General religion

[southernhybrid]

There is a difference between seeking truth and creating truth. In other words:

And a difference between genuinely seeking and not.


Testing ,Studying, 1, 2, 3,.

With all due respect, Learner, I find that comment very insulting. I find it insulting because I was taught to believe in a very conservative version of Christianity. As a young child, I accepted it because I believed my parents would never lie to me. I continued to accept it with some reservations until I was about 18. Then I knew there was no way it could be literally true. But, it took me about 8 long years of studying, praying and thinking about whether or not God existed and about whether or not there was a better, more truthful religion than Christianity. I was a liberal, almost agnostic Christian for awhile. I tried to adopt the religion of my first husband, but regardless of it having much better principles than the Christian religion, it was still too hard for me to accept the supernatural elements as truth.

I was genuinely seeking. At times I was obsessed with finding the truth. I prayed and begged god to show me the way. So, your comment is very judgmental and wrong, when you assume that those of us who are atheists, agnostics or have liberal beliefs in any religion aren't genuinely seeking.

The end of my journey made me free. It made me free from twisted religious dogma. It made me free from the contradictions of the Biblical stories. It made me free from having to worry about those who didn't believe like me. That was over 40 years ago, and I am still happy, free and self fulfilled. I have retired from a career that was based on caring for others without judging them. It allowed me to treat the most difficult person or the most easy going person in the same way, regardless of how stressful that was at times. I'm not better than anyone else. It's just the way I am because of my genetic heritage and the things that inspired and influenced me throughout my life. But, you are totally wrong to judge how earnest most of us who were raised with religion but were unable to continue to believe as we grew up and gave it more thought. From what I've read, it's very typical for those of us who are no longer able to take religious myths as truth, to have gone through a period of searching, seeking and sometimes praying for guidance before we come to terms with reality.

No way could I ever believe in a god that is so vain, vengeful, or horrific as the god of the Christian Bible. it's so obvious that the Bible is a book of myths and the god is based on human nature. That's right. Humans created a god that is just like them. Sometimes the god is loving and kind. Other times the god is hurtful, and murderous. I'm sorry that you can't see that, but as I've said before, if your beliefs help you be a better person, who am I to judge?

 

[DBT]

Yet other theists don't agree with your interpretation of bible theology. Jews don't agree with Christians, Christians don't agree amongst themselves, neither agree with Mohammad, while Hinduism is altogether different....

God's Word - clear enough for me and my personal relationship with God.

Human theology -
(Transubstantiation, Infralapsarianism, Supralapsarianism, Soteriology, Triune nature of God, Christology, Original Sin, Once Saved Always Saved, YEC, Scriptura Sola, Should you cover your head or NOT cover your head, Should you call God by name - Jehovah - or never use God's holy name....?)

Yes, there are many many doctrinal and hermeneutic differences in theology, but if you take Islam, Judaism and Christianity and put them side-by-side, they are practically one single religion in comparison to atheism.

I simply don't agree that humans 'ought' to all have the exact same interpretation of scripture or that their failure to do so is God's fault.

BTW - CS Lewis thought that Hinduism was closer to Christianity than Islam.

Atheism is the opposite of all religion. Faith is the common element of religion.

It's not so much a question of the common elements between religions, but their contradictions.

If there are contradictions, the teachings that contradict cannot all be true, some, if not all, must be false.

So if from God, God is not being clear or concise in the message He/She/It is trying to convey.

You may believe that 'God's word' is clear enough for your personal needs but as there are other teachings, other theologies, other beliefs...clearly there is a problem.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yes, there are many many doctrinal and hermeneutic differences in theology, but if you take Islam, Judaism and Christianity and put them side-by-side, they are practically one single religion in comparison to atheism.

I doubt that the general authorities in those faiths would sign on to that statement, unless it's in the narrow sense that "We all three have a deity, and atheists don't." Once you're past that, is religious pluralism really a pronounced feature in these faiths? Many of them are strong on religious exclusivity, and declare themselves to be the one true church. That's true in various Christian denominations, such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist; it's true in the LDS church; it's strong in Islam, from all I've read. In some Islamic societies, to become an apostate is to commit a capital offense. Also ask yourself how many of these faiths limit eligibility into heaven or paradise to the church rolls (or more accurately, those who believe wholeheartedly in the one true church.) Any of these faiths that have sacraments give no acknowledgement that their competitors' sacraments have the power of God -- do they? (I'm asking. I haven't seen it.)

 

[WAB]

I like the God of Spinoza. Note I say like, not believe. Spinoza's God doesn't care what I believe.

 

[Learner]

There is a difference between seeking truth and creating truth. In other words:

And a difference between genuinely seeking and not.


Testing ,Studying, 1, 2, 3,.

