For the atheists

[Jan Ardena]

So... scriptures contain truth because those that believe scripture contains truth say so? :bugeye:

Grover seems to be on the mark.

No... because it does contain truth.
Surely you're not going to argue it doesn't?
This will be interesting.

You're right though Grover seems to be on the mark.

Jan.

 

[one_raven]

My answer would have to favour, 'the bible is believable, because people believe in it", to be classed as circular reasoning.

Wrong.
As I said, you simply do not understand what circular reasoning is.
If the conclusion is explicit or implicit in the premise it is circular reasoning.
The bible contains truth, therefore it is believable.
The Bible being believable is an implicit consequence of the Bible containing truth.

 

[SnakeLord]

No... because it does contain truth.

Then why say it's verified by those that believe it instead of verified by historians/archaeologists etc?

There is the problem with your assertion. You claim it's true and then say it's true because those that believe it's true say it's true.

However, what truth exactly are you pointing at? The existence of certain places? If so it needs to be said that the city featured in the Epic of Gilgamesh is a real place, but it does not lend credence to the rest of the story, (ergo; gods, demi gods, ogres, scorpion men etc etc). Hell, even Harry Potter features real places - does the rest of the story hold up on the strength of that?

So, what truth exactly?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Wrong.
As I said, you simply do not understand what circular reasoning is.
If the conclusion is explicit or implicit in the premise it is circular reasoning.
The bible contains truth, therefore it is believable.
The Bible being believable is an implicit consequence of the Bible containing truth.

The bible being believable is not dependant on the fact that it contains truth, it is merely a reason why it is believable. If nobody believed the bible contained truth, it would not affect the fact that it does.
Why do you think scriptures are believable?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

hen why say it's verified by those that believe it instead of verified by historians/archaeologists etc?

The question posed is "why are the scriptures believable". This assumes he is refering to people who believe the scriptures are believable. Therefore to see if my answer is correct you need to ask people who believe why they believe.

There is the problem with your assertion. You claim it's true and then say it's true because those that believe it's true say it's true.

No. My claim is that "they contains truth" and that is a reason why they are believable.

However, what truth exactly are you pointing at?

That is neither here nor there.

The existence of certain places? If so it needs to be said that the city featured in the Epic of Gilgamesh is a real place, but it does not lend credence to the rest of the story, (ergo; gods, demi gods, ogres, scorpion men etc etc). Hell, even Harry Potter features real places - does the rest of the story hold up on the strength of that?

You are simply asserting your opinon on the matter.

So, what truth exactly?

This is different question, please stick to the point.

Jan.

 

[one_raven]

The bible being believable is not dependant on the fact that it contains truth, it is merely a reason why it is believable.

You remind me why I generally ignore your posts.
I'm done with this "discussion".

 

[Enmos]

What religion are you talking about?

Any.

What is it that actually matters to the religion?

Many things, not least of all God. I don't have a list ready, but as you are a theist I'm sure you know what it is that really matter to the religion.

What would you regard as evidence of a supreme being?

I don't know, I haven't got the slightest idea what could ever proof the existence of God. I would think a theist would have to come up with the proof.

And finally, are we to abandon our personal experiences because we cannot share them with others? If yes, why?

Of course not. But you can't use your (unsharable) experience as evidence, it also doesn't add to the credibility.

Religious experiences can only matter to the person that has them and to no one else (in their right mind).
I am not saying that religion in itself is a bad thing. Religions offer a wealth of wisdom to the one than can extract it, and one doesn't has to be religious to do just that.
Furthermore, one can come up with their own moral values and lead as a good a life as any religious person. There is no God needed for that perse.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

Many things, not least of all God. I don't have a list ready, but as you are a theist I'm sure you know what it is that really matter to the religion.

Religion in its pure form, is a way how to live your life.
The point of living such a life is to come to the understanding of who and what God is, who and what we are in relation to him.
God can matter to someone without them adhereing to a religious lifestyle.

I don't know, I haven't got the slightest idea what could ever proof the existence of God. I would think a theist would have to come up with the proof.

You must think there can be physical proof of Gods' existence, otherwise why ask for it?

Of course not. But you can't use your (unsharable) experience as evidence, it also doesn't add to the credibility.

Where have I used my personal experience as evidence?
If my intention was to convince you that God exists, then you would have a point.

I am not saying that religion in itself is a bad thing. Religions offer a wealth of wisdom to the one than can extract it, and one doesn't has to be religious to do just that.

Maybe so, but there is something to said for "walking the walk", don't you agree?

