Speaking of cults..

Page: 1 2 3 4
Apr 28 2002, 3:52 pm
In response to English
English wrote:
I don't think the light at the end of the tunnel really came from any religion. No religious book or teaching that I know of says you will walk/float/whatever down a dark tunnel towards light. People may see it as the basis for support of some sort of afterlife but it really isn't closely connected to a religion.

Innumerable people have used the "light at end of tunnel" and "I was floating above my body while they operated and I heard them say something they said I never could possibly have heard" experiences to justify their religious beliefs, or as the reason they became religious.

My father used to wake me up at an ungodly (yes!) hour of the morning to read a book to us by a guy who had a near-death experience in which he went to heaven and hell, and therefore he knew they were real.

The fact that when he was in hell he saw lakes of fire caused my mother to say "I used to think that was allegory, but now I know there are really lakes of fire there!"
Apr 28 2002, 4:21 pm
In response to English
English wrote:
As for immortality... I'll take science's "If you do this and this and avoid this, you might end up living a longer, healthier life." over religion's "promise" of eternal life. Science can demonstrate its claims, and more importantly, admits its own fallibility. If there's an afterlife, I'll find out about it when I get there. If a supreme being has made belief and acknowledgement in itself as a prerequisite for entering the "good" aspect of this afterlife, above and beyond any considerations of actual moral worth, then frankly, I'd rather pass on that being's idea of heaven.

You were assuming that what is said about Heaven, God, ect. is true for the sake of that argument. It also says that God is all knowing and perfect. Are you saying that you know better and more than an all knowing and perfect being? Wow, that seems like a bad case of arrogance to me. Then you say that you wouldn't want to participate in his heaven because you would have chosen different preresiquites? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

In the above paragraph, I'm not assuming anything for the sake of anything. I'm stating: no being that decides recognition of itself will be the key, overriding factor in deciding whether a given mortal will spend an eternity in pain and torment or paradise is worth recognizing. That's not arrogant... such a being would be more powerful than I am, but an all-knowing being would certainly be less of a... how should I put this? "Insecure bully."

As for the idea that we have no way of judging right from wrong without a supreme being's stamp of authority... I'll show you two books. One is a copy of the Bible. One simply says, "To whom it should concern: this passage is the divinely authored word of the Lord God Almighty. Do what you will is the whole of the law, but you get bonus points if you can hurt anyone while doing it. Sincerely Yours, He Who Is Called I Am."

Do you even know anything about the Bible or are you just spouting what some other person who also knows nothing about the Bible said?

This might be a good comeback, if I had said anything about what the Bible says in that paragraph. I'll come back to how my paragraph is relevant at the end.

Oh, I suppose you'll say the first one is more likely to be true because it's the most read/published book in the history of the world and we have archaelogical records that show the first one has been around for thousands of years? Well, it's great to know that absolute moral truth can be discovered through a popularity contest here on earth... does this mean that N'Sync is a morally superior band if it makes it to the top of Total Request Live six weeks in a row?

Wow, that's one of the worst cases of the Straw Man fallacy that I've ever seen. You create a false opponent that has similarities to the tru opponent then beat up the false opponent and claim victory over the true one. If you can find one religious person that believes in a religious text because it's the most popular then I'll eat a steaming pile of what you're saying.

I'm just repeating what people tell me when I ask them why I should believe in the Bible... if you've never heard anyone trot out the tired line, "It's the best seller of all time!" or say "It's been in continuous publication for 2,000 years," then it's only because you've never bothered to question religious people about why you should believe the Bible.

Note that I'm not defeating this obviously flawed argument in order to "disprove" the Bible. I'm only making pre-emptive strikes against the arguments I hear time and time again, to show that I don't want to hear them.

Your mixing up discussions here. Archeological evidence that says the Bible existed thousands of years ago was used to disprove the charge that the Catholic church had changed the Bible for its own purposes. They ended up being virtually identical which disproved that theory. It was NOT used to prove the Bible is right or the better religious text.

You're right it wasn't used to prove the Bible's veracity, because it doesn't prove such a thing. That doesn't change the fact that people attempt to put it forward, time and time again, as proof.