With all due respect, Learner, I find that comment very insulting. I find it insulting because I was taught to believe in a very conservative version of Christianity. As a young child, I accepted it because I believed my parents would never lie to me. I continued to accept it with some reservations until I was about 18. Then I knew there was no way it could be literally true. But, it took me about 8 long years of studying, praying and thinking about whether or not God existed and about whether or not there was a better, more truthful religion than Christianity. I was a liberal, almost agnostic Christian for awhile. I tried to adopt the religion of my first husband, but regardless of it having much better principles than the Christian religion, it was still too hard for me to accept the supernatural elements as truth.

Sorry southern, with repect, sorry if it seemed that way. It wasn't meant to offend you. I merely posted 'genuinly seeking' in response to "creating the truth" (in bold text above). Besides... I would of thought "creating the truth" would have been more offensive. Regarding the line highlighted in red. Was it then that you discovered your parents were "creating the truth" when you were 18? It would be the question I'd ask - given from the phrases "genuinly seeking," and "creating the truth" - simply because of one of the two phrases you find insulting (genuinly seeking), not that I think you actually meant they were lying.

 

[southernhybrid]

With all due respect, Learner, I find that comment very insulting. I find it insulting because I was taught to believe in a very conservative version of Christianity. As a young child, I accepted it because I believed my parents would never lie to me. I continued to accept it with some reservations until I was about 18. Then I knew there was no way it could be literally true. But, it took me about 8 long years of studying, praying and thinking about whether or not God existed and about whether or not there was a better, more truthful religion than Christianity. I was a liberal, almost agnostic Christian for awhile. I tried to adopt the religion of my first husband, but regardless of it having much better principles than the Christian religion, it was still too hard for me to accept the supernatural elements as truth.

Sorry southern, with repect, sorry if it seemed that way. It wasn't meant to offend you. I merely posted 'genuinly seeking' in response to "creating the truth" (in bold text above). Besides... I would of thought "creating the truth" would have been more offensive. Regarding the line highlighted in red. Was it then that you discovered your parents were "creating the truth" when you were 18? It would be the question I'd ask - given from the phrases "genuinly seeking," and "creating the truth" - simply because of one of the two phrases you find insulting (genuinly seeking), not that I think you actually meant they were lying.

I don't think my parents meant to lie. They weren't at all religious during the first few years of my life, but then my mother began going to a conservative Baptist church and she was emotionally persuaded by the pastor to believe in the things that she did. She preached constantly to my father, and he eventually decided that she must be onto something. That made my childhood very difficult, but I've never blamed my parents for believing in something hat is obvious false as far as I can see.

I accept your apology. I just sometimes think that Christians don't realize how insulting and judgmental they often sound. I know you mean well, and are probably a good person. I just don't fully understand how anyone can believe in things that don't make sense. But, as I've said before, I don't judge you for it, as long as it helps you be a better person.

I know that atheists sometimes sound hateful too. There is no religious or secular philosophy that makes us perfect human beings. But, then again, I'm not a fan of free will so I accept that people don't have much control over who they are or how they act. All we can do is try to be a positive influence on others. So, if someone says something that I find insulting or simply wrong, I sometimes feel the need to explain how they are being perceived by others.

I'm with WAB. If I were able to believe there was a god, that god certainly wouldn't care whether or not we perceived it as real. Only a vain, disturbed entity would hide and then get angry because people weren't able to recognize it. I think that's where some Christians go wrong. They think that atheists are rejecting god or judging god. Nope. That's not it. We simply have looked at the many claims made by religion and find no evidence to support those claims. This doesn't impact our morality in any way.

 

[Rhea]

I simply don't agree that humans 'ought' to all have the exact same interpretation of scripture or that their failure to do so is God's fault.

And I ponder people who think that, and I just can't figure out why the god wouldn't take responsibility, IF it existed and IF it cared whether we believed in it.

So then I think, if you think it's not the god's fault that people don't believe in it, then it must not be a big deal, to the god, whether anyone believes in it, eh?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I simply don't agree that humans 'ought' to all have the exact same interpretation of scripture or that their failure to do so is God's fault.

And I ponder people who think that, and I just can't figure out why the god wouldn't take responsibility, IF it existed and IF it cared whether we believed in it.

So then I think, if you think it's not the god's fault that people don't believe in it, then it must not be a big deal, to the god, whether anyone believes in it, eh?

It's the 'no big deal' god, obviously, and lots of 'no big deal' followers. People spend more time with their pets.

 

[funinspace]

I simply don't agree that humans 'ought' to all have the exact same interpretation of scripture or that their failure to do so is God's fault.

And I ponder people who think that, and I just can't figure out why the god wouldn't take responsibility, IF it existed and IF it cared whether we believed in it.

