Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A major weaknesses of all religions ??

rroberts
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?
rr
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:36:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Most of religion does not deal with questions of fact. Yes, most religions have creation myths or stories about what their gods did, but the point of those stories is not establish explanations of what happened. The point is to validate the gods who then give moral laws. It is that a god so mighty as to do x, y, and z must be obeyed and accordingly the moral dictates of the religion must be obeyed. The purpose of factual claims is to valid the gods, not to reveal history or scientific fact.

Consider, Ecclesiastes 9:11, King James Version,
" I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

Is that a statement of fact or a moral pronouncement? The observation is factual, but the purpose is moral. I think it's saying "Suck it up, kid, bleep happens." It's morality, but it is based upon observation.

What religion teaches about morality evolves. Christians used to believe that the Bible supported slavery, but no most Christians now believe the opposite. Religion is more than scripture. It a social institution that allows moral rules to evolve. The rules evolve bases upon collective experience over many generations.

My understanding is limited, but my impression is that Buddhism and Daoism make many fewer claims of fact than Western religion. Classical Buddhism prohibits considering whether or not God exists, and instead promotes the consideration of moral questions.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 2:32:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do.

Answer this question for me.

Why do you think humans form governments? Borders? Or have Bars on windows, jails, guns, wars? Lie detectors? Courts?Police? Armies?

Because it is plain to see that there is a problem with human nature. All of us a prone to sin. All of us are drawn to evil. Something is wrong with us.

Christianity's initial belief is that there is something wrong with us. Which is why we have and do so much evil to each other. That belief is easily demonstrated to be a fact.

There are many others that can be shown to be true fact, (as in agreement with reality) There is a reason why Christianity works.
laocmo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 4:10:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do you think humans form governments? Borders? Or have Bars on windows, jails, guns, wars? Lie detectors? Courts?Police? Armies? Because it is plain to see that there is a problem with human nature. All of us a prone to sin. All of us are drawn to evil. Something is wrong with us."

I agree 100%. Actually there is something wrong with all of creation. Consider that without killing, mayhem, and violence. Most of the predator animal kingdom would starve to death. Consider that under the sea everything alive is so by devouring all the creatures of smaller size that they can catch. I do not call that very intelligent design.
RHEMA.97
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 5:28:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 4:10:02 PM, laocmo wrote:
Why do you think humans form governments? Borders? Or have Bars on windows, jails, guns, wars? Lie detectors? Courts?Police? Armies? Because it is plain to see that there is a problem with human nature. All of us a prone to sin. All of us are drawn to evil. Something is wrong with us."

I agree 100%. Actually there is something wrong with all of creation. Consider that without killing, mayhem, and violence. Most of the predator animal kingdom would starve to death. Consider that under the sea everything alive is so by devouring all the creatures of smaller size that they can catch. I do not call that very intelligent design.

Adam and Eve introduced death into the world.

They brought a curse on both man and animal and they shifted the way things normally were. For example all animals were herbivorous initially. The bible says that God made fruits and plants for man and animal .

Till sin came into the world. There was no canivorism or parasitism and all of that. God didnt design things that way.
laocmo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 9:08:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
" Adam and Eve introduced death into the world. They brought a curse on both man and animal and they shifted the way things normally were. For example all animals were herbivorous initially. The bible says that God made fruits and plants for man and animal: Till sin came into the world. There was no canivorism or parasitism and all of that. God didnt design things that way."

God's creatures were eating each other millions of years before your Adam and Eve were supposedly created. What is it now you say...6,000 years or so ago? Blaming Adam and Eve for