how to turn a believer

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Yet, it's still possible one religion is correct....

In this context, they may all be correct. It's only when a god or mysticism is evoked is the field narrowed to zero, or a possible one. 

[Raider5678]

Just now, dimreepr said:

In this context, they may all be correct. It's only when a god or mysticism is evoked is the field narrowed to zero, or a possible one. 

Not really.

Most of the religions contradict.

So how can they all be correct?

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Not really.Most of the religions contradict.

 

What is it they contradict? 

Quote

So how can they all be correct?

They all try to explain how to be content. Guess who gets in the way?

Edited February 26, 2018 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

16 hours ago, Prometheus said:

That particular point was just to to highlight that morality isn't something so obvious that we would spontaneously start doing it: it took centuries of cultural development to reach the point we have today, and hopefully we'll never stop. I was anticipating a counter argument of 'it's obvious not to murder your neighbour to take his wife'.

Taking a step back from religion is one way. Or the religion could change: it does happen, and we should encourage it. The problem i have with these debates is that 'religion' is treated as a homogenous thing when the reality is that they do differ. I just want to highlight these distinctions to offer another perspective. 

This is a good point but it also applies to nuclear weapons, some are worse that others but all are bad for anyone who is near ground zero. If you lack morality it's not due to a lack of belief in a god or religion you lack empathy. 

16 hours ago, Prometheus said:

 

Did i say that? Let me check...

I don't think so, but let me try to clarify as my claim is certainly not that religious myths are required for morality. The path of morality is not just some straight line towards a correct answer - it's something we have to work out for ourselves. One of the strongest ways every culture has explored the human condition is through story: any story from Aesop's fables through to Wonder Woman. This obviously includes many religious myths. They are all part of our moral heritage, and extremely valuable for that.

For instance the myth of Genesis, through Paradise Lost to Frankenstein can be considered explorations of the same theme, but each time the perspective has shifted, something is added. If we choose to forget the myth of Genesis humanity would be a little impoverished. Forget all three of those stories and we will have lost a lot.

The problem I see here is that no one is trying to convince me wonder woman is real and trying to use guilt and shame not to mention eternal torture to make me worship wonder woman... 

16 hours ago, Prometheus said:

 

Maybe, but we can't perform that experiment (going back to remove proto-religions from developing cultures). I disagree that morality would have developed in the exact way it did without religion though. Morality and the human condition are things cultures have long explored, and occasionally someone comes up with deep insight into these things. Shakespeare is still watched today precisely because that chap had some pretty deep insights and a wonderful way of expressing them. So too, some of the bible stories (my favourite is the Garden of Gethsemane exploring the doubt even a 'perfect' being has in doing the right thing when it is very hard). But if you look at the stories of Chinese cultures they have explored these things in different ways (the story of 3 Kingdoms), and so the Chinese have developed different ethical systems to Western ones. Just a long winded way of saying i don't think moral systems will necessarily converge, though there may be biological imperatives meaning this does happen for some topics.

Again, there is a rather large difference between known fictional stories describing the human condition and edicts from an all powerful god that threatens you with various punishments if you change or even doubt these stories.  

16 hours ago, Prometheus said:

 

Then i would agree.

Yes, i've learned it's a common position here. I disagree, but that's another thread...

 

17 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I honestly have no clue how I haven't seen all these before.

Sarcasm? 

16 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I've realized the contradictions highlighted in there are literally all false. I have a basic understanding of the Bible, and can point out some of these are seriously idiotic.

Take any of them you want from the list and I'll explain it to you.

 

All of them are false? Care to back that up? If even one is correct then it's quite problematic to the idea of the god of the bible at the very least.  This one is problematic:

Quote

Honor Thy Parents?

Exodus 20:12: "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."
Part of the Ten Commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:16: Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
Honor your parents.

Matthew 15:4: For God said, "’Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
Curse your parents and be executed.

Matthew 10:35-37: For I have come to turn ’a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother in law, a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.
What, exactly, happened to "Honor your father and mother?"

Luke 12:51-53: Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.
Division, parent against child.

 I am more than willing to go through all of these one at a time... 

12 hours ago, NortonH said:

Science cannot defeat something which is an axiom of faith.

