The best arguments atheists and religionists have been able to muster

ZenMode said:
What would you say about the people who have an equal experience with other religions? For example, there are Well educated,non Arab people around the globe who have turned their life over to Islam for the same reason.
Click to expand...
Not a clue ,I no little about Islam.
 
Cypress said:
Do the hard work yourself and don't ask obscure people on the internet to teach you.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly what you should do. It doesn't matter who points you in the right direction, as long as you end up learning. You never do that. You should change your vector.

Cypress said:
Read the important scriptures of Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Confucianism, Stoicism and you will learn they all are on a trajectory towards approximately the same set of basic universal values, at least within the margin of error.
Click to expand...
Nope. What you just wrote is gibberish.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I do not know if there are gods involved in the Reality...or if there are no gods...and there seems to be no way to determine which it is.
Click to expand...
This is the agnostics creed.

However, you are absolutely certain in your belief and worship of the Climate goddess. You are a hard-core theist.


Ross Dolan said:
Anyone backing one way over the other is doing it on a blind guess.
Click to expand...
... yet you claim your religion is thettled thienth.

Ross Dolan said:
It seems to me that not making a blind guess in either direction is a better way to handle things.
Click to expand...
... yet you do so nonetheless.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not asking about Islam. I'm asking about the belief that "your" religion is the correct one.
Click to expand...
So explain how you know that your religion Climate Change is the correct one? You have no science either, only clergy who tell you what to believe.
 
Margot said:
That's the intellectual definition! But the Holy Spirit is what makes it not Blind Faith! But no one without the Holy Spirit can comprehend that simple fact!
Your pov is exactly what mine was before my Epiphany.
Click to expand...
You keep blindly guessing that there is a Holy Spirit in order to pretend that your blind guesses are not blind guesses. If you need that...fine. Go with it. But if you post on-line about it, people will call your pretentions to your attention.
 
IBDaMann said:
So explain how you know that your religion Climate Change is the correct one? You have no science either, only clergy who tell you what to believe.
Click to expand...
I don't know and have never claimed to know with absolute certainty that climate change is true.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not saying religious belief is stupid, necessarily.

I am saying that given the track record of religion versus science, I don't see why anyone would still default to religion.

I also don't understand believing in God's based on one circumstantial situation; the existence of the universe.
Click to expand...
I think science and religion are asking different questions.

I have never had a physics, biology, or chemistry class that answered the question about how one should live their life, and what is the meaning and purpose to it all.

Since humans do not perceive and experience life and reality simply as the interactions of quarks and electrons, most of what we act on and think is based on circumstantial evidence, intuition, educated guesses.
 
Cypress said:
I think science and religion are asking different questions.

I have never had a physics, biology, or chemistry class that answered the question about how one should live their life, and what is the meaning and purpose to it all.

Since humans do not perceive and experience life and reality simply as the interactions of quarks and electrons, most of what we act on and think is based on circumstantial evidence, intuition, educated guesses.
Click to expand...
Religion makes claims that are directly linked to science.

It makes claims about the universe, how it came into existence and the sources of light. It makes claims about the age of the earth and how various species of animals came into existence.

It makes claims related to physics - walking on the surface of water, invisible forces separating large amounts of water, the existence of beings who are able to see, speak, think, etc despite having no physical body and the ability of one man to construct a cruise ship with no power tools to name a few.

It also makes biological claims related to death and the human body (Jesus coming back to life after being dead for 3 days) animals with the ability to speak.
 
ZenMode said:
Religion makes claims that are directly linked to science.

It makes claims about the universe, how it came into existence and the sources of light. It makes claims about the age of the earth and how various species of animals came into existence.

It makes claims related to physics - walking on the surface of water, invisible forces separating large amounts of water, the existence of beings who are able to see, speak, think, etc despite having no physical body and the ability of one man to construct a cruise ship with no power tools to name a few.

It also makes biological claims related to death and the human body (Jesus coming back to life after being dead for 3 days) animals with the ability to speak.
Click to expand...
Genesis 1 and 2 is Hebrew poetry, not science.

Genesis 1 is a lot closer to what actually happened than what scientists were thinking before the 1920s. The consensus view before Hubble was that universe had no origin, it was static and had always existed. This view in science persisted to some extent until the 1960s. The religious view of an origin to the cosmos was widely rejected in the science community prior to Erwin Hubble.

If anyone wants to complain that various stories, parables, and poems in the Bible don't match up with Newtonian physics, my response is, so what?

Christian theology does not depend on the scientific accuracy of Genesis, or the walking on water. You could remove those stories from the Bible and it wouldn't change Christian theology in any measurable way. Christian theology is based on the ethical teachings of Jesus and his death and resurrection.
 
Cypress said:
Genesis 1 and 2 is Hebrew poetry, not science.

Genesis 1 is a lot closer to what actually happened than what scientists were thinking before the 1920s. The consensus view before Hubble was that universe had no origin, it was static and had always existed. This view in science persisted to some extent until the 1960s. The religious view of an origin to the cosmos was widely rejected in the science community prior to Erwin Hubble.

If anyone wants to complain that various stories, parables, and poems in the Bible don't match up with Newtonian physics, my response is, so what?

Christian theology does not depend on the scientific accuracy of Genesis, or the walking on water. You could remove those stories from the Bible and it wouldn't change Christian theology in any measurable way. Christian theology is based on the ethical teachings of Jesus and his death and resurrection.
Click to expand...
How much of Christian theology is predicated on Jesus coming back to life after being dead for 3 days?
 
Cypress said:
I'm not here to pass judgement on people who organize their life around the Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish faith. That is what rabbis, nuns, and Buddhist monks do, and I am not in a position to say they are wasting their lives.

It is self-evident that knowledge does not require certainty or proof.
If we need to have certainty and proof about everything, we would not be able to function, take action, and make judgements.

That is why I never liked the claim that having religious belief is stupid unless one can provide observational proof or empirical data.

I don't think it is irrational to believe a lawful universe points to a law-maker. And on the flipside, I don't think it's irrational to believe that the lawful universe came into existence for unfathomable reasons which are ultimately physical and inanimate.

The complaints atheists and religionists have about each other usually boil down to emotion and antagonism, rather than a clear-headed understanding of how humans acquire knowledge.
Click to expand...
but what's important about religion is morality and that;s ultimately rational.

everyone agrees on that.
 
ZenMode said:
How much of Christian theology is predicated on Jesus coming back to life after being dead for 3 days?
Click to expand...
That is what I just said. The basis of Christian theology is: His ethical teachings (historical), his death (historical), his resurrection (reported by eyewitnesses, but open to question).


Good, so we can get past the supposed deeply profound and existential significance of walking on water and Genesis 1.



I don't think the apostles they were lying about their experience. I think they genuinely believed they saw Jesus after he died, although I have my own medical and biological theories about that.

I base my interpretation on the evidence: The first people who noticed Jesus wasn't dead were women. In a patriarchal society like the ancient Near East, women would not be considered credible witnesses. Only men's testimony was considered reliable. There is no reason and no propaganda benefit to the Gospel writers making women the first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection.

The written record indicates the resurrection is not a later legend added to the New Testament. the earliest reports of the resurrection go all the way back to the eyewitness and are reported in Corinthians and Mark.

The fact that the apostles were willing to die and be executed for their belief they had seen Jesus after his death does not make it sound like a tale they conspired to fabricate while drinking carafes of wine at a tavern.


My rational explanation is that Jesus did not die on the cross. But I have reached the conclusion that the apostles genuinely seemed to believe they saw Jesus after his crucifixion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top