Free Thought Exchange - Is this enough to break the spell?

[SamBridge]

I can see your point here, but would argue that the Bible is a history book. So like all history books, it has an agenda to promote it's concepts and society/people. Although it would be foolish to assume that the text is unbiased and untarnished history, it still does have some worth as a historical document. Alexander's library did fall into the sea, you know, so it is not like there is a whole library to learn our history from.

 

G.

No the outside of catholic school or any other strictly religious school it is a composite of stories, it does not guarantee any certainty of what actually happened. While some religious scholars may believe a few tails, many people have found that the stories have a greater moral value than literal value which was the intent. The stories were not necessarily meant to be followed as literal actions but as lessons in life like a great deal of many other stories.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

If we are going to continue to claim the bible as a moral guide and a history book this discussion is over, while some laws are based in biblical laws that does not make them moral nor does it mean they originated in the bible...

 

The bible is a history book the same way Batman is a history of new york city...

 

I will again address the OT, discussion with true believers is meaningless, when you fear eternal torment for stepping out of line reason and evidence has gone out the door... A normally good man can be motivated to do horrific things once he believes in eternal hell fire as a punishment for all crimes, minor and or major.

 

The fix is in, following all 613 biblical laws is as near to impossible as impossible can be and hell is waiting.... and if your local religious authority tells you to kill your wife if she's not a virgin on your wedding night or kill her if she wants to talk about another god then if you really believe you'll do it... you have no choice eternal hell fire awaits you and her....

No the outside of catholic school or any other strictly religious school is a composite of stories, it does not guarantee any certainty of what happened. While some religious scholars may believe a few tails, many people have found that the stories have a greater moral value than literal value which was the intent. The stories were not necessarily meant to be followed as literal actions but as lessons in life like a great deal of many other stories.

 

 

So few of the biblical stories have any moral value Sam it's difficult to understand why you would even consider asserting such a thing...

Not to mention that the majority are the very antithesis of moral behavior...

[SamBridge]

 

So few of the biblical stories have any moral value Sam it's difficult to understand why you would even consider asserting such a thing...

Not to mention that the majority are the very antithesis of moral behavior...

As I said before religion is adapted from human emotions, feelings and morals, experiences even. With this is mind, it is perfectly sensible that a story in the bible like any other story may provide wisdom even if it is in a religion. I have read the bible, some stories do have moral value. Perhaps one purpose of the story of Sodem was that many cruel, ruthless or heinous actions will bring about one's own demise, which has happened outside of religion, the story of David and Goliath shows that there is more to strength than just physical form, which does not necessarily have to represent prayer but can represent mental prowess or persistence or will. The moral of the tower of Babel was about pride and that it can cause one trouble or lead to one's own demise, another (at one time) religious story called the Odyssey shows this as well, yet it is of a polytheistic religion. Two different religions, a single moral. This happens because religion is based from human feelings and experiences.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

As I said before religion is adapted from human emotions, feelings and morals, experiences even. With this is mind, it is perfectly sensible that a story in the bible like any other story may provide wisdom even if it is in a religion. I have read the bible, some stories do have moral value. Perhaps one purpose of the story of Sodem was that many cruel, ruthless or heinous actions will bring about one's own demise, which has happened outside of religion, the story of David and Goliath shows that there is more to strength than just physical form, which does not necessarily have to represent prayer but can represent mental prowess or persistence or will. The moral of the tower of Babel was about pride and that it can cause one trouble or lead to one's own demise, another (at one time) religious story called the Odyssey shows this as well, yet it is of a polytheistic religion. Two different religions, a single moral. This happens because religion is based from human feelings and experiences.

 

 

Uh huh.... So offering your virgin daughters to be raped by an angry crowd to protect angels is moral... give me a break...

[iNow]

I will again address the OT, discussion with true believers is meaningless, when you fear eternal torment for stepping out of line reason and evidence has gone out the door... A normally good man can be motivated to do horrific things once he believes in eternal hell fire as a punishment for all crimes, minor and or major.

I understand your point, but I also cannot see any benefit in giving up the attempt to reason with people. The fundies won't listen, but there are a great many great people who are moderate and who may just be open to rational open dialog... They may even change what they think and feel.

