Thread: My Notebook of Religion

I love this. You've hit the three biggest issues right off the bat, and you're putting it all in one place. Fantastic. May I suggest discussing the "can God create a rock he can't lift" contradiction, and the fact that sending people to burn for an eternity is not "completely just". I think, however, it's worth noting that you're not really explaining why there is no God, you're just explaining why the Christian God doesn't exist, and placing some serious limits on any real gods out there.

Thanks.

Yes, True.

That's why I titled the quote "Why Christianity is Wrong".

Notice that I have never, on my career here at DV, stated that there is no supremem creator, simply that the odds appear to be stacked against it.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Thanks.

Yes, True.

That's why I titled the quote "Why Christianity is Wrong".

Notice that I have never, on my career here at DV, stated that there is no supremem creator, simply that the odds appear to be stacked against it.

I think the problem is that we tend to think that religion is spirituality and that dogma is Truth.

Neither is true.

Religion is simply a mechanism by which one becomes spiritual - or connects to a sense of something greater than themselves - while dogma is the antithesis of Truth in that it requires belief rather than instills it.

Personally, I gave up making people wrong when I was twenty. Instead, I try to focus on what part of their reality is Truth.

If you look at it that way, you'll find you have a lot more in common with people than you might have thought previously.

Mitaque Oyasin,
Mato Kinze

Originally Posted by saxonharp

I try to focus on what part of their reality is Truth.

If you look at it that way, you'll find you have a lot more in common with people than you might have thought previously.

qft

Of course, I still like to argue or I probably wouldn't be here

These days I mostly confront people who appear to think they have The One Authoritative Source of Truth, be it a text, a method, or a view. Ultimately, I do it for the lulz.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

These days I mostly confront people who appear to think they have The One Authoritative Source of Truth, be it a text, a method, or a view. Ultimately, I do it for the lulz.

Go back to your Human Rights thread then; or is it no longer lulzy fory ou? You left me hanging there with some unanswered questions.

For this thread, a quote, but I don't know who originally said it:

Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie named Jesus who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

I wonder why men don't have one less rib on one side. For those Christians who don't actually "believe" in that part of the bible, Jesus died why?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and Religion the pursuit of Spirituality. However, as Science does not monopolise the many paths to knowledge, neither does Religion monopolise the many paths to spirituality. The problem with referring to Truth as being a singular entity that encompasses all is that such a perception fails to truly understand the subjective nature of Truth.

Thus the problem of dogma comes in. The requirement of belief and imposing that belief ultimately means one would never test or question the truth in order to really understand it. Mere acceptance does not equate comprehension.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I wonder why men don't have one less rib on one side. For those Christians who don't actually "believe" in that part of the bible, Jesus died why?

Well, actually, injuries wouldn't be passed on like that, but the story's a pile of faeces anyway.

Seismo's a girl?!?!?!?! And she's the girl in her avatar? Omfg, I thought that was "his" sister or girlfriend or something.

Originally Posted by Lord Bennington

Well, actually, injuries wouldn't be passed on like that, but the story's a pile of faeces anyway.

Oh yea I forgot.

Originally Posted by Lord Bennington

Seismo's a girl?!?!?!?! And she's the girl in her avatar? Omfg, I thought that was "his" sister or girlfriend or something.

So easy....

Originally Posted by Lord Bennington

Seismo's a girl?!?!?!?! And she's the girl in her avatar? Omfg, I thought that was "his" sister or girlfriend or something.

You're a fool, that's what.

Originally Posted by Lord Bennington

Well, actually, injuries wouldn't be passed on like that, but the story's a pile of faeces anyway.

Seismo's a girl?!?!?!?! And she's the girl in her avatar? Omfg, I thought that was "his" sister or girlfriend or something.

What?

I'm not a chick

HA! That ISN'T Seismo! I am redeemed. I was gonna say, for someone I thought was a guy, she's pretty hot.

I forgot that there are no girls on the internet.

Actaully there are and actually she is.

Like... Right Nao.

Fail.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The problem with referring to Truth as being a singular entity that encompasses all is that such a perception fails to truly understand the subjective nature of Truth.

Not really - with all due respect, I disagree.

I look at it like the old "3 blind men and an elephant" parable.

If you're not familiar with what I'm talking about it goes something like this:

"Three blind men were taken to an elephant and told to describe it to one another. One man felt the elephant's trunk. He said that an elephant was long, skinny and flexible like a snake. Another man felt the elephant's leg. He said that an elephant was round and rough, like a tree. The third man stood at the elephant's side. He called the elephant broad and flat like a wall."

None of these men were wrong. Their perceptions were neither subjective nor faulty. They simply failed to see the whole picture.

Same is true for Spirituality. Religions - ALL religions - are simply people trying to define what they experience as Spirituality and putting it into a context that they can share with others.

Science is simply another facet of the overall description.