 

Faith is the worst way to know anything. I can have faith in Cthulhu or aliens from Sirius but that faith has no bearing on the reality of the situation... 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Yet, it's still possible one religion is correct....

Obviously one could be correct out of the thousands of gods and or religions created by man, but how probable is it? They all cannot be correct but they all certainly can be wrong. 

The important question is how do you objectively know which one is real assuming one could be?  

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The problem I see here is that no one is trying to convince me wonder woman is real and trying to use guilt and shame not to mention eternal torture to make me worship wonder woman... 

1

Wonderwoman is real, she had her own TV show FFS, why wouldn't you worship her? who knew there'd be a better reason...

[Moontanman]

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What is it they contradict? 

Well lets see, hinduism most certainly contradicts Islam and Christianity just to name a couple...  

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They all try to explain how to be content. Guess who gets in the way?

Citation needed for this, I would like to see evidence of this commonality.. 

[Raider5678]

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What is it they contradict? 

 

Greek mythology said there was multiple gods, Christianity said there is but one god.

Islam says Allah is God with characteristics that are a stark contrast to what Buddhists say is a god.

Just a few.....

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Wonderwoman is real, she had her own TV show FFS, why wouldn't you worship her? who knew there'd be a better reason...

Suddenly I see the light! She does glow when she spins around to change into her costume... 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Greek mythology said there was multiple gods, Christianity said there is but one god.

Islam says Allah is God with characteristics that are a stark contrast to what Buddhists say is a god.

Just a few.....

Hmmm 

 

50 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So how can they all be correct?

Take out the God bit...

[Raider5678]

33 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 I am more than willing to go through all of these one at a time... 

 

As am I.

 

Heres a portion of Matthew 15:

15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.”

 

Essentially, God's word said you were supposed to help take care of your mother and father. But the Pharisees(The "bad guys" to be short) decided to add a line to that, which basically stated: "If you could give it to us the Pharisees instead, you're not to help your mother and father." The Pharisees were greedy and were going against God's word which cared less about people paying the priests money, and more about them using it for good.

Now if you look at Matthew 10: 35-37 alone, it seems to contradict this. Yet, if you include 34 - 39, you get this:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

As you can see, it wasn't that he was saying you are to turn against your mother and father. He was saying that you are to put God before your mother and father and that because people believe in God their families will forsake them.

Even if their mother and father forsake them, they can still honor them. 

Hopefully, that explains it a little to you.

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Take out the God bit...

 

If you take out the God bit, that's like taking the entire idea of religion.

However, if you insist.

 

Islam: Kill all infidels to inherit the world.

Buddhists: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If you take out the God bit, that's like taking the entire idea of religion.

 

But wonderwoman would still survive...

[Raider5678]

Just now, dimreepr said:

But wonderwoman would still survive...

Haha, fair enough.

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

This is a good point but it also applies to nuclear weapons, some are worse that others but all are bad for anyone who is near ground zero. 

You're saying all religions are bad, but some are worse than others?

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

If you lack morality it's not due to a lack of belief in a god or religion you lack empathy. 

I don't think think morality is something we inherently have or not, rather it is something we develop. It took us a long time to develop the idea that slavery is bad. 12  years a slave is a good film because it doesn't just say slavery is bad: it shows us why - develops that empathy if you like. Some people will develop morality through religious teachings. Some will lose it for the same reason. Go figure, the world isn't black and white like that.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

The problem I see here is that no one is trying to convince me wonder woman is real and trying to use guilt and shame not to mention eternal torture to make me worship wonder woman... 

Other than dimreepr.

How many religious people are actually trying to convince you? I hear it is quite bad in America so i'm sympathetic to your plight, even worse if you have state sponsored fundamentalism like Saudi Arabia (few of whose princes follow any Islamic tenets i'm told, but they use it well to control their population, like nationalism in other countries). In the UK i've never had anyone threaten me with eternal damnation, even the JWs go away politely as soon as you ask them to.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Again, there is a rather large difference between known fictional stories describing the human condition and edicts from an all powerful god that threatens you with various punishments if you change or even doubt these stories.  