Furthermore, one can come up with their own moral values and lead as a good a life as any religious person. There is no God needed for that perse.

That depends on how you see religion and God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You remind me why I generally ignore your posts.
I'm done with this "discussion".

What discussion?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but a discussion means a talk between two or more people about a subject, usually to exchange ideas or reach a conclusion, or talk of this kind.
All you have done is accuse me of using circular reasoning, and then storm off in a huff because i disagree with you.

Very poor.

Jan.

 

[Enmos]

Jan,

Religion in its pure form, is a way how to live your life.
The point of living such a life is to come to the understanding of who and what God is, who and what we are in relation to him.
God can matter to someone without them adhereing to a religious lifestyle.

How does that require a God or a religion ? A person can lead as good a life as any theist without ever believing in God or without adhering to a religion.

You must think there can be physical proof of Gods' existence, otherwise why ask for it?

No, I didn't ask for proof. In fact, I said God is unprovable.

Where have I used my personal experience as evidence?
If my intention was to convince you that God exists, then you would have a point.

I didn't say you used it as evidence. I'm just saying one can't use his/her experiences as evidence of God or any other facets of religion that can only be perceived through experience.

Maybe so, but there is something to said for "walking the walk", don't you agree?

No, I don't agree. A person can adopt the morals of a religion without believing in any God or without adhering to any religion. One may just adopt the moral values because they are perceived as good morals.

That depends on how you see religion and God.

How so ? If I lead as good a life as you, how would it make me lesser person if I don't do it because of religion but because I think it's the right way to live ?

 

[SnakeLord]

The question posed is "why are the scriptures believable". This assumes he is refering to people who believe the scriptures are believable. Therefore to see if my answer is correct you need to ask people who believe why they believe.

Ok, so the answer seems to ultimately be: scripture is believable because "it contains truth". You then asserted that to verify this truth one should talk to those that believe. I am merely expressing that one should surely speak to historians etc before believers?

You are simply asserting your opinon on the matter.

I fail to see why you regard it as simple opinion. Do you espouse that if some text contains some truth that it is all truth?

This is different question, please stick to the point

Seems to be a large part of it actually given your statement that scripture is believable becuase it contains truth. Typically one would ask: "what truth" and expect an answer. Whatever.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

Religion in its pure form, is a way how to live your life.
The point of living such a life is to come to the understanding of who and what God is, who and what we are in relation to him.
God can matter to someone without them adhereing to a religious lifestyle.

How does that require a God or a religion ? A person can lead as good a life as any theist without ever believing in God or without adhering to a religion.

The term "a good life" is a relative term.
The point of religion is to develop the ability to understand God and how we relate to God.

No, I didn't ask for proof. In fact, I said God is unprovable.

My apologies.

I didn't say you used it as evidence. I'm just saying one can't use his/her experiences as evidence of God or any other facets of religion that can only be perceived through experience.

That goes for all personal experiences, not just religious ones.
You may not be able to prove that orange juice tastes nice, or is refreshing, but another person can experience those traits, and then come to the understanding that it is true.

No, I don't agree. A person can adopt the morals of a religion without believing in any God or without adhering to any religion. One may just adopt the moral values because they are perceived as good morals.

I agree. So "religion" in its pure form cannot be just about morals.

[QUOTEEnmos]Furthermore, one can come up with their own moral values and lead as a good a life as any religious person. There is no God needed for that perse.

That depends on how you see religion and God.

How so ? If I lead as good a life as you, how would it make me lesser person if I don't do it because of religion but because I think it's the right way to live ?

[/QUOTE]

Because "religion" isn't about morals, it is about lifestyle.
Morals is more about intelligence than religion.
Just check it out for yourself and you will see what I mean.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Ok, so the answer seems to ultimately be: scripture is believable because "it contains truth". You then asserted that to verify this truth one should talk to those that believe. I am merely expressing that one should surely speak to historians etc before believers?

Why? The question is aimed at believers.

I fail to see why you regard it as simple opinion. Do you espouse that if some text contains some truth that it is all truth?

This is a different argument altogether.
If it contains truth, then that is a reason why people believe.

Seems to be a large part of it actually given your statement that scripture is believable becuase it contains truth. Typically one would ask: "what truth" and expect an answer. Whatever.

If I responded to this, it would only be my opinion. The question is "do scriptures contain truth".

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,
The logical position IS one of belief, because we cannot see God directly.

???

Your problem here Jan, is that you assume that it is true that god exists in some sort of invisible form. You are not allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong!