 

All the people moving away from religion are coming from somewhere, after all.

[Moontanman]

I understand what you are saying, I also understand the belief system we are dealing with, moderates cannot even here be reasoned with, how can we even discuss this reasonably with people who do not require evidence of their beliefs to believe?

[SamBridge]

Uh huh.... So offering your virgin daughters to be raped by an angry crowd to protect angels is moral... give me a break...

Once again, very bias seeming. I did not state every story in religion or every story in the bible has morals palatable to those who do not believe in a god, nor I did not state every action was an ethically good action either. Obviously human bias got mixed in as well as the stories reflecting the culture of the time. However, that does not mean the stories were not written without moral purposes and does not mean that there are no good morals whatsoever. There are, for example, the ones you seem to have ignored in my earlier post.

On top of that, there is a relativity in the defining of morals as well that you do not seem to acknowledge. To some culture, it may be the right thing to do to sacrifice a virgin if it means keeping an entire village safe. If that were realistically the case, it could be considered an ethical action even to other cultures, in fact it was even considered in honor in certain South American cultures.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

Once again, very bias seeming. I did not state every story in religion or every story in the bible has morals palatable to those who do not believe in a god, nor I did not state every action was an ethically good action either. Obviously human bias got mixed in as well as the stories reflecting the culture of the time. However, that does not mean the stories were not written without moral purposes and does not mean that there are no good morals whatsoever. There are, for example, the ones you seem to have ignored in my earlier post.

 

I have never stated that every story in the bible was not moral, but it's difficult to find many and i bet I can find many more non moral ones than you can moral...

 

On top of that, there is a relativity in the defining of morals as well that you do not seem to acknowledge. To some culture, it may be the right thing to do to sacrifice a virgin if it means keeping an entire village safe.

 

 

No No No! The village was not being kept safe, the SOB wanted to give his virgin daughters to an angry crowd to be raped to save two angels... How immoral can it get... no wait making a rape victim marry her rapist, killing anyone who is homosexual, killing all non virgin on their wedding night, killing disrespectful children... damn... the list is long and sad and that ignore the child rape and genocide demanded by god...

[SamBridge]

I have never stated that every story in the bible was not moral, but it's difficult to find many and i bet I can find many more non moral ones than you can moral...

This leads back to the relativity I mentioned. All the stories in the bible have a moral, you just refuse to recognize some of them because some are tailored more towards obeying god or having faith.

 

 

No No No! The village was not being kept safe, the SOB wanted to give his virgin daughters to an angry crowd to be raped to save two angels

Well, perhaps you were referring to a specific passage in the bible, perhaps you were referring to the story with Isaac which is what immediately comes to my mind when you mention sacrifice and angels along with Sodom and Gomorrah, or perhaps the story with King Nebuchadnezzar where people were thrown into a fire if they did not bow down. I was referring more to Greek and Native American cultures. But in either case, my point still stands. Regardless of if that was physically the case, morals are not physical, so if people believed it was the right thing to do, it doesn't matter if something was not what was physically happening, to them it was still morally the right thing to do. If god did exist perhaps it actually would be considered ethical today for a similar event to happen. You can really only state they were acting immoral according to your own personal standards, because to them it may have been morally good and at times to them it was.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[overtone]

 

 

 

Oh, so you defend the notion that religion isn't always bad and that it can cause equally as much good as bad? Because if not I have not seen anyone else do it, mainly negative assertions.

You've seen me do it. But you have to read the posts.

 

 

It may be such that a culture would generally believe that without any further knowledge.

You can check that culture out in thousands of towns across the US.

and you cannot shove it in their face just as they would shove their beliefs in yours, otherwise you are not doing anything better.

So? Some would say that shoving destructive and oneraously oppressive delusions in people's faces is worse than shoving reasonable and beneficial beliefs. Are you neutral on taht point?

 

We are agreed that face to face discourtesy has a poor track record of persuasion. On the other hand, failure to stand up to bad people doing bad things has a poor track record of its own. Clearly some judgment and political maturity is indicated, for best results.