Again, my attempt is not to disprove the Bible, or to say that the Bible cannot be proven. I'm shooting
However, I can also say (and, more to the point, prove) that no supreme being is doing any such thing, or if one is, it's got nothing to do with any holy texts that are widely known. I can demonstrate this conclusively in a matter of hours, given a pile of all the world's holy texts and a Sharpie pen.

Perhaps with some religious texts but not with the Bible. I've seen people try to do this sort of thing and I (and many others) easily point out their careless mistakes. I can gaurantee that you cannot disprove the Bible's continuing accuracy dispite your claims. List a few of your examples and I'll prove you wrong.

You didn't even read my post... you just skimmed it, and then responded to what you expected I had said. I didn't say I'd find errors in the Bible with my Sharpie pen. I would introduce them. I would insert them. I would create them. And I would leave the attributions unchanged. I would pass off obviously illogical, deeply wrong nonsense as the divinely authored testament of the one true God. Would God take action against me for this? None that would show up until after I died. Point being: if God exists, He does not exercise His effortless ability to prevent anyone from tampering with His word.

Yes, revising the Bible with a Sharpie pen could hardly be misconstrued as a serious threat to the world-wide integrity the holy word... but God also takes no immediate actions against the publishers of other culture's supposedly holy scriptures, nor the people who post books of commentary on the Bible explaining why this passage supports their radical political agenda, nor the kooks who pass off their own rantings as new books of the Bible. I'm not saying this proves that God doesn't exist, that God doesn't care, or that God can't control what the Bible says or doesn't say... I'm saying it proves that the perfect God, for doubtlessly correct reasons, chooses not to.



Anyways, to sum up your post: the arguments I put forward as being worthless defenses of the Bible, you agree are worthless. Wonderful. Now, show me the good ones.

I said I'd come back to the relevance of the paragraph you ineptly sneered at, and so here goes:

If we discount archaelogical evidence that doesn't touch on the Bible's veracity (and we both have), put aside any claims about the Bible's endurance and popularity, which while remarkable, likewise fail to prove its truth, admit that there's no way to objectively judge the "difference" (in any) between the feelings of Truth and Hope that one person has reading the Bible and another person has reading the Celestine Prophecies... then what do we have left as evidence of the Bible's provenance in providence?

The Bible itself.

The classic argument: "The Bible is true because it comes from God. How do we know it comes from God? Because the Bible says so. How do we know that's tr INFINITE LOOP SUSPECTED TO AVOID THIS MESSAGE SET WORLD.LOOP_CHECKS = 0"

Is your derisive comment about my knowledge of the Bible meant to suggest that the Bible contains more substantive proof of its authorship than this that I've missed? Or did you simply not understand what I was saying?


Anyways, back to the main point... we both agree on why not to believe in the Bible. Let's hear the why.
Apr 28 2002, 4:22 pm
In response to Deadron
Deadron wrote:
English wrote:
Nope, even if you're wrong you're still given a direction and a path to follow. It may lead you into more ocean but you wouldn't be wandering aimlessly.

What is the deal with thinking a non-religious person must wander aimlessly? Seriously, I don't get it. A non-religious person has much direction in life, in my personal experience.

Agree with him in a sense. It depends on what you mean by wandering aimlessly. If means at towards an afterlife, then I'd have to say I agree.

Sometimes I believe people make their own gods. If you believe that when you die, you will be with your family and your ansestors, then you will. If you think that when you die, you are just going to disapear, then maybe you will.
Apr 28 2002, 4:57 pm
In response to English
When they yell, "Stroke! Stroke! Stroke!" your mindlessly obeying and following their teachings which is no better than blindly following any religion.

Finally, you get something right.

To tie into the boat metaphor... why is it that they people rowing blindly east for reasons that have nothing to do with God are aimless, but the people rowing blindly west because believe God wants them to are not? Both groups are, at heart, equally directionful and directionless... both are, as you put it, "At least going in a direction."

The question now, if you want to tackle it, is, "How do you know whether that direction is heading towards a better place, a worse place, or an equal or indifferent place?"
Apr 28 2002, 5:06 pm
In response to English
Oh, and I feel ashamed that I only just now realized the irony of you--someone who went through such an effort to disprove the arguments which I myself was saying were spurious and to dispute claims that I wasn't actually making--accusing me of setting up straw persons.

