Figuring Out Religion

[MachineGhost]

Not to be too picky, but I'm still waiting for your proof of your worldview e.g. why you are right, vs. your denial of mine. Been waiting quite a while now.

The proof is all around you. Where's yours? I mean, if you don't want to believe what your eyes and reason are telling you, I truly can't help.

[MachineGhost]

Jesus Predicted The Anti-Christ 2,000 Years Ago – You Won’t Believe Who It Is…
http://www.webdaily.com/2016/08/12/jesu ... who-it-is/

[MediumTex]

Jesus Predicted The Anti-Christ 2,000 Years Ago – You Won’t Believe Who It Is…
http://www.webdaily.com/2016/08/12/jesu ... who-it-is/

How could the Republicans have possibly overlooked this since 2008?

[Mountaineer]

People don’t need to feel as though they need to choose between belief in God and holding to scientific truths. There is a better alternative: studying the ever-increasing scientific evidence with an open mind to the very real possibility of God’s existence.

1. "Science" is simply a method by which one tries to understand the world, and relies on observation to confirm or refute hypotheses. 2. Faith, on the other hand, requires no evidence. 3. Why does a person have to choose between faith and empirical truths? 4. Why is it so important that they be harmonized? 5. Why must religion be assessed by the scientific method?

Tenn, good questions. I'm going to break them into numbered items so I can easily give my two cents

1. Agree.
2. Technically correct, but I'd add for the Christian religion as I understand it, there is quite a lot of evidence to support faith in Christ and his promises.
3. It is not an either/or; it is a both/and in my view.
4. A bit trite of a response, but I think the answer may be that man seems to be programed to want to be able to explain literally everything. Of course, if one can do that, there is no need for faith in anything other than ones self, a rather unstable foundation in my view.
5. I don't think it should be. The scientific method is a great tool, but by definition, faith is not subject to the scientific method's methodology.

Side note: I'm not a huge fan of apologetics as a tool to convince people about the existence of God. I just thought the article was somewhat interesting.

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

4. A bit trite of a response, but I think the answer may be that man seems to be programed to want to be able to explain literally everything. Of course, if one can do that, there is no need for faith in anything other than ones self, a rather unstable foundation in my view.

Yes, there is a cognitive breakdown between MT's definition of "evidence" in regards to faith and the scientific method. I think much more illuminating is what I bolded above. It's clearly a cognitive bias that presupposes MT to tilt to a certain direction of beliefs. MT is either unaware of its influence or intentionally chooses to ignore it.

So basically, if you use the Socratic Method in regards to religion, you would eventually eliminate all theological contradictions. Unfortunately for True Believers, it seems that the "faith" part is in the contradictions and they're simply not willing to let that go. After all, faith is about lack of rigorous evidence, not being actively open minded or using the scientific method.

Faith is just self-circular bullshit about bullshit. There is no reasoning with True Believers. They just don't use those tools.

[Xan]

Faith is just self-circular bullshit about bullshit. There is no reasoning with True Believers. They just don't use those tools.

And with what reasoning do you conclude that reasoning is the correct way to approach the universe? Remember, you can't use reasoning in your answer, because otherwise you're being circular. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that that is as self-circular as that which you criticize.

[MachineGhost]

And with what reasoning do you conclude that reasoning is the correct way to approach the universe? Remember, you can't use reasoning in your answer, because otherwise you're being circular. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that that is as self-circular as that which you criticize.

Indeed, I base that reasoning using reason. Since I'm not a True Believer of any faith that denies the use of reason, I'm completely free and actively open minded to believe in anything I want to, including using reason to determine exactly what those beliefs should be. I thought that was pretty self-evident to anyone that deals with the cause and effect physical world that we live in? You keep your fingers off the stove because you will get burned and it will hurt. Hence you reject the hypothesis of doing such a behavior and replace it with a new, safer one. And so on and so on.

So I don't see how this is self-circular. Either you adopt a framework for determining and rejecting beliefs as your modus operandi in life or you don't. There is really no other valid tool to navigate physical reality. You can't do it half-assed by using reason just for physicallity but not using reason for metaphysicality! The multi-universe is logically consistent. It almost seems to me that True Believers reject what "God" has presented before their very eyes without any arthropomorphism, faith or ideology whatsoever -- if only they would open them and actually look. The evidence is all around you. Whats flawed is the perception of it.

[Mountaineer]

If—
Rudyard Kippling

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Is this a poem about reason, or experience, or faith?

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

And with what reasoning do you conclude that reasoning is the correct way to approach the universe? Remember, you can't use reasoning in your answer, because otherwise you're being circular. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that that is as self-circular as that which you criticize.