That's why it's so vitally important to seek Truth in everyone's perspective. For only when we can incorporate EVERYONE'S perception of Spirit, do we even begin to glimpse what truly IS.

Which is why religion fails.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Which is why religion fails.

Fail at what?

Fails at being remotely true, and being right, of course.

I was both confirming what you said, negating it, and adding my own thing to that...

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Fails at being remotely true, and being right, of course.

I was both confirming what you said, negating it, and adding my own thing to that...

What is "true" and what is "right"?

And can you support either with anything other than a personal opinion that would be more valid than anyone else's personal opinion which may conflict with your own?

Your quote of why Christianity is wrong, is a quote, so I couldn't quote in the normal way! I'll just bold your statements. A main flaw in your reasoning "why Christianity is wrong" is that it applies human standards to God, I will elaborate later in my argument.

Originally Posted by Why Christianity is wrong
1. God's wants

a. It is said in the bible that god has both wants and needs, and, simultaneously, he is perfect.

How is this possible? Wants and needs are only expressions of lacking, and being perfect, flawless, god lacks nothing.

So how can he want or need anything?

- It is stated that god "wanted" to create the universe
- It is stated that god "loves" eveyone.
- Other mentions of his wants and needs that I do not have the resouces to quote

The reasoning employed here is cyclical: the portrayal of God in the bible, you suggest, is contradictory because God is perfect, but he also "wants" and "needs" (which you say are imperfect). But if he didn't "want" or "need" then you could also suggest that that he does not meet this "perfect" criterion as he is limited as he cannot do everything.
Secondly, "want" and "need" need not be opposed to perfection. If a human being does not "want", then I would say that he is demonstrating "apathy", a symptom of depression, does this make him more perfect then other, typical humans who do want? This points out another flaw with regard to the consistency of your reasoning:
You use terms in different degrees of the spectrum of human knowledge. For example in your point "1" you use the word "want" in a philosophical context: because God is described as "wanting", then he is imperfect, as perfection in the context you use is some sort omnipotent self-efficiency, where the lack of wanting is perfection. However, if you had used "want" in a bio-psychological context the opposite is true: the lack of "want" here perhaps highlights some problem with the neurological motivational systems. As a result the lack of want here is actually inferior to the active ability to "want". However, you are happy to use a similar biological context in your point "2", with regard to love being caused by hormones in the endocrine system, when it suits your perspective; hence you reasoning is palpably biased. I hope you understand.




2. Love.

Love, for one, is a euphoric responce to hormones reacting with other chemicals throughout the endocrine system.

That said, it would be necessary for god to:

- Have neurons
- Be a being (Life; Animated Matter)

How, then, could god be both a being, with a nervous system, and also be an immortal spirit?

Right? The suggestion that If God exists he must exist on human terms is an absolutely foolish one. Let me give you a simple analogy, although you shouldn't need one, the error in your reasoning is obvious: If I build a little town out of lego, does that mean that I must be made out of lego?

3. Matyrdom/Jesus' purpose

Some questions you should ask yourself when confronted with the New Testament of the bible:

- Why did this happen supposedly?
- What exactly are we being saved from?
- Why is the bible the only record of this and any other miracle event?

a. Why did this happen supposedly?
- Summarization

According to the Christian texts, specifically the New testament, we need to be saved. Unfortunately, no one in the christian community can decide whether it is either Jesus or God's job to do this saving, whilst the "holy spirit" is blissfully ignored in this section, only referenced in the most esoteric ways possible.

All things considered for this analysis, Jesus and God are sysnonymous.

So... Why? Why did some divine creature have to come down here exaclty and cause all this commotion?

According to the bible, it was neessary for god (jesus) to sacrifice himself, to himself, to allow himself to change the rules, that he (himself) wrote.

Which brings us to our next point: "What exactly are we being saved from?"

Well, god (jesus) sending us to hell of course.

First things first:

"Why is the bible the only record of this and any other miracle event"?

Jesus appears in the Koran. Moreover, within the bible there are four accounts of Jesus, four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (two of which are certainly independent sources).

Oh, and welcome back.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Fails at being remotely true, and being right, of course.

I was both confirming what you said, negating it, and adding my own thing to that...

It's also why science fails to 'explain' the human condition or provide most people with a meaningful connection to their humanity.

Further, it's why many different religions and secular philosophies succeed at providing a meaningful way to be in the world for different people. If you're really interested in truth, you won't find it by process of elimination.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If you're really interested in truth, you won't find it by process of elimination.

That was GREAT! I just want you to know that I will be shamelessly stealing that quote!

Originally Posted by saxonharp

What is "true" and what is "right"?

And can you support either with anything other than a personal opinion that would be more valid than anyone else's personal opinion which may conflict with your own?

Truth is universal, for one. Personal experience is null unless it can be applied to everyone.