I'd also like to suggest that as the spelling in your recent posts on this thread isn't quite up to your normal standards, you may be getting a little emotionally overwrought and might consider stepping back and taking a few deep breaths before you post any more.
Apr 28 2002, 7:15 pm (Edited on Apr 28 2002, 9:10 pm)
In response to Deadron
[Edit]
I was just side tracking. Nevermind...
[/Edit]
Apr 28 2002, 8:14 pm
In response to English
English wrote:
Seeing lakes of fire isn't the same as seeing the light at the end of a tunnel or having an out of body experience.

Your posts are very strange...since no one said that seeing lakes of fire is the same as a light at the end of the tunnel, I am curious who you are talking to and what point you are making?

Anyway, you avoided my real question: What about being non-religious means that one wanders aimlessly? What is a single thing in life that a non-religious person is incapable of making rational decisions about? Aside from spending time in religious contemplation, what is a single way in which the life of a religious person is substantively different than the life of a non-religious person?

Since the non-religious people apparently do a lot of aimless wandering, this must be an easy question to answer.
Apr 28 2002, 8:29 pm
In response to Lesbian Assassin
In the above paragraph, I'm not assuming anything for the sake of anything. I'm stating: no being that decides recognition of itself will be the key, overriding factor in deciding whether a given mortal will spend an eternity in pain and torment or paradise is worth recognizing. That's not arrogant... such a being would be more powerful than I am, but an all-knowing being would certainly be less of a... how should I put this? "Insecure bully."

I can see how you could come to that conclusion. I just think it was meant to be sort of like a domino effect with the rest implied by a few primary factors. Meaning, if you believe in God then you probably believe him to be all powerful, perfect, and someone who sent his son to die for you (in Christianity of course). If that is the case then you would care for the being that cared for you. If you cared for God then you wouldn't want to upset or anger him (not gender specific but I'd feel weird putting "it"). Sinning and being immoral upsets and angers him so therefore you would try to live as pure a life as you can. Here it is implied that if you believe in God then you will try to live a moral life. No one is perfect so he wouldn't expect it, he'd only expect you to try. That is a lot of implying but I think that's the basic idea behind it instead of just a plea for attention and recognition.


I'm just repeating what people tell me when I ask them why I should believe in the Bible... if you've never heard anyone trot out the tired line, "It's the best seller of all time!" or say "It's been in continuous publication for 2,000 years," then it's only because you've never bothered to question religious people about why you should believe the Bible.

*Heads out to the dog run to eat something*
The only response like that that I've heard is the "because that's what my parents believe." I haven't heard those other responses before but I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised if they did. There are far to many people out there that simply don't really care. I can understand them not wanting to spend their time on it but it seems like a really important topic, it can effect your entire view of the world and other people.

Note that I'm not defeating this obviously flawed argument in order to "disprove" the Bible. I'm only making pre-emptive strikes against the arguments I hear time and time again, to show that I don't want to hear them.

That's kind of scary that you hear them time and time again. If I were asked a similar question and I didn't know I'd say, "Gee, I don't know." or "I'm still trying to figure that out." instead of giving a response like that.


You didn't even read my post... you just skimmed it, and then responded to what you expected I had said. I didn't say I'd find errors in the Bible with my Sharpie pen. I would introduce them. I would insert them. I would create them. And I would leave the attributions unchanged. I would pass off obviously illogical, deeply wrong nonsense as the divinely authored testament of the one true God. Would God take action against me for this? None that would show up until after I died. Point being: if God exists, He does not exercise His effortless ability to prevent anyone from tampering with His word.

I read the post but did misunderstand. I thought you were talking more generally about mistakes that had been made in religious texts that God did not prevent from being incorperated into the belief system. I didn't realize you meant literally being able to sit down and make changes to a holy text. Of course your right in that regard, no diety come downs to smack the sharpie out of your hand as you start to write :p

I'm saying it proves that the perfect God, for doubtlessly correct reasons, chooses not to.

Then you'd be right in my opinion.

Anyways, to sum up your post: the arguments I put forward as being worthless defenses of the Bible, you agree are worthless. Wonderful. Now, show me the good ones.

