don't make objective fact claims. They make subjective truth claims. Therefore, your criteria simply don't apply.

 

[Cephus]

How do you know? Are you privy to some cache of spiritual truth that the rest of us have, somehow, missed?

No, just common sense. No religion out there has any objective evidence whatsoever that it is the correct one. That means that at best, you're just picking blindly, based on your emotional desires. Add to that the fact that there are an almost infinite number of possibilities that don't represent current human religious beliefs, things that we might have never come up with, that are equally likely to be correct. That means that picking the one true religion, if such actually exists, is almost unbelievably against the odds. It doesn't take spiritual truth, just an honest evaluation.

Religions don't make objective fact claims. They make subjective truth claims. Therefore, your criteria simply don't apply.

You're just wrong, virtually all religions make objective fact claims. They may claim that their particular god exists. That is an objective fact claim. They may make claims about an afterlife that applies to everyone, not just the believer. That is an objective fact claim. I can think of very few religions that believe that their religion's "truths" are only real inside the head of the believer and have no application in the real world.

 

[serp777]

Maybe because it's... true, right, on to something. You decide. Of those thousands and thousands of religions, which are the most prominent? How come?

Oooh black helicopters. People in power used it for power that they already had to manipulate people they already manipulated to get more money when they had all the money already...

Yeah. Keep rolling with that.



You need to re-read your history. Are you educated? Was it paid education? Get your money back. They stole from you.



Labels. So many labels. You're more open minded because you're an agnostic, huh? How old are you? Yes it matters. I'm not going to go round in circles with a 17 year old who argues for the sake of arguing rather than actually seeking truth. I'm "more atheistic" because I believe in one God and there's a bajillion invented in human history, as if lack of belief has a scale. Yeaaah.

That's probably a pretty offensive comment. To atheists, anyway.



Did you read Mark 8? The answers were in there. The rebuttal is clear as day... but you'd have to, you know, read it.

No, it's not a good argument, it's a foolish argument. "Show me so I'll have faith" is no faith at all. Here, I'll give you a square peg and you must put it in this circular hole. Oh, it doesn't fit. Not compatible. It's quite simple. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but alas, you have it.

Once you get over that, then you can move on. Faith is met with faith. Try it sometime.



Of all the things you wrote, I love where you said, "I wouldn't want God's son to be murdered."

Maybe you'd need to consider He wouldn't let His son die for no reason, then. Maybe it's all real and it's all meaningful, Adam existed, Jesus exists, God exists. Jesus was a man, not some child with no say so in His life. He entered the world on His will to fulfill the plan He and His Father put together. Doesn't make it unreasonable because you can't understand it, it just means you don't understand it.

It doesn't necessarily make sense to humans. It should be no surprise to you to realize that because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't there or doesn't exist.

The difficulty is not my misunderstanding, but projecting what I say to you back to me doesn't help much. Yes, there is misunderstanding. No, it is not on my part.

So you don't like the concept of sin. Great. You and God are on the same team then. Maybe work with Him, not against Him, eh?



It's not cliche if it's the truth, though. Maybe your heart is hard, and your mind is closed to the truth. If you'd read anything I offered, perhaps you'd come to realize it. So how about a deal then, read what I mentioned to help you find your answers, and we'll talk more.

I'm not going to go back and forth with a child who refuses to read the answers for their own benefit. I hear "prove God to me BUT YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE!" all day long. Here, fix my pontiac without the mechanic's guide. WHAT YOU CANT?! PFF!

If you refuse to read the bible then just admit it and we can be done. Otherwise, give it a try.

There is so much wrong here its going to be hard to address all of it.

Maybe because it's... true, right, on to something. You decide. Of those thousands and thousands of religions, which are the most prominent? How come?

probably not. So now you're using an argument from popularity. Just because Christianity is a prominent religion doesn't mean its correct. I've explained why its popular and you didn't reject any of it; it being popular has everything to do with appealing to lower class individuals and by be appealing to politicians to control the masses, like the pope did to convince peasants during the crusades. He claimed that all sins would be forgiven if they fought for the holy land--thus the pope was able to raise an army without spending a dime.

Oooh black helicopters. People in power used it for power that they already had to manipulate people they already manipulated to get more money when they had all the money already...

black helicopters? You're talking about something completely unrelated. red herring pretty much.