Following that logic, you should then believe in extra-terrestrials, ghosts, witches, Superman etc. If you do not believe in even one of these, your logic falls apart.

His position is logical too, albeit simple, but it is not rational as that is not the way to percieve God directly (physical evidence which will satisfy him), according to any scripture, yet he sticks to his request knowing that it will never happen, and yet postulates God does not exist, because he cannot see him.

I think SL, Grover and Raven have browbeaten you in that scripture is only true by circular logic. I need not repeat it here, as you will stubbornly deny this fact of life.

Your problem is, you have preset ideas and regardless of whether or not I press the buttons, your going to invoke them.

Oh please. Don't project your limitations on me.

Now please point out where I assume that the bible is the absolute truth, then when you realise I haven't, come back a deal with a point at a time, if that is possible.

I don't need to. SL, Grover and Raven have done so for me.

You stated, or maybe implied, that people murder innocents, for the pleasure of virgins awaiting them in heaven.

Ah! There's a slight difference. I asked you (and you have yet to answer), "is it moral for a superior being to bribe lesser beings to murder, in exchange for sexual gratification". I never said that the lesser beings were doing the murders solely for sexual gratification...they might actually believe they're being all holy 'n' sh*t.

But I can see the plausible implication...

I don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe if you just answer the question directly, you may make more sense.

Let's see if i can find monosyllabic words for you...oops I put in a long word, sorry:

Moderate religion advocates have petitioned and harassed their various country governments to be "sanctified"...basically exempt from peer review etc. Many are even tax exempt.

Problem is, the governments cannot define "moderate" as opposed to "radical" religion in laws. Therefore, fundamentalists inherit their right to free worship as easily as the moderates do.

For example,

An example?

You, Dawkins, Harris, you don't question religion, you only demean it.

And?

Where have you questioned actual religion since we started this discussion?

Even if I may have been insulting, I need not actually add question marks to "question" your religion. Even so, I have yet to receive an answer for my morality question.

Of course it can.

Oh dear, I should have expounded. YES oppression can beget violence...however the particular group we are speaking of are popularly known to favour religiously justified violence. They pass it off as response to oppression, however, as I see it, the US might have been politically belligerent, but did not use physical force as fundamentalist Muslims do. Overwhelmingly violent physical force at that.

I was refering to a "violent person" regardless of his lifestyle.
What do you mean by "Up to and including religious means"?

Up to and including, meaning encompassing "oppression" as well.

You yet to show violence based purely on religion, you seem happy to cherry pick small, incontextual samples, to ring your triangle, but that is not satisfactory.

I've a large bunch of cherries to pick from Jan. These cherries have been done to death on other threads, and I'm not in the mood for a list rehash. Suffice it to say that there are many more examples of religiously motivated violence.

PS, "based purely" is your phrase. I see it as your insert merely to strengthen your waning position.

Is this the best you have to offer in the way of an answer?

How about the leader of a world power, Gee Dubya, using religious reasons for various actions?

Because you don't know how to.

Rubbish Jan...I can challenge you because I think your beliefs are crap. I don't need to believe in them first myself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

Your problem here Jan, is that you assume that it is true that god exists in some sort of invisible form. You are not allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong!

I believe God exists, that is my position. If God does exist then he is invisible to the eyes.

You are not allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong!

Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong.

Following that logic, you should then believe in extra-terrestrials, ghosts, witches, Superman etc. If you do not believe in even one of these, your logic falls apart.

Why?

I think SL, Grover and Raven have browbeaten you in that scripture is only true by circular logic. I need not repeat it here, as you will stubbornly deny this fact of life.

I said the "scriptures contain truth".
You have come to a conclusion based on wrong information.
Not good.

Moderate religion advocates have petitioned and harassed their various country governments to be "sanctified"...basically exempt from peer review etc. Many are even tax exempt.

Problem is, the governments cannot define "moderate" as opposed to "radical" religion in laws. Therefore, fundamentalists inherit their right to free worship as easily as the moderates do.

When you say "fundamentalists" are you refering to its true meaning?
And how exactly can (so-called) moderates stop terrorists from acting?

Even if I may have been insulting, I need not actually add question marks to "question" your religion.

So how do you question it?
Do you know my religion?

Even so, I have yet to receive an answer for my morality question.

"is it moral for a superior being to bribe lesser beings to murder, in exchange for sexual gratification".

This is what you call challenging/questioning my beliefs?

By "superior being" do you mean God?
If you do, then show me the scriptoral reference.

Oh dear, I should have expounded. YES oppression can beget violence...however the particular group we are speaking of are popularly known to favour religiously justified violence.