Which is why i keep saying the biggest flaw with many religious people is that they take their religion literally. The stories themselves are excellent. And it's certainly not all religious people. Many Confucian temples will have an alter to Guan Yu a semi-mythic character based on a real commander from the 3 kingdoms period. Maybe some people believe he did all the badass stuff he is said to have done, but the historical facts are not contested and somewhat more humble (but still badass). People bow, offer incense or fruits, maybe pray at the alter, call him a god - all the trapping we might consider religious. Belief in the literal existence of Guan Yu though is irrelevant, it only matters that you believe in what he represents: strength, virtue and loyalty.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Sarcasm?

Not this time.

52 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Islam says Allah is God with characteristics that are a stark contrast to what Buddhists say is a god.

What do Buddhists say is a god?

 

It's a bit funny: the way i see it, and maybe dimreepr, is that all these myths are just that. Saying the Bible is inconsistent with Bhagavad Gita is like saying Star Wars is inconsistent with Harry Potter - so what. There's still plenty to compare and contrast, and they are both 'true' in the vague sense that they explore the human condition and give us a little more insight into ourselves (well maybe Star Wars was a bad example, but you get my drift i hope).

It's not the stories which are the problem, it's that people take them literally and try to force it on others. Which brings us full circle to what can we do about it?

Edited February 26, 2018 by Prometheus

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Not this time.

 

Correct, I didn't notice Moon said that.

 

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Buddhists: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

I think Jesus said that in the gospel of Luke.

[Bender]

18 hours ago, Prometheus said:

I don't think so, but let me try to clarify as my claim is certainly not that religious myths are required for morality. The path of morality is not just some straight line towards a correct answer - it's something we have to work out for ourselves. One of the strongest ways every culture has explored the human condition is through story: any story from Aesop's fables through to Wonder Woman. This obviously includes many religious myths. They are all part of our moral heritage, and extremely valuable for that.

For instance the myth of Genesis, through Paradise Lost to Frankenstein can be considered explorations of the same theme, but each time the perspective has shifted, something is added. If we choose to forget the myth of Genesis humanity would be a little impoverished. Forget all three of those stories and we will have lost a lot.

To be honest, based on other posts I've seen from you, I assumed you did not mean it the way I interpreted it. However the notion exists among many religious people and annoys me enough to make my point anyway.

I disagree that a couple of stories is going to matter much. Plenty of stories get written all the time, and plenty get forgotten. Most contain some morality element, but I would suggest morality comes first and the story is but a means to convey the message.

Genesis eg is of dubious worth. I tried reading it once, but didn't get very far. It is boring and very poorly written by todays literary standards. The moral message is also highly questionable: "obey me blindly and without thought, or I will punish you and all your posterity horribly."

Edited February 26, 2018 by Bender

[Raider5678]

25 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I think Jesus said that in the gospel of Luke.

If you google "budda golden rule" guess what you get?

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If you google "budda golden rule" guess what you get?

"budda golden rule" 

"budda golden rule" 

[Itoero]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Yet, it's still possible one religion is correct....

Yes but the chance a religion is correct is extremely small. A religion is not just the believe in something supernatural. Many religions (like christiannity and islam)give properties/actions to deities...in order for such a religion to be correct, the deity and its properties/actions need to be proven.

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Bender said:

I disagree that a couple of stories is going to matter much. Plenty of stories get written all the time, and plenty get forgotten. Most contain some morality element, but I would suggest morality comes first and the story is but a means to convey the message.

Children are not born with the morals that we as a society have decided are appropriate. You are right that the story is a means to convey the message, but if there are no stories, we've lost an important channel on how to pass those morals down. Relying or oral story telling with no common source will generate inconsistent results, and will likely leave out messages only recently incorporated into society.

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, Bender said:

I disagree that a couple of stories is going to matter much. Plenty of stories get written all the time, and plenty get forgotten. Most contain some morality element, but I would suggest morality comes first and the story is but a means to convey the message.

I believe stories are integral part of developing morality. For instance the ancient Greeks, quite well known for works in drama, told a story of how they sacked a city for refusing to pay tribute. The gentry were able to reflect on what was essentially a massacre and regretted having made that decision. Similarly they used drama to explore political satire and poke fun at the ruling class: an integral part of any democracy. But maybe this is a bit off topic.