Right can be used as in moral rights, or correct rights. Both of those are subjective, but I also use the word in place of truth to get rid of the monotony of a single word.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Your quote of why Christianity is wrong, is a quote, so I couldn't quote in the normal way! I'll just bold your statements. A main flaw in your reasoning "why Christianity is wrong" is that it applies human standards to God, I will elaborate later in my argument.

Originally Posted by Why Christianity is wrong
1. God's wants

a. It is said in the bible that god has both wants and needs, and, simultaneously, he is perfect.

How is this possible? Wants and needs are only expressions of lacking, and being perfect, flawless, god lacks nothing.

So how can he want or need anything?

- It is stated that god "wanted" to create the universe
- It is stated that god "loves" eveyone.
- Other mentions of his wants and needs that I do not have the resouces to quote

The reasoning employed here is cyclical: the portrayal of God in the bible, you suggest, is contradictory because God is perfect, but he also "wants" and "needs" (which you say are imperfect). But if he didn't "want" or "need" then you could also suggest that that he does not meet this "perfect" criterion as he is limited as he cannot do everything.
Secondly, "want" and "need" need not be opposed to perfection. If a human being does not "want", then I would say that he is demonstrating "apathy", a symptom of depression, does this make him more perfect then other, typical humans who do want? This points out another flaw with regard to the consistency of your reasoning:
You use terms in different degrees of the spectrum of human knowledge. For example in your point "1" you use the word "want" in a philosophical context: because God is described as "wanting", then he is imperfect, as perfection in the context you use is some sort omnipotent self-efficiency, where the lack of wanting is perfection. However, if you had used "want" in a bio-psychological context the opposite is true: the lack of "want" here perhaps highlights some problem with the neurological motivational systems. As a result the lack of want here is actually inferior to the active ability to "want". However, you are happy to use a similar biological context in your point "2", with regard to love being caused by hormones in the endocrine system, when it suits your perspective; hence you reasoning is palpably biased. I hope you understand.




2. Love.

Love, for one, is a euphoric responce to hormones reacting with other chemicals throughout the endocrine system.

That said, it would be necessary for god to:

- Have neurons
- Be a being (Life; Animated Matter)

How, then, could god be both a being, with a nervous system, and also be an immortal spirit?

Right? The suggestion that If God exists he must exist on human terms is an absolutely foolish one. Let me give you a simple analogy, although you shouldn't need one, the error in your reasoning is obvious: If I build a little town out of lego, does that mean that I must be made out of lego?

3. Matyrdom/Jesus' purpose

Some questions you should ask yourself when confronted with the New Testament of the bible:

- Why did this happen supposedly?
- What exactly are we being saved from?
- Why is the bible the only record of this and any other miracle event?

a. Why did this happen supposedly?
- Summarization

According to the Christian texts, specifically the New testament, we need to be saved. Unfortunately, no one in the christian community can decide whether it is either Jesus or God's job to do this saving, whilst the "holy spirit" is blissfully ignored in this section, only referenced in the most esoteric ways possible.

All things considered for this analysis, Jesus and God are sysnonymous.

So... Why? Why did some divine creature have to come down here exaclty and cause all this commotion?

According to the bible, it was neessary for god (jesus) to sacrifice himself, to himself, to allow himself to change the rules, that he (himself) wrote.

Which brings us to our next point: "What exactly are we being saved from?"

Well, god (jesus) sending us to hell of course.

First things first:

"Why is the bible the only record of this and any other miracle event"?

Jesus appears in the Koran. Moreover, within the bible there are four accounts of Jesus, four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (two of which are certainly independent sources).

Oh, and welcome back.

1. To be perfect is to be flawless. To need or want is to be flawed, of course, because then something is missing... Duh?

2. Your analogy is flawed because both you and the legos are three dimensional, tangible, made of matter, and energy.

So yes, you exist just the same as the legos.
3. And yet none of these four gospels can be traced back to their authors? Need I mention that all of these men were together during this?

4. Jesus is mentioned in the Koran? Oh dear...

You barely touched my points.

You didn't understand the analogy. The point was that I need not be made from lego, as god need not have an endocrine system.

With regard to the "perfect" point, a human being without "wants" is not perfect, in a biological sense, like I explained before. You see how the point can work both ways. You used a biological context when talking about Gods love, so why not here?

And yes Jesus does appear in the Koran, under the name of Isa, ask any Muslim, or try reading about the opposing point of view, that you love to defame.

And with the remarks like "Duh" and "Oh dear", tone it down, I just pointed out factual, visible flaws in your argument, nothing personal.

Oh I get it now...

No, not really.

You've merely said "God isn't an organism".

I would have guessed as much.

Tell me, if you built a city out of legos, and had little lego folk, would you not personify them?

Make them... Like you?

And Islam isn't hin here because I haven't studied it. I won't pretend to know something I don't so stop acting so damned smug.

You barely touched my points.

-----------------------

May I also take the time to ask why he doesn't reveal himself to everyone if he cares about us so much?