Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

By definition faith is belief without evidence, ergo, all faith is irrational.

You should get a new dictionary. A belief in something for which there is no proof is but ONE of the definitions of "faith". Also, we know from the real world that there are two kinds of faith. People tend to trust people they know and distrust those they don't. The universal Law of Distrust manifests both of these kinds of faith. It is absurd on the face it to presuppose that we can't have a rational reason for having someone or something as an object of our faith. Are you going to tell us,for example, that you don't believe water is wet?

So surgeons should not wear masks when they operate? Come on, any bacteria that "builds up inside the mask" is already in your body. Meaning you already have an immunity to it.

Non sequitur. I wasn't talking about mask-wearing in a surgical environment. For your info, an operating room and the outside world are two very different environments. Also, all bacteria is not good for us. Check with a doctor.

Check with your doctor. You do have a family doctor don't you? Or do you just prey when you get sick?

Check with my doctor about what, specifically?

Prove it.

Hmm...maybe you have a point there. If one person wrote all the books of the bible, then this would naturally explain the absence of contradictions.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Exactly what the hell is it that you're not clear on?

It's you who are confused. You think the definitions of "science" don't need defining? That the words themselves used to define "science" don't need defining? Only in cases of religion or philosophy such things need to be defined?

Duplicitous much?

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by boxcar

To take a classic example, skeptics, throughout the centuries, have tried to build a mountain out of a mole hill in terms of the tomb narratives on Easter morning in the Gospels. They make the claim that the accounts are inaccurate, when actually, upon closer inspection, the narratives merely differ from one another and in fact the Gospels form one cohesive, homogeneous account of what occurred at the tomb on Easter morning in spite of the differences among the narratives. Differences simply do not necessarily equate with inaccuracies or contradictions.

I can understand why some people would be skeptical. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the religion. It would have been nice if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would have gotten their act together and came up with a consistent narrative. You don’t see things like this in the Old Testament.

And, ironically, these differences or bible difficulties actually lend tremendous credibility to those accounts because we can be assured the various writers didn't simply mimic or copy one another.

Well, that's one way to spin it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Redboard

I can understand why some people would be skeptical. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the religion. It would have been nice if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would have gotten their act together and came up with a consistent narrative. You don’t see things like this in the Old Testament.


Well, that's one way to spin it.

The gospel writers did have their acts together. They just didn't mimic one another as, apparently, you would prefer. The fact that their accounts differ doesn't necessarily mean they aren't consistent. Remember: For something to be a bona fide contradiction, it must actually violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

And for your info, there are plenty of problematic passages in the OT. Just ask any liberal scholar or theologian.

P.S. Since you're new to this thread, as a courtesy to any skeptic/unbeliever, I offer three swings at the plate. Choose what you think are the best, airtight contradictions anywhere in the bible, and I will address those. And I don't mean copyists' errors such as differences in name spellings or differences in numbers, etc. I'm talking about what you think are bona fide contradictions that would materially affect Christian orthodoxy or orthopraxy.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Can you explain it? Does it need explaining?

Can you even define it?

How did you come up with 84%?

The word "subjective" implies bias.

Sounds like the reason they locked up Galileo and burned Bruno at the stake.

What makes you think I detest it?

Consciousness is unobservable. But the subjective individual experiences it in his/her own way, in the qualitative sense of degrees of pain, the smell of a flower, the colors of the spectrum, or even expanding upon the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing"?, which some might explore, quite rationally I would argue.

84%? https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...t-happens-next

"Subjective" as in one individual believes the only questions worth asking and answering are scientific, quantitative ones, while another gives additional weight to qualitative, experiential evidence (e.g., beauty, sense of gratitude) that, in this instance instance solidifies one in "faith".

The hagiography of Galileo, and especially Bruno, have been botched by a few of your heroes like Sagan and Tyson...

https://historyforatheists.com/2017/...r-for-science/

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/?s=bruno

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by Redboard

I can understand why some people would be skeptical. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the religion. It would have been nice if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would have gotten their act together and came up with a consistent narrative. You don’t see things like this in the Old Testament.