Many people seem to think morality is straight forward, but that's only because we have several millennia of cultural development to fall back on. Else why it take so long to ban slavery - should be obvious it's not nice, no? Even today we still can't get equality for the genders right, even despite some genuine attempts. In a hundred years hopefully it'll seem obvious too.

Look even at Star Trek, one of the first inter-racial kisses in 1968. I'm sure Roddenberryy wasn't the first to think inter-racial relationships are fine, but maybe some people were exposed to it in otherwise intolerant surroundings. The small things add up.

Maybe the value of stories is best explored on the sociology/psychology section?

 

12 minutes ago, Bender said:

Genesis eg is of dubious worth. I tried reading it once, but didn't get very far. It is boring and very poorly written by todays literary standards. The moral message is also highly questionable: "obey me blindly and without thought, or I will punish you and all your posterity horribly."

Yeah, it is a hard read, but all literature beyond a certain age is like that. I'd recommend another read but forget the baggage that comes with people believing it literally. Read the story from the snake's perspective (a creature associated with wisdom in many cultures before Christianity) as someone helping humanity out.  Or maybe try reading Paradise Lost first - presents Satan as a very human character, and makes Genesis it bit more interesting. 

 

21 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If you google "budda golden rule" guess what you get?

An example of religions not contradicting each other apparently.

 

 

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

As am I.

 

Heres a portion of Matthew 15:

15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.”

 

Essentially, God's word said you were supposed to help take care of your mother and father. But the Pharisees(The "bad guys" to be short) decided to add a line to that, which basically stated: "If you could give it to us the Pharisees instead, you're not to help your mother and father." The Pharisees were greedy and were going against God's word which cared less about people paying the priests money, and more about them using it for good.

Now if you look at Matthew 10: 35-37 alone, it seems to contradict this. Yet, if you include 34 - 39, you get this:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

As you can see, it wasn't that he was saying you are to turn against your mother and father. He was saying that you are to put God before your mother and father and that because people believe in God their families will forsake them.

Even if their mother and father forsake them, they can still honor them. 

Hopefully, that explains it a little to you.

If you take out the God bit, that's like taking the entire idea of religion.

However, if you insist.

 

Islam: Kill all infidels to inherit the world.

Buddhists: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

 

As you can see by interpretation, I take it at face value. I see no reason to interpret something like this in anyway but what it says. I can take anything and put a positive or negative spin on it. The place where he is quoted as not washing hands can be interpreted to mean he had no idea about microbes being dangerous or the necessity of washing hands to prevent disease. you or I can spin anything, that is the main weakness of religious faith...

The fact that it is said to require interpretation lends religion to be easily used for whatever purpose the interpreter intends... 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Moontanman

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

As you can see by interpretation, I take it at face value. I see no reason to interpret something like this in anyway but what it says. I can take anything and put a positive or negative spin on it. The place where he is quoted as not washing hands can be interpreted to mean he had no idea about microbes being dangerous or the necessity of washing hands to prevent disease. you or I can spin anything, that is the main weakness of faith... 

But he took it out of context, and then said it was a contradiction. That's not face value, that's deceit.

And it's not me putting a spin on it, it's me literally just including the verses around it.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Raider5678

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

I think Jesus said that in the gospel of Luke.

The golden rule in one form or another predates modern abrahamic religions by quite a margin. 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

But he took it out of context, and then said it was a contradiction. That's not face value, that's deceit.

And it's not me putting a spin on it, it's me literally just including the verses around it.

 Quite the contrary, who gets to decide the context? You, me, Joel Olstein. the pedophile pastor down the street? It's so vague as to be meaningless... 

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The golden rule in one form or another predates modern abrahamic religions by quite a margin. 

 Quite the contrary, who gets to decide the context? You, me, Joel Olstein. the pedophile pastor down the street? It's so vague as to be meaningless... 

Context is quite obvious, as almost anyone on this forum would argue.

If you take only a portion of what is said and drop the rest of the section in order to portray a subject in a different light, it's taking it out of context.

You can add more context to mine, and it'll support what I said. You add more context to the Thinking Atheists contradictions, and it contradicts him.

 

If you believe you should be allowed to take only snippets of the bible and say they're contradictory, that's a problem on your part. Not the bibles.

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Raider5678