You need to re-read your history. Are you educated? Was it paid education? Get your money back. They stole from you.

You need to get over your huge personal bias and ego. Ad hominem instead of a counter argument just makes you look desperate. I am probably substantially more educated than you are.

"literary critic Harold Bloom brings up the most apparent, and regrettably the most ignored, of Biblical changes which should cause us to immediately doubt the divinity of the text as a whole. Bloom’s acute observations lead the scholar to write (p.47), “The New Testament frequently is a strong misreading of the Hebrew Bible, and certainly it has persuaded multitudes,” and goes on to inform, “The New Testament accomplishes its appropriation by means of its drastic reordering of the Tanakh.”"

"In a savvy move that would put today's shrewd politicians to shame, the compromise proffered by Constantine was vague, but blandly pleasing: Jesus and God were of the same "substance," he suggested, without delving too much into the nature of that relationship. A majority of the bishops agreed on the compromise and voted to pass the language into doctrine.

Their statement of compromise, which would come to be known as "The Nicene Creed," formed the basis for Christian ideology. The bishops also used the Council of Nicea to set in stone some church rules that needed clarification, and those canons were the reference point after which all future laws were modeled."



How the Council of Nicea Changed the World

"
The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
> project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
> atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
> bigotry.
> At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the
> church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known
> Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would
> settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what
> they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a
> book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
> authority to the new church."
The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible

Please learn history yourself before making claims about what other people know or don't know. Perhaps your mind is just closed to the evidence. What is the point of talking if you wont listen to the evidence and just use ad hominem?

I'm not going to go round in circles with a 17 year old who argues for the sake of arguing rather than actually seeking truth. I'm "more atheistic" because I believe in one God and there's a bajillion invented in human history, as if lack of belief has a scale. Yeaaah.

That's probably a pretty offensive comment. To atheists, anyway.

Not only is age irrelevant but your ad hominem ironically only makes you seem more childish and immature. Furthermore you're completely wrong about my age anyways. The reason you're more atheistic is because by believing in one particular faith you are an atheist to all the others obviously; as an agnostic I claim that I don't know about the variety of religions so . Saying "YEAHHHHH" doesn't say or prove anything, it just makes you look like you're unable to come up with a rebuttal. As for lack of belief having scale, you do realize that there are many other religions right? And atheists wouldn't take offense because its not offensive and atheists aren't a group anyways. you're probably someone who thinks that atheism is like a religion, which is what Islamic clones like you would argue.

Did you read Mark 8? The answers were in there. The rebuttal is clear as day... but you'd have to, you know, read it.

No, it's not a good argument, it's a foolish argument. "Show me so I'll have faith" is no faith at all. Here, I'll give you a square peg and you must put it in this circular hole. Oh, it doesn't fit. Not compatible. It's quite simple. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but alas, you have it.

You're too lazy to make your own arguments so you just cite mark 8? That's like if I just said: Go read chapter 5 of the God delusion and the rebuttal to your entire argument is obvious. Educated writers know that when you cite some evidence you provide specific passages and then make conclusions from that citation. if you were writing a paper in college and just said "Well mark 8 rebuttals this claim", your paper would receive a terrible grade because thats a slap in the face to any reader in addition to being bad writing.

Furthermore your square peg and circular hole is a complete failure as an analogy. I never claimed to have faith in the first place. God designed us to be skeptical, and since all religions seem to have equivalent evidence, how can God expect me to know which one is correct? Furthermore God is acting entirely inconsistently as demonstrated by the apostles--the apostles were able to see all of these alleged miracles like the resurrection which was able to convince them, because they didn't buy the assertions at first, and now God just expects me to take the word of a book written 17-1800 years ago while there are a variety of competing books? Its preposterous. Then they also got to experience the son of God directly while we are expected to take it on faith. Why can't I get the same demonstrations? Why didn't unsaved native Americans get these demonstrations? Why didn't humans from the first 100k years of our history receive such evidence and demonstrations? Its not about liking the answer or not, its an illogical answer. And saying "mark 8" says so is a cop out. A muslim clone of you would argue: read the Quaran 11:12, and some garbage about a sqaure peg.