Well, it isn't called Religion for nothing. Most reasons (from what I've heard) are based more on personal experiences such as being a drug attict that was down in life but then became a Christian and it turned his life arround. It wouldn't make sense to have nothing impact you so greatly so they choose to believe in God, and thus the Bible. This is purely personal and doesn't really do much to prove the Bible or the existance of God to other people.

The only other that I've heard that isn't really emotion based (and can remember at the moment) is that it seems impossible for the world and all of its life to have formed by chance and evolution so there must have been some Supreme being that created it. The Bible then seems to fit what they see in the world and in other people the best so they choose to believe in it becaue it is the best explanation they can find.


The classic argument: "The Bible is true because it comes from God. How do we know it comes from God? Because the Bible says so. How do we know that's tr INFINITE LOOP SUSPECTED TO AVOID THIS MESSAGE SET WORLD.LOOP_CHECKS = 0"

Funny, we just talked about this in Philosophy the other day except it was to prove God exists with the Bible. I can't remember exactly how it went but it was something similar.

Basically, I hold that you can't prove nor disprove the Bible, that is why it is called faith. You can support it by citing archeological evidence that it is accurate historically so its likely to be accurate in its other areas too. You can try to break its support by coming up with alternative conflicting evidence that makes it less likely to be true. In the end you either hold to the conflicting evidence and don't believe it or hold to the supporting evidence and believe it.

Is your derisive comment about my knowledge of the Bible meant to suggest that the Bible contains more substantive proof of its authorship than this that I've missed? Or did you simply not understand what I was saying?

That was a combination of having a bad day and misunderstanding what you were saying. That and the arrogance comment didn't get us anywhere and were uncalled for.

I thought you were saying you could disprove it and I highly doubted it so I assumed your knowledge of the Bible was flawed or relatively non-existant.
Apr 28 2002, 9:28 pm
In response to English
Meaning, if you believe in God then you probably believe
him to be all powerful, perfect, and someone who sent his > son to die for you (in Christianity of course).
If that is the case then you would care for the being
that cared for you. Sinning and being immoral upsets and > angers him so therefore you would try to live as pure a
life as you can. Here it is implied that if you believe
in God then you will try to live a moral life. No one is
perfect so he wouldn't expect it, he'd only expect you to > try. That is a lot of implying but I think that's the
basic idea behind it instead of just a plea for attention > and recognition.

This much I can agree to... I think it follows that [God], being by definition, all-powerful and perfect, is also good. Perfection encompasses and surpasses such concepts as good, right, etc... if X != a moral being, X != [God].

So far, so good... and a person who believes in [God] is going to doubtless recognize [God], and if this person truly believes in [God] and doesn't merely fear [God]'s existence (as a person who enjoys guiltily enjoys immorality would), this person would seek to make [God] happy, a better reason than many for striving to be a moral and good person.

Now, what does a perfect [God] do when faced with someone who has no knowledge of [God]'s existence, or who has no strong feelings one way or the other about it, yet still lives a moral and upright life in all ways measurable here on earth? This is where the Christian God and my concept of [God] part paths... the Christian concept of morality doesn't just come from God the same way that earth and sky and all elements of creation do, it is intrinsically bound up in the acknowledgement and recognition of God. You cannot have knowledge of morality without having knowledge of God.

This is reflected in the scriptures (all sins are forgiven if you truthfully acknowledge the Savior... no amount of your marginal human virtues will save you if you don't. Therefore, virtue is important but the most important virtue is faith in God, sins are bad but the worst sin is failing to recognize God), and baldly stated by many of today's most prominent "Christians," who will tell you that it's impossible to clean up your life (or live a clean life to begin with) unless you accept Jesus into your life, who answer the question "What of a moral person who doesn't know Jesus?" with "How could such a person begin to be moral?"

In other words, I will buy that knowing [God] implies living the most morally pure life you can, but I do not accept that not knowing [God] implies living a less moral life, especially when the definition of "knowing [God]" that we're using includes giving [God] a name and anthropomorphizing "Him". In fact, if we can forego that, I would say that knowing [God] and being moral are one and the same, for what is [God] but ultimate morality? I believe that [God] certainly deserves praise, even if [God] doesn't desire any, but I also believe you "sing [God]'s praises" merely by attempting to be [God]ly, i.e., moral and good. In my job (I'm a customer service representative for a company that sells specialty products of all kinds, including a large line of Christian paraphenalia) I'd say that half the people I talk to on the phone who "have Jesus in their heart" know less of [God] than someone who never cracks a Bible but lives a quiet life and leaves this world a better place than he or she found it.