 

 

 

But if their definition of a god is merely a being of immense power, perhaps they wouldn't be in delusion. Perhaps the technologies of today would to them be godly.

Why yes, perhaps some other people might have different Gods more difficult - even impossible - to disprove. Sure. But if they don't, then such disproof is possible.

 

 

Unless it is printed within the printed text of the religion, religion does not confused things. In fact I am pretty sure confusion is a state which only living things may attain. Your notion would seem to suggest one of the points I made earlier anyway.

My point is that religious belief can sometimes be disproven, in the scientific sense (its contradiction demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt) or even the logical/mathematical. You don't get a free pass from logic and evidence by declaring a belief "religious", and some religious beliefs are demonstrably delusional. Not all, maybe, but some. The question is answered for the particular beliefs at issue, not about religion in the abstract or belief in general.

 

 

If someone however did believe in the Easter Bunny in a specific context as a specific form with specific limitations, your point may suffice to call them delusional.

And since that is the case, my point stands.

Personally I do not directly see what the bunny has to do with the resurrection of Jesus.

We were discussing the issue of proof in the context of religious belief. The parallels are direct and obvious.

Edited June 5, 2013 by overtone

[SamBridge]

You've seen me do it. But you have to read the posts.

You'll have to point it out because I did not notice it while looking through your posts.

 

 

You can check that culture out in thousands of towns across the US.

And?

 

 

So? Some would say that shoving destructive and oneraously oppressive delusions in people's faces is worse than shoving reasonable and beneficial beliefs. Are you neutral on taht point?

If you do not present enough evidence that a statement is true, you cannot blame them for disbelieving it. So if you simply tell them to take your word for it, it's essentially your word vs theirs which from a logical standpoint rather than a moral one does not solve any problem nor prove anything either way.

 

 

We are agreed that face to face discourtesy has a poor track record of persuasion. On the other hand, failure to stand up to bad people doing bad things has a poor track record of its own. Clearly some judgment and political maturity is indicated, for best results.

Again, some people seem to have issues with the relativity of morals. To them it may not be a bad thing to sacrifice outsiders if they think it will keep the village safe, I find malice occurs less often than I previously thought. Is it bad to sacrifice one person for good of many more?

 

 

 

Why yes, perhaps some other people might have different Gods more difficult - even impossible - to disprove. Sure. But if they don't, then such disproof is possible.

Then that's why you are free to disbelieve in god.

 

 

 

My point is that religious belief can sometimes be disproven

 

Specific beliefs themselves can perhaps be disproved, but you can never completely rule out the action of super-natural forces using science, for science only deals with the physical and observable.

 

 

 

And since that is the case, my point stands.

I'd like to see you do it with god. Though, I used the word "may" for a reason; it is possible someone legitimately believes it because they hallucinated and observed it and did not know they were hallucinating. After all, science based on observation.

 

 

We were discussing the issue of proof in the context of religious belief. The parallels are direct and obvious.

I would say that was a sidetrack from an even earlier discussing of the difference between general belief and religion, there were even debates about animals having religion vs having superstition. But apparently the topic changes.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

The relativity of morals is a secular idea not religious, the very thing they most often assert is that without belief in gods there can be no morals or that everyone would go out and rape and pillage. I am well aware of the subjectivity of morals and culture the problem I have is the assertions the religious make that I, since I have no belief in the supernatural, am immoral and cannot have moral behavior by definition. In fact they claim that not only do all morals derive from god believers in god are by definition moral and that the morals as proscribed in the bible are not only objectively moral but must be followed and that god gives them not just the commandment but the authority to enforce those morals on everyone else...

That is the reason I keep harping on the morals proscribed in the Bible... and the power the threat of eternal hell fire grants those morals...

Edited June 6, 2013 by Moontanman

[SamBridge]

 

The relativity of morals is a secular idea not religious

What if there is a religion that advocates understanding others like Buddhism or perhaps even Greek Mythology with Athena? Besides, what does that matter even if it is true?

 

 

 

the very thing they most often assert is that without belief in gods there can be no morals or that everyone would go out and rape and pillage.