So you're saying they do murder for sexual gratification?

PS, "based purely" is your phrase. I see it as your insert merely to strengthen your waning position.

The claim is that religion is the reason for violence and murder. It has even be claimed and implied that such acts are more palatable if "religion" is not involved.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

How about the leader of a world power, Gee Dubya, using religious reasons for various actions?

He used WMD's as a reason for the carnage in Iraq.
Gee everyone knows that.

Rubbish Jan...I can challenge you because I think your beliefs are crap. I don't need to believe in them first myself.

Remarks like this only serves to prove my point.
Thanks for your help, but is unecessary.

Jan.

 

[grover]

If I ever start a cult I will broadcast this quote by Jan on an endless loop:

"Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong. Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong.
Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong. Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong.
"Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong. Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong.
Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong. Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong.
"Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong. Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong.
Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong. Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong...."

 

[(Q)]

Damn funny, grover.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Absolutely hilarious!
Don't forget about royalties.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,
I believe God exists, that is my position. If God does exist then he is invisible to the eyes.

More's the pity.

Belief will dwindle if you think you are wrong.

Exactly.

Why?

Because, all these spectres', superheroes' etc existence are verified by a book.

Eg, DC is the Word of Superman, and Superman never lies according to what we have read. Therefore, Superman exists.

I said the "scriptures contain truth".
You have come to a conclusion based on wrong information.
Not good.

I'm supposed to believe this based on the fact that you believe it?

When you say "fundamentalists" are you refering to its true meaning?
And how exactly can (so-called) moderates stop terrorists from acting?

I never said moderate theists can stop fundamentalists from overreacting. I just said moderate theists are (and have already) allowed for some societal protection from criticism.

Allow me to relay an example story. Here in my country, for a while, a largely unheard of christian sect made newsworthy media (a few years ago). One of the congregation members had caught his daughter masturbating. Both parents had taken her to the minister in charge, and the minister had the child (of twelve), publicly whipped...as was the recommended remedy by his religion.

Us sane people called for them to be jailed and the child placed in the care of social services. The Government however, had no choice but to allow this travesty to go without a response, since by law, religion is "protected from persecution by the Government". Of course, it was the moderate theists that called for such provisions to be included in anti-discrimination sections.

This sect further came into the spotlight by denouncing the Hindu religion, causing the Hindu leadership here to threaten "holy war" against any Christian sect who denounced Hinduism as paganism. The Government had no comment on the whole brou-ha-ha. (I do applaud however the Archbishop of mainstream Roman Catholicism for speaking out against violent behaviour...the one level-headed representative in the whole religious chaos.)

Hey that's two examples

And yes, we're literally bursting at the seams with religion here.

So tell me again why religion should be on a pedestal?

So how do you question it?

Simple. You make the assertion that scripture is absolute truth and (therefore) god exists. I tell you that the argument is crock. The question is sort of implied, but let me spell it out.

Jan, your argument is illogical, and I request that you provide further and more convincing evidence other than your personal assertion.

Do you know my religion?

Immaterial.

This is what you call challenging/questioning my beliefs?

By "superior being" do you mean God?
If you do, then show me the scriptoral reference.

You already pointed it out that the virgins as a prize thing is in islamic scripture. You already know it, so I need not repeat it.

The claim is that religion is the reason for violence and murder. It has even be claimed and implied that such acts are more palatable if "religion" is not involved.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

That is your understanding.

I consistently said religion is a motivating factor in violent reaction. And I also said that violence would be less probably if religion were not involved. You are putting words in my pipe Jan, and I refuse to smoke your conclusions.

Remarks like this only serves to prove my point.
Thanks for your help, but is unecessary.
Jan.

Ha. Continue living in Jan-Land. It seems to serve you well.

 

[SnakeLord]

Why? The question is aimed at believers.

Of which you are one. Suffice it to say it is more apt to answer to why you believe as opposed to thinking you can answer for believers in general. Your indication is that you believe it because it contains truth - which is fine but does beg the question "what truth?"

Now, to "verify" that truth, (you did say verify), you pose that one should talk to a believer, but that is not verification - that is merely a believer asserting his belief that something is true - which is why I mentioned historians etc.

The way you've worded it, (perhaps unintentionally), basically leaves us with the statement that people believe scripture is true because they believe it is true - which, while quite pertinent, doesn't really offer all that much.

If it contains truth, then that is a reason why people believe.

Correction: If someone believes it contains truth then one believes it's true. That's basically what you've said.