What I mean when I say that any being who sets itself up as ruler of the world and demands recognition of itself as the primary requirement of being judged worthy and virtuous != [God]. I don't believe that such a being exists, but if it did, I'd consider the afterlife an extension of my present life, where I refuse to negotiate with bullies and terrorists.

I thought you were saying you could disprove it

Heaven forbid! Unless, of course, Heaven declines to forbid. My position on the Bible is the same as my position on magic and telepathy. I will boldly assert (and defend said assertion unto the death) that the Bible is either 100% completely true or it isn't. I happen to believe it isn't, but I can't prove that and wouldn't want to try.

If you would like to see some examples of the sort of arguments I'm talking about, you can start at http://www.christiananswers.net It's not the worst example of circular logic, self-contradiction, and classic logical fallacies on the web, but it has links to most of them... and no, I don't go there specifically to root through the thousands of links looking for the worst examples of Biblical defense. I go there because it has a lot of material that is interesting for a lot of different reasons.

As for faith being faith... that's fine, but what I'm really looking for is a reason that having faith is better than having no faith. Like you said, at least it gives you a direction, but which direction does it give you? Nazi Germany had a direction. Charles Manson had a direction. Not that I'm impugning the concept of directions... merely pointing out that not all directions are created equal.

Faith can help you overcome obstacles in your life. So can other things. I don't believe there is an accomplishment a person has made "through faith" (defining faith in a religious sense) in recorded history that has not been paralleled by someone through other means... I include recovery from financial failure, drug dependency, serious illness, and debilitating injury in this. I can also provide examples of faith worsening these conditions. I can also provide examples of lack of faith worsening these conditions.

I'm reasonably sure that [God] exists. As far as I can tell, it's more likely that [God] exists than [God] doesn't. I think it's necessary for [God] to exist... in a complicated way, I think, therefore, [God] is. (note to those unfamiliar with the art of implication... I'm not saying that my thoughts create [God], I'm saying that my consciousness demonstrates the manifest existence of [God].)

I don't, however, have faith in the existence of [God]. [God] is either there or not. Whether or not [God] exists and is controlling the universe, exists and is guiding the universe, exists and ignores the universe, or doesn't exist doesn't not change the fact that the universe exists, that it is what it is. I deal with the universe, and what [God] either puts in my way, allows to come my way, or comes my way regardless of [God].
Apr 29 2002, 12:58 am
In response to Deadron
Deadron wrote:
English wrote:
cut...
Anyway, you avoided my real question: What about being non-religious means that one wanders aimlessly? What is a single thing in life that a non-religious person is incapable of making rational decisions about? Aside from spending time in religious contemplation, what is a single way in which the life of a religious person is substantively different than the life of a non-religious person?

Since the non-religious people apparently do a lot of aimless wandering, this must be an easy question to answer.

According to a pop fiction novel that I have read, the non-religious will make a choice after they dies. To believe or not. If by that time, they still don't, then their soul will disappear.

100 years later, people will think that the "Incarnation of Immotality" is a religious book. :)
Apr 29 2002, 3:34 am
In response to Lesbian Assassin
I would pass off obviously illogical, deeply wrong nonsense as the divinely authored testament of the one true God. Would God take action against me for this? None that would show up until after I died.

Of course, one advantage of being God would be that nothing you do could be provably traced back to you. Heh, heh.
Apr 29 2002, 5:57 am
In response to sunzoner
Actually, they would think that it's 7 religious books... and it's not like the idea was original to Piers Anthony.
Apr 29 2002, 12:45 pm
In response to Spuzzum
I'll probably be hated for, and I might regret, what I say next, but I'll be blunt. Almost every murder that occurs on this planet is religious in origin.

I'd get into a bible discussion about how it prophecies the fall of false religion because of this, but it's a long story and you probably don't want to hear it.
Apr 29 2002, 3:16 pm
In response to Foomer
I'd get into a bible discussion about how it prophecies the fall of false religion because of this, but it's a long story and you probably don't want to hear it.

I wouldn't mind hearing it. The question is if you want to tell it. ;-)
Page: 1 2 3 4