Indeed, I base that reasoning using reason. Since I'm not a True Believer of any faith that denies the use of reason, I'm completely free and actively open minded to believe in anything I want to, including using reason to determine exactly what those beliefs should be. I thought that was pretty self-evident to anyone that deals with the cause and effect physical world that we live in? You keep your fingers off the stove because you will get burned and it will hurt. Hence you reject the hypothesis of doing such a behavior and replace it with a new, safer one. And so on and so on.

So I don't see how this is self-circular. Either you adopt a framework for determining and rejecting beliefs as your modus operandi in life or you don't. There is really no other valid tool to navigate physical reality. You can't do it half-assed by using reason just for physicallity but not using reason for metaphysicality! The multi-universe is logically consistent. It almost seems to me that True Believers reject what "God" has presented before their very eyes without any arthropomorphism, faith or ideology whatsoever -- if only they would open them and actually look. The evidence is all around you. Whats flawed is the perception of it.

well said...
it is unlikely to be heard or understood by the faith first'ers, but well said none the less....

Re. the bolded enlarged blue statement, I could not have said it better myself.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

So I don't see how this is self-circular. Either you adopt a framework for determining and rejecting beliefs as your modus operandi in life or you don't. There is really no other valid tool to navigate physical reality. You can't do it half-assed by using reason just for physicallity but not using reason for metaphysicality! The multi-universe is logically consistent. It almost seems to me that True Believers reject what "God" has presented before their very eyes without any arthropomorphism, faith or ideology whatsoever -- if only they would open them and actually look. The evidence is all around you. Whats flawed is the perception of it.

Re. the bolded enlarged blue statement, I could not have said it better myself.

... Mountaineer

but that wasn't a call to, or for an anthropomorphic, faith or ideology... you have ignored his bolded words above.. or as i suggested .... it wouldn't be heard or understood by the faith first'ers

Sorry I wasn't clearer. To rephrase, what you have described is God's natural law ... available to all. That is in reference to this statement:
"The multi-universe is logically consistent. It almost seems to me that True Believers reject what "God" has presented before their very eyes without any arthropomorphism, faith or ideology whatsoever -- if only they would open them and actually look. The evidence is all around you. Whats flawed is the perception of it." [note possible spelling error - I think the word was meant to be anthropomorphism]

Is that what you think I'm ignoring or not understanding? Why would I disagree with God's natural law? MG's analysis, and your endorsement of it, is in my opinion verification that you guys don't understand Christianity beyond a superficial level ... that is OK, but there is so very much more that you are missing out upon. My prayer is that God will open your ears and eyes to see it all. Then you can make a more informed decision re. the gift that is offered freely.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

you have just thrown out the term gods natural law without defining it so ? ? ? ? since we have no idea what that means to you your question about it is unanswerable...

and you still miss the point MG is making... we use reason as a framework to determine and reject beliefs in the physical world, why would we want to suddenly reject reason and that sound frame work and start to sprinkle the magic fairy-dust of faith when it comes to our understanding of the metaphysical or transcendent?

More on God's natural law. I think one of the fundamental differences between the two views above (those who believe and those who are not sure or can't see beyond their perception of reality) is in how one assumes who God is in the argument. For example, in the 19th century Ludwig Fuerbach's wordview confined himself to the God in the "book" of nature rather than God in Scripture (by the way, the same one God). His assumptions had switched the judgments which humans make about life around us and rather than accepting human judgment as limited ascribed ultimate value to that (human) judgment without taking God's judgment in wrath at all. Fuerbach elevated human's image of itself as the only judgment and could not get through into the truth about all judgment to which Scripture attests. The "book" of nature does indeed witness to God but as the hidden God of wrath (ie. confusion, chaos, etc.). That God is also the God of history and the so-called natural world witnessed to in Israel's vastly interpreted history in the Old Testament. I think some may be focus their arguments on the God who saves as witnessed to us in the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ. Like, Karl Barth, who didn't acknowledge the active God in history as the hidden God and therefore couldn't see beyond salvation history in God's promises, some may not be making this distinction. Just an opinion.

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

MG's analysis, and your endorsement of it, is in my opinion verification that you guys don't understand Christianity beyond a superficial level ... that is OK, but there is so very much more that you are missing out upon.

What do you think, curlew, are we?

[curlew]

MG's analysis, and your endorsement of it, is in my opinion verification that you guys don't understand Christianity beyond a superficial level ... that is OK, but there is so very much more that you are missing out upon.

What do you think, curlew, are we?

There is something to be said for being a true believer but the cognitive dissonance got to be too much to bear after about 20 years of it.

[Mountaineer]

Thoughts on cognitive dissonance:

https://www.quora.com/What-role-does-co ... ous-belief

What role does cognitive dissonance play in religious belief?