Well, that's one way to spin it.

The essential core is where we can affirm the historical reliability with the greatest amount of confidence.

We can know what happened at the scene of an accident even if some of the witness details are "fuzzy".

It is just what we would expect from several eyewitness accounts. Verbatim repetition would look like one writer copying the other.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by porchy44

The essential core is where we can affirm the historical reliability with the greatest amount of confidence.

We can know what happened at the scene of an accident even if some of the witness details are "fuzzy".

It is just what we would expect from several eyewitness accounts. Verbatim repetition would look like one writer copying the other.

Depends on whether one considers the bible to be the literal, infallible word of God — God’s primary method of communicating with man. Or, like the Catholic Church, one considers the bible to be little more than popular literature — inspirational but not the foundation for one’s religion. (E.g., the Catholic Church maintains that the Pope, the bishop of Rome, is the successor of Saint Peter, although they don’t necessarily maintain that Saint Peter was ever the bishop of Rome, or that he was ever in Rome.)

If you believe the former, then, one should hold the story to a higher standard. The details shouldn’t be "fuzzy,” it’s too important.

[thaskalos]

The bible says that God has fixed the earth so that it could be "firm and immovable". When it was discovered that the earth was a "movable" planet, people realized that the bible was prone to inaccuracies...which couldn't have been the case if the "Good Book" were indeed the infallible 'Word of God'.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The bible says that God has fixed the earth so that it could be "firm and immovable". When it was discovered that the earth was a "movable" planet, people realized that the bible was prone to inaccuracies...which couldn't have been the case if the "Good Book" were indeed the infallible 'Word of God'.

I don't mind man appointing himself as his own god. My compliments, he has done a masterful job of that. But man has always had a hard time understanding that he's not MY god.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I don't mind man appointing himself as his own god. My compliments, he has done a masterful job of that. But man has always had a hard time understanding that he's not MY god.

Well put!

I am reminded of that clever Greek Euripides...who once wrote:

"If the horses were to ever create a god for this world...that god would look a lot like a horse."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

84%? https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...t-happens-next

I would have thought it was higher. I think your figure is low because you do not include any of the unaffiliated, whereas I would include some of them, although I do not know how many.

I think Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. For example, filmmaker George Lucas identifies as a Buddhist-Christian. The "Force" in Luca's Star Wars franchise has many elements of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama, the original buddha, has been called "the atheist who became a god."

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

I would have thought it was higher. I think your figure is low because you do not include any of the unaffiliated, whereas I would include some of them, although I do not know how many.

I think Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. For example, filmmaker George Lucas identifies as a Buddhist-Christian. The "Force" in Luca's Star Wars franchise has many elements of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama, the original buddha, has been called "the atheist who became a god."

Neither the Buddha nor Jesus ever intended to create a new "religion". And they didn't desire to be put on a pedestal and be "revered" or prayed to. They taught a new "Way of Life"...which is, after all, the correct definition of "philosophy". And they were looking for FOLLOWERS...not "devotees". But when enough dogma and superstition is heaped upon these "philosophies"...then they are greatly diminished and are relegated to becoming "religions".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's you who are confused. You think the definitions of "science" don't need defining?

I did not say that, nor do I believe that. What do you want defined?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Neither the Buddha nor Jesus ever intended to create a new "religion". And they didn't desire to be put on a pedestal and be "revered" or prayed to. They taught a new "Way of Life"...which is, after all, the correct definition of "philosophy". And they were looking for FOLLOWERS...not "devotees". But when enough dogma and superstition is heaped upon these "philosophies"...then they are greatly diminished and are relegated to becoming "religions".

And you know this how about what Jesus intended? Got chapter and verse for that?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I did not say that, nor do I believe that. What do you want defined?

We can start with "knowledge" and "understanding".