Maybe you'd need to consider He wouldn't let His son die for no reason, then. Maybe it's all real and it's all meaningful, Adam existed, Jesus exists, God exists. Jesus was a man, not some child with no say so in His life. He entered the world on His will to fulfill the plan He and His Father put together. Doesn't make it unreasonable because you can't understand it, it just means you don't understand it.

MAybe you need to consider that the whole story is just that: a story. Just because you don't understand my argument against it doesn't mean its a bad counterargument. Also adam did not exist: are you denying evolution? Before you say that there had to be a first human, you're entirely wrong--there was never fewer than 1000 humans, and mitochondrial adam did not have mitochondrial eve as a partner, and may not have even existed during the same period. Ill cite evidence for this if need be. You're right i don't think he would let his son die for no reason: he didn't send his son down to be a scapegoat for the non existent sins of a non existent forebearer in order to save us from himself.

At this point in the debate, I expect you to do what is similar to other religious people--say some cliche along the lines of "I'm not going to argue against this kid who won't listen =''''(." This would be giving up essentially. But at some point religious people have no more arguments to give, so they get frustrated, and pretend like the opponent is impossible to argue with. Now maybe that I mentioned this you'll say something like "Yeahhhhhhhh, exactly, you're a kid and you don't listen; i agree with what you said hur hur."

" I hear "prove God to me BUT YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE!" all day long."
So let me bust out the Quran then . We can have a scripture war. lets just throw out logic and reasoning altogether. What a great plan.

 

[sojourner]

No, just common sense. No religion out there has any objective evidence whatsoever that it is the correct one. That means that at best, you're just picking blindly, based on your emotional desires. Add to that the fact that there are an almost infinite number of possibilities that don't represent current human religious beliefs, things that we might have never come up with, that are equally likely to be correct. That means that picking the one true religion, if such actually exists, is almost unbelievably against the odds. It doesn't take spiritual truth, just an honest evaluation.

In that case, I wish you'd actually make an honest evaluation. Because, so far, you've not done that. You've talked a good ride but, unfortunately, have fallen off the horse a few times. Unfortunately for you, there is no such thing as "the 'correct' religion." Some overzealous adherents might believe that, but it just ain't true. There is only "what works for me." If it works for you, then it does what it's supposed to and is "correct" for you (and those others for whom it is also "correct"). The insistence that "right" or "true" or "correct" depends on objective evidence, when it comes to religion, is silly. Because religion doesn't work on principles of objective evidence. It works on faith.

You're just wrong, virtually all religions make objective fact claims. They may claim that their particular god exists. That is an objective fact claim. They may make claims about an afterlife that applies to everyone, not just the believer. That is an objective fact claim. I can think of very few religions that believe that their religion's "truths" are only real inside the head of the believer and have no application in the real world.

No, they don't! How in the world can somebody make an objective fact claim when nothing can be proven??? They may say it's an "objective fact claim," but that don't make it so. If it can't be proven, it's not an objective fact. Religions make subjective truth claims. The claim that "God exists" is a subjective truth claim, not an objective fact claim. heck, most of the truly ardent ones will even say, "I believe," not, "I can prove." Belief is subjective. Proof is objective.

 

[sojourner]

I am probably substantially more educated than you are.

I doubt that.

Please learn history yourself before making claims about what other people know or don't know.

You need to follow your own advice; the Council of Nicea didn't address issues of biblical canon. Nice was in 325. The biblical canon wasn't set until at least 100 years later.





BTW: Still waiting for you to address my questions of "right" and "correct."

 

[serp777]

I don't want to reply to this particular post, but I needed to quote something so I can respond to you. I'm still waiting for you to fill me in on what you mean by "right" and "correct." You have yet to do that. In the meantime, you've filled up the thread with posts like this one that are so biased and put such a spin on history that it's ridiculous. Why don't you just save everyone some time, and come right out and say that religious people are all deluding themselves, and that religion is stupid? Because that's really what you're saying anyway. Stop hiding behind some pseudo-intellectual agenda. Perhaps, if you'd presented some valid evidence to support your OP claim, I might be inclined to hear what you have to say. but so far all I've gotten is vapid rhetoric.

