Two cents or something
Angery bible bashers and crazy koran yeilding fanatics please refrain from attacking me...I am just asking a few questions.
Well, there are more religions than those of the Bible and Koran. I do think there is a tendency among Abramists to sacrifice objectivity to faith, but I would suggest you've not met a diverse enough range of theists.
If somebody is a member of a religion, they agree with the teachings of that religion. This is not in dispute?
Generally speaking, it would seem that way, wouldn't it? But I know for a fact that with Christians it isn't so. Sure a Catholic might have more of a tendency toward the Virgin than a Baptist, but you'll find few, if any, purists among either sect. My mother is an extreme version: She doesn't even go to church, she doesn't read the Bible, but she believes in God and was raised Christian so she still calls herself a Christian; the word means something else to her than it does to you or me. Or I could think of the legions of Christians I know in daily life who, despite their sectarian labels (Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, &c) generally believe whatever suits them as long as they can make some convoluted reconciliation to the faith.
The Missouri Synod was formed after the delegation from Missouri walked out on a Lutheran conference over the Scopes trial. The Lutheran Church arose around a tax and human rights protest. So it does seem that there comes a point when the dichotomy is irreconcilable, but few Christians really seem to pay attention. As long as their thoughts and actions are "mostly Christian", it seems to suffice. This, I submit, is an effect of human nature.
As a result of their faith their views and opinions tend to clash with other religions that they are not members of. This is not in dispute?
That doctrinal differences exist between religions is given. Otherwise, there wouldn't be diverse religions.
Obviously if somebody believes in a religion and therefore a god of some sort, they cannot possibly hope to argue objectivly with either a member of a different religion or an atheist or agnostic?
Depends on the mode of belief and the reasons for communication. If both are honest, yes, one can hope to argue objectively. Of course, that's a little like talking about those "real Christians" who are so thinly distributed among the chaff. I am expressing an idyll. It doesn't happen often within Christianity.
Many of the posts raise issues about the existence of a god, or the validity of a religion. The members of the religion under fire turn to the holy books THEY believe in for answers and justification. But if you need blind faith to follow a religion....how can you argue a point objectivly
This is a true point, but it is also well to consider what degree of objectivity you're seeking. If, after all, you seek pure objective justifications, then nothing will ever be done because there is no purely objective justification. Even atheists build their paradigms subjectively.
But there's a rhetorical string that is discouraging. We've gone from "Bible and Koran" to "theists" to "blind faith to follow a religion". These three terms are not synonymous and act in a fairly restrictive manner. There are Christian sects which exist outside these constraints (e.g. Society of Friends) and other religions which do not demand blind faith, but rather discourage it--e.g. Sufism, Buddhism, &c. At present, you're talking about a portion of Christianity, a portion of Judaism, and a portion of Islam, which leaves plenty of theists outside consideration.
would argue that atheists and agnostics are the only members of sciforums that can take a step back and look at religion as a whole....rather than letting their faith effect their judgement. I invite you to prove me wrong.
Well, an agnostic, yes, because that's the nature of agnosticism. But part of that concession is that we may never know, because agnosticism accepts that condition.
But atheism as a whole is a different issue; atheism itself is objective, but its practical applications (e.g. atheists) are subjective. Starting from the atheistic assumption, we can already lop off a portion of religion as inaccessible to the atheist. After all, how does the atheist objectively experience what is asserted to not exist?
Furthermore, you seem to treat theism so narrowly that its atheistic prejudicial counterpoint would be to classify atheists as all being post-Nietzschean hedonists.
Not all of the world's theists are rabid televangelism drool-fuelers. You prove yourself wrong by narrowing your own scope.
A note for JayTerrier:
The written evidence will suffice. Where the Revolutionary War differs from the Bible is that we have primary accounts of the Revolutionary War. We have much source documentation to confirm certain aspects of the Bible (e.g. Roman control of Jerusalem) but we have no source documentation corroborating the Bible. Even Josephus is a secondary account. So where we have George Washington's signature, we don't have Jesus' John Hancock. Where we have a record of John Brown's execution (Civil War era) we do not have the Roman death warrant or any primary record thereof. No tax records confirming Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem in December. No personal letters from Jesus himself.
thanx,
Tiassa