So then I think, if you think it's not the god's fault that people don't believe in it, then it must not be a big deal, to the god, whether anyone believes in it, eh?

Regarding the second part: Well, Lion IRC did suggest Christianity was really close to Judaism...and their theological views of Heaven are certainly more of an open door policy than a gated community of the True Believers, if believing in any heaven at all.

 

[Treedbear]

...
BTW - CS Lewis thought that Hinduism was closer to Christianity than Islam.

I'm guessing that Moslems would agree. What with their similar concept of having a diversity of Gods to appeal to. It provides lots of room for ambiguity, which is anathema to Islamic theology.

 

[skepticalbip]

...
BTW - CS Lewis thought that Hinduism was closer to Christianity than Islam.

I'm guessing that Moslems would agree. What with their similar concept of having a diversity of Gods to appeal to. It provides lots of room for ambiguity, which is anathema to Islamic theology.

Also, on the more superficial side, Muslims take the ten commandments much more seriously than Christians. In Islam, the commandment of not making a likeness of anything in heaven or below will get someone's head removed if violated. Christians, like Hindus, love their religious paintings, figures, and statues of their gods (in violation of one of the ten commandments).

Samuel Paty, a teacher in France, was recently beheaded for showing a caricature of Muhammad while discussing the problem with his students.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Also, on the more superficial side, Muslims take the te Christians, like Hindus, love their religious paintings, figures, and statues of their gods (in violation of one of the ten commandments).

I was about to challenge that sentence (not that I personally care what religious law said in the BC years) but I looked again at the "famous" 10 commandments, as given at Ex. 20:2-17 and again at Deut.5:6-21. The graven image commandment, part of #2 in the list, is usually explained at Bible sites as forbidding the making and worshipping of idols. If you made a metal statue of Baal or whoever or a golden calf, and then danced around it with a lot of other DeMille extras, well, that's bad. But the modern translations I have go a lot further than the notion of talismanic idols. The Good News Bible translates the first part of Ex. 20:4 as "Do not make for yourselves images of anything in heaven or on earth or in the water under the earth." THEN it adds, "Do not bow down to any idol or worship it." By that rendering, and using my common sense (I know, that can be fatal in religious discussions), the ceiling of the Sistine chapel violates one of the 10 Big C's. I'm sure there are Christian rationalizations for this, and a million explanations of how I got it dead wrong.
When I went to the "weird" 10 Commandments -- which actually call themselves the Ten Commandments -- at Ex. 34:14-26, there's a more narrowly written statement on graven images: "Do not make gods of metal and worship them." That's the one that actually conforms to the way Bible sites explain #2.
Again, I'm not a believer, this stuff doesn't apply to me anymore than the duties imposed on faithful Muslims or the LDS dress code.
Your statement is correct.

 

[Politesse]

I was about to challenge that sentence (not that I personally care what religious law said in the BC years) but I looked again at the "famous" 10 commandments, as given at Ex. 20:2-17 and again at Deut.5:6-21. The graven image commandment, part of #2 in the list, is usually explained at Bible sites as forbidding the making and worshipping of idols. If you made a metal statue of Baal or whoever or a golden calf, and then danced around it with a lot of other DeMille extras, well, that's bad. But the modern translations I have go a lot further than the notion of talismanic idols. The Good News Bible translates the first part of Ex. 20:4 as "Do not make for yourselves images of anything in heaven or on earth or in the water under the earth." THEN it adds, "Do not bow down to any idol or worship it." By that rendering, and using my common sense (I know, that can be fatal in religious discussions), the ceiling of the Sistine chapel violates one of the 10 Big C's. I'm sure there are Christian rationalizations for this, and a million explanations of how I got it dead wrong.

This was in fact the basis of long-standing civil unrest in the ancient Byzantine empire, which caused serious political ruptures and violence in the streets for more than a century.

 

[ideologyhunter]

This was in fact the basis of long-standing civil unrest in the ancient Byzantine empire, which caused serious political ruptures and violence in the streets for more than a century.

Can you say more about that? Civil unrest: do you mean fighting between those who supported the Byzantine religious artworks and those who wanted them destroyed? In that case it would be similar to the Puritan movement in England.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yet other theists don't agree with your interpretation of bible theology. Jews don't agree with Christians, Christians don't agree amongst themselves, neither agree with Mohammad, while Hinduism is altogether different....

God's Word - clear enough for me and my personal relationship with God.

Human theology -
(Transubstantiation, Infralapsarianism, Supralapsarianism, Soteriology, Triune nature of God, Christology, Original Sin, Once Saved Always Saved, YEC, Scriptura Sola, Should you cover your head or NOT cover your head, Should you call God by name - Jehovah - or never use God's holy name....?)

Yes, there are many many doctrinal and hermeneutic differences in theology, but if you take Islam, Judaism and Christianity and put them side-by-side, they are practically one single religion in comparison to atheism.