It's not true of course, but there was a lot of violence in Europe and the Middle East and people seemed to lack an incentive to stop it. Only problem is that religion has done it's job already and now it's becoming more of a burden in those regions.

 

 

 

since I have no belief in the supernatural, am immoral and cannot have moral behavior by definition.

I've seen you bring that up in another topic, but I haven't seen you mention that problem much in this one, unless that's what you were referring to when you said "hijack's morals". But in any case I know religious people who do not think people without religion cannot have morals, it sounds more like an extremist or "old testament" thing to say that resides mainly in the most biased and/or religious regions

 

 

 

That is the reason I keep harping on the morals proscribed in the Bible... and the power the threat of eternal hell fire grants those morals...

And as I said before, not all religious people are crusaders, there are easily religious people who don't like every aspect of the religion they follow or would not seek out violence, those tendencies still come from humans themselves however.

Edited June 6, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

What if there is a religion that advocates understanding others like Buddhism or perhaps even Greek Mythology with Athena? Besides, what does that matter even if it is true?

 

 

It's not true of course, but there was a lot of violence in Europe and the Middle East and people seemed to lack an incentive to stop it. Only problem is that religion has done it's job already and now it's becoming more of a burden in those regions.

 

 

I've seen you bring that up in another topic, but I haven't seen you mention that problem much in this one, unless that's what you were referring to when you said "hijack's morals". But in any case I know religious people who do not think people without religion cannot have morals, it sounds more like an extremist or "old testament" thing to say that resides mainly in the most biased and/or religious regions

 

 

And as I said before, not all religious people are crusaders, there are easily religious people who don't like every aspect of the religion they follow or would not seek out violence, those tendencies still come from humans themselves however.

 

 

Sam, religion comes from humans, not just the behaviors it requires, that is pretty much my entire point, religion does not come from some outside source, it is made up by humans to control humans.

 

I think the main disconnect came when religion started to be written down, until then it was a morality play of the moral standards of it's day which changed as the stories were retold and behaviors evolved. Writing them down froze religion in a bronze age of attitudes that have not served us well since and have indeed contributed to horrific deeds that only a belief in the supernatural can justify and the fundamentalist fringes are consistently trying to drive religion back in the direction of those frozen obsolete morals...

Edited June 6, 2013 by Moontanman

[SamBridge]

Sam, religion comes from humans, not just the behaviors it requires

Which is almost word for word what I said before your post.

 

 

religion does not come from some outside source, it is made up by humans to control humans.

It's not "made" to do anything in particular, it's ideas and ways of life people have that get developed into cultures. If anything religion is a philosophy "made" to explain how things came to be and what life's meaning and purpose is and thus how one should conduct their life.

 

 

I think the main disconnect came when religion started to be written down, until then it was a morality play of the moral standards of it's day which changed as the stories were retold and behaviors evolved. Writing them down froze religion in a bronze age of attitudes that have not served us well since and have indeed contributed to horrific deeds that only a belief in the supernatural can justify and the fundamentalist fringes are consistently trying to drive religion back in the direction of those frozen obsolete morals...

And something about the nature of humans and animals in general makes you think there would not have been similar violence without religion? If anything violent tendencies built up and got expressed via religions politics.

Edited June 6, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

Which is almost word for word what I said before your post.

 

 

It's not "made" to do anything in particular, it's ideas and ways of life people have that get developed into cultures. If anything religion is a philosophy "made" to explain how things came to be and what life's meaning and purpose is and thus how one should conduct their life.

 

 

And something about the nature of humans and animals in general makes you think there would not have been similar violence without religion? If anything violent tendencies built up and got expressed via religions politics.

 

 

Because no other world view can punish you beyond the grave... that is a unique aspect of religion, one that allows it to make good men commit evil deeds...

[SamBridge]

Because no other world view can punish you beyond the grave... that is a unique aspect of religion, one that allows it to make good men commit evil deeds...

Or you can just threaten someone's life directly and there's a good chance they will commit an "evil" deed either by killing you or doing whatever evil deed you ask of them. I find you do not need religion to accomplish most if not all of the violent things you suggest religion is responsible for.

Edited June 6, 2013 by SamBridge