What, in your Infinite Wisdom, would make a religion "right?" Or "correct?" Answer those and, perhaps, you've got something upon which we can proceed.

I've defined right and wrong, correct and incorrect on a variety of occasions throughout this thread. For the 20th time or something, its referring to factual true/false statements about religious beliefs--does God exist? Does God constitute existence? Did God send his son down to save us from our sins? Did Jonah survive the whale? Was Jesus resurrected? Does the Eucharist turn into the body of a first century Jew when it is blessed?

"Stop hiding behind some pseudo-intellectual agenda. Perhaps, if you'd presented some valid evidence to support your OP claim, I might be inclined to hear what you have to say. but so far all I've gotten is vapid rhetoric."
This is just horse manure and vapid rhetoric itself ironically. I've presented a variety of arguments on numerous occasions. This thread isn't "I can disprove all religions", its that religious beliefs are probably wrong. An initial argument I gave was that a plethora of religions exist that compete and all claim to be correct. Another was that many people's beliefs tend to come from where/when they are born. If you're born in the 8th century in North America, you probably believe in whatever Gods they blieve in. If you're born in South west China, you're probably a Muslim. If you're born in the bible belt you're probably a Christian. So the fact that it depends on location and the age means that it depends on cultural and evolutionary explanations rather than the fact that its correct. But these are only a couple of minor arguments.

'Why don't you just save everyone some time, and come right out and say that religious people are all deluding themselves, and that religion is stupid?"
I'm not sure what the point of this question is or what the point would be in saying such a thing. Furthermore i don't claim that religion is certainly wrong--just that particular beliefs are probably wrong based on the laws of large numbers resulting from the plethora of religions that exist now, or the ones that have been forgotten, or the ones. That would make some people here even more irritable than they already are because i question their beliefs.

"you've filled up the thread with posts like this one that are so biased and put such a spin on history that it's ridiculous."
Well if you have some counter evidence of arguments to present to me I am always open to learning new things. I also don't see how its possible for me to be biased--my position is that I don't know if there is a religion thats correct or not." How does one be biased for the unknown? I'll just counter your argument by saying this: "its not ridiculous."

 

[sojourner]

I've defined right and wrong, correct and incorrect on a variety of occasions throughout this thread. For the 20th time or something, its referring to factual true/false statements about religious beliefs--does God exist? Does God constitute existence? Did God send his son down to save us from our sins? Did Jonah survive the whale? Was Jesus resurrected? Does the Eucharist turn into the body of a first century Jew when it is blessed?

"Stop hiding behind some pseudo-intellectual agenda. Perhaps, if you'd presented some valid evidence to support your OP claim, I might be inclined to hear what you have to say. but so far all I've gotten is vapid rhetoric."
This is just horse manure and vapid rhetoric itself ironically. I've presented a variety of arguments on numerous occasions. This thread isn't "I can disprove all religions", its that religious beliefs are probably wrong. An initial argument I gave was that a plethora of religions exist that compete and all claim to be correct. Another was that many people's beliefs tend to come from where/when they are born. If you're born in the 8th century in North America, you probably believe in whatever Gods they blieve in. If you're born in South west China, you're probably a Muslim. If you're born in the bible belt you're probably a Christian. So the fact that it depends on location and the age means that it depends on cultural and evolutionary explanations rather than the fact that its correct. But these are only a couple of minor arguments.

'Why don't you just save everyone some time, and come right out and say that religious people are all deluding themselves, and that religion is stupid?"
I'm not sure what the point of this question is or what the point would be in saying such a thing. Furthermore i don't claim that religion is certainly wrong--just that particular beliefs are probably wrong based on the laws of large numbers resulting from the plethora of religions that exist now, or the ones that have been forgotten, or the ones. That would make some people here even more irritable than they already are because i question their beliefs.

"you've filled up the thread with posts like this one that are so biased and put such a spin on history that it's ridiculous."
Well if you have some counter evidence of arguments to present to me I am always open to learning new things. I also don't see how its possible for me to be biased--my position is that I don't know if there is a religion thats correct or not." How does one be biased for the unknown? I'll just counter your argument by saying this: "its not ridiculous."