I simply don't agree that humans 'ought' to all have the exact same interpretation of scripture or that their failure to do so is God's fault.

You have a very modern and admirable faith. I wish more Christians were like you. You have a kind of religion I, as an atheist, can support and wish to see more of. It's when religion turns intolerant or too sure of itself that they lose my love.

BTW - CS Lewis thought that Hinduism was closer to Christianity than Islam.

His book Mere Christianity can best be described as a cerebral meltdown. It's an academic work. But it's riddled with logical inconsistencies, which for an academic is inexusable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Does anybody know how creationists manage to cling to their rejection of evolution even during a pandemic? Doesn't the fact that a virus emerges prove evolution is true?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anybody know how creationists manage to cling to their rejection of evolution even during a pandemic? Doesn't the fact that a virus emerges prove evolution is true?

That question assumes that our brains are all equally rational and scientifically curious, that we all engage equally in critical thinking, are god observers, and can spot inconsistencies in our reasoning. But if that were the case there would be no creationists, no members of our species that engaged in these wholly emotional thoughts and behaviors involving magic. In short, each and every member of our species would recognize the contradiction that is creationism. But we all do not, or if we do, we deny it.

So the obvious answer is simply that we are not all cognitively equal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Does anybody know how creationists manage to cling to their rejection of evolution even during a pandemic? Doesn't the fact that a virus emerges prove evolution is true?

That question assumes that our brains are all equally rational and scientifically curious, that we all engage equally in critical thinking, are god observers, and can spot inconsistencies in our reasoning. But if that were the case there would be no creationists, no members of our species that engaged in these wholly emotional thoughts and behaviors involving magic. In short, each and every member of our species would recognize the contradiction that is creationism. But we all do not, or if we do, we deny it.

So the obvious answer is simply that we are not all cognitively equal.

I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots. It's too self-congratulatory. I also don't think they are.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anybody know how creationists manage to cling to their rejection of evolution even during a pandemic? Doesn't the fact that a virus emerges prove evolution is true?

That question assumes that our brains are all equally rational and scientifically curious, that we all engage equally in critical thinking, are god observers, and can spot inconsistencies in our reasoning. But if that were the case there would be no creationists, no members of our species that engaged in these wholly emotional thoughts and behaviors involving magic. In short, each and every member of our species would recognize the contradiction that is creationism. But we all do not, or if we do, we deny it.

So the obvious answer is simply that we are not all cognitively equal.

I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots. It's too self-congratulatory. I also don't think they are.

See how cognitively different we are?

And who said "idiot?" I said 'emotional people who believe in magic.' It's a very accurate observation, generally speaking. We're all community, socially and tribally inclined, and we all enjoy pretending, so I don't think those characteristics are defining enough.

A couple centuries ago there were only two members of our species who were observant enough to see natural selection and the origin of species. I'm certain many persons saw them as "idiots." Many still do. Why? Because their cognitive makeup has them believing in magic, which is an emotional characteristic.

 

[rousseau]

Does anybody know how creationists manage to cling to their rejection of evolution even during a pandemic? Doesn't the fact that a virus emerges prove evolution is true?

That question assumes that our brains are all equally rational and scientifically curious, that we all engage equally in critical thinking, are god observers, and can spot inconsistencies in our reasoning. But if that were the case there would be no creationists, no members of our species that engaged in these wholly emotional thoughts and behaviors involving magic. In short, each and every member of our species would recognize the contradiction that is creationism. But we all do not, or if we do, we deny it.

So the obvious answer is simply that we are not all cognitively equal.

Does anybody know how creationists manage to cling to their rejection of evolution even during a pandemic? Doesn't the fact that a virus emerges prove evolution is true?

That question assumes that our brains are all equally rational and scientifically curious, that we all engage equally in critical thinking, are god observers, and can spot inconsistencies in our reasoning. But if that were the case there would be no creationists, no members of our species that engaged in these wholly emotional thoughts and behaviors involving magic. In short, each and every member of our species would recognize the contradiction that is creationism. But we all do not, or if we do, we deny it.

So the obvious answer is simply that we are not all cognitively equal.

I don't like explanations that are based on the religious being idiots. It's too self-congratulatory. I also don't think they are.

If more people are religious or superstitious than not, there's also a risk for atheists to lose sight of their own bias. Atheists think 'rationality' is normal and a base-line, and that the religious have something wrong with them. But if there are more of them than us, than atheists are the outlier, and we're missing something more fundamental about our species.

How creationists cling to a rejection of evolution? It's because they have no incentive to disbelieve. Belief feels good, so they will do mental gymnastics to continue believing. This is the same reason Pagans converted to Christianity in medieval Europe - because the Christian answer sounded better / felt better.