This is an interesting question on a number of levels. The theory of Cognitive Dissonance owes its existence to religion. In this sense religion is the mother of Cognitive Dissonance, but perhaps not in the sense assumed by the question.

Cognitive Dissonance theory flew into the scene of sociology and psychology in the mid 1950's under the study of a strange, small apocalyptic UFO cult based in Chicago. The theory was that people will seek to alleviate the inner turmoil of evidently discrepant beliefs and expectations in their lives. The mind will seek to justify tensions between their expectations and beliefs and the reality of disproven events by renegotiating the terms of their expectations/beliefs.

This was not presented as some kind of proof text for agnosticism or atheism, nor was it an apologetic for skepticism. Rather, Cognitive Dissonance was a descriptor of behavior in extreme cultic settings, which had ramifications into the psychological profiling of people strongly committed to causes and beliefs, which collapse or fail in front of them............ <read the rest at the link above>

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

Thoughts on cognitive dissonance:

https://www.quora.com/What-role-does-co ... ous-belief

This is obviously written from a Christian point of view. I would take exception to the following statement.....

Justifying a belief that nothing comes from nothing is as complex and internally dissonant as justifying that there is an immaterial, knowable Being Who is the source of all things.

He goes on to cite the writings of Steven Hawking.

I don't know any physicist, scientist, or anybody else for that matter, who is trying to "justify a belief that nothing comes from nothing" (I am going to assume that he meant "something comes from nothing"). I'm sure Mr. Hawking and others would love nothing more than to know where "something" comes from. They just haven't found any evidence for it yet.

What kind of logic is it that says there is no evidence for where "something" comes from, therefore the Christian Bible must be true?

the kind of "logic" that comes from true believers, ones who's beliefs have numbed there ability to actually experience cogitative dissidence. and have eroded their ability to comprehend logic...

[curlew]

Thoughts on cognitive dissonance:

https://www.quora.com/What-role-does-co ... ous-belief

This is obviously written from a Christian point of view. I would take exception to the following statement.....

Justifying a belief that nothing comes from nothing is as complex and internally dissonant as justifying that there is an immaterial, knowable Being Who is the source of all things.

He goes on to cite the writings of Steven Hawking.

I don't know any physicist, scientist, or anybody else for that matter, who is trying to "justify a belief that nothing comes from nothing" (I am going to assume that he meant "something comes from nothing"). I'm sure Mr. Hawking and others would love nothing more than to know where "something" comes from. They just haven't found any evidence for it yet.

What kind of logic is it that says there is no evidence for where "something" comes from, therefore the Christian Bible must be true?

Just one other observation.

The author of that piece says the origins of the term cognitive dissonance have to do with justifying continued belief after failed apocalyptic movements in religious cults. That is the whole origin of Christianity.

[curlew]

If you think being a Christian in a moslem country is hard, trying being an atheist.

10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes just for saying it in a tweet. That'll teach him to believe in Allah.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1701609/s ... n-atheist/

[Mountaineer]

Just a warmup for the ultimate.

[MachineGhost]

Wow, that makes me want to turn into a NeoCon and invade Saudi Arabia. Screw Nixon's petrodollar security contract!

Aren't we just sick of the Middle East by now yet? Energy independence would be the single bestest thing ever.

[curlew]

Just a warmup for the ultimate.

Just the kind of comment I would expect from you, knowing what I do about your sick religion.

[Mountaineer]

Just a warmup for the ultimate.

Just the kind of comment I would expect from you, knowing what I do about your sick religion.

Thank you. May God make his face shine upon you and bring you peace.

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

Just a warmup for the ultimate.

Just the kind of comment I would expect from you, knowing what I do about your sick religion.

Thank you. May God make his face shine upon you and bring you peace.

... Mountaineer

Jesus Christ. I liked it better when you said you weren't going to respond to Curlew any more.

[Mountaineer]

Just the kind of comment I would expect from you, knowing what I do about your sick religion.

Thank you. May God make his face shine upon you and bring you peace.

... Mountaineer

Jesus Christ. I liked it better when you said you weren't going to respond to Curlew any more.

Taking your statement literally that you were addressing Jesus: Jesus will always be pursuing you and wants you to come out of the darkness which is repleat with pain, suffering, and sadness and the second death.

Re. my comment that began this interchange, "just a warmup ....", I'm actually rather shocked that you apparently think so highly of Islam and the Saudi culture that treats athiests so poorly. Oh well .......

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

Re. my comment that began this interchange, "just a warmup ....", I'm actually rather shocked that you apparently think so highly of Islam and the Saudi culture that treats athiests so poorly. Oh well .......
... Mountaineer

I took it to mean it was just a warmup for the eternal fires of hell. Whether or not that was what you meant I know it is what you believe.

[Maddy]

Can anyone pinpoint the origins of the concept of eternal damnation?