"Your religion is probably wrong" is a biased statement that you have yet to back up with anything with real teeth. Define "wrong." How is a religion "wrong?" Because it can't prove its facts? I've already addressed that several times, with no rebuttal from you. Religions don't make objective fact claims. They make subjective truth claims. Since that's the case, your criterion for a religion being "wrong" doesn't hold up. If you want to make that claim, you'll have to figure out some different criterion.

 

[serp777]

I doubt that.

You need to follow your own advice; the Council of Nicea didn't address issues of biblical canon. Nice was in 325. The biblical canon wasn't set until at least 100 years later.





BTW: Still waiting for you to address my questions of "right" and "correct."

I most certainly am. Anyone who makes an argument by just citing mark 8 without any explanation or specific passages and saying you're wrong probably hasn't taken any kind of literature class.

You need to stop using cliches--in early citations i posted that Nicea was in 325 AD but since you don't read the other passages you wouldn't know. Also I only cited people to show that many scholars indicate that the bible was changed for political and societal purposes. I never actually talked about canon or non canon myself. Also you're nitpicking details that aren't relevant to the point i was making. You're basically just committing a red herring really.

 

[serp777]

"Your religion is probably wrong" is a biased statement that you have yet to back up with anything with real teeth. Define "wrong." How is a religion "wrong?" Because it can't prove its facts? I've already addressed that several times, with no rebuttal from you. Religions don't make objective fact claims. They make subjective truth claims. Since that's the case, your criterion for a religion being "wrong" doesn't hold up. If you want to make that claim, you'll have to figure out some different criterion.

And i've already rebutted your supposed rebuttals.

Religions make a variety of objective fact claims--"the one true God" is a great example. If you want to play the semantics game you can also say Does God constitute existence? Was jesus the son of God? Christianity make the objective factual claim that Jesus is the son of God. Religion also makes factual claims such as :there is a supernatural world separate from the physical world, that which is beyond natural laws. Are you saying this isn't an objective fact claim? How can you say it isn't?

"They make subjective truth claims."
And what is a subjective truth claim? You criticize me for using terms like right and wrong and then you say something like this without any definition. Subjective truth seems like a term you just invented.

Please show me one response where i haven't responded to you. I may have missed one but i don't think so. I mean there are a lot of responses i've had to make so perhaps i missed one of yours.

 

[sojourner]

I most certainly am. Anyone who makes an argument by just citing mark 8 without any explanation or specific passages and saying you're wrong probably hasn't taken any kind of literature class.

You need to stop using cliches--in early citations i posted that Nicea was in 325 AD but since you don't read the other passages you wouldn't know. Also I only cited people to show that many scholars indicate that the bible was changed for political and societal purposes. I never actually talked about canon or non canon myself. Also you're nitpicking details that aren't relevant to the point i was making. You're basically just committing a red herring really.

You posted this talking about canon
Here:
"How the Council of Nicea Changed the World

"
The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
> project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
> atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
> bigotry."

And:

"By compiling a
> book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
> authority to the new church."

Red herring? What does the Council of Nicea or the alleged politicization of the scriptural canon have to do with any religion being "right" or "wrong?" Now that's a red herring. It has nothing to do with the point you were making about religions being "right" or "wrong."

 

[serp777]

You posted this talking about canon
Here:
"How the Council of Nicea Changed the World

"
The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
> project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
> atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
> bigotry."

And:

"By compiling a
> book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
> authority to the new church."

Red herring? What does the Council of Nicea or the alleged politicization of the scriptural canon have to do with any religion being "right" or "wrong?" Now that's a red herring. It has nothing to do with the point you were making about religions being "right" or "wrong."

yes and I wasn't replying to you. That was about the fact that the bible has changed for political purposes and I was responding to someone else. We were arguing about right and wrong but that other guy had no issues talking about right and wrong. It isn't a red herring because the fact that the bible has changed frequently over the course of the centuries means it isn't as genuine. It was tailored to fit society and politics at the time; it even says that Constantine literally changed doctrine to reflect compromises between the bishops. This isn't text directly from Jesus and the apostles--its been modified substantially. He was arguing that the bible is a completely reliable testament of God's message and my claim was that it wasn't, which means it probably isn't the true word of God, which implies that Christianity probably isn't correct. its been muddled by men for too long even if it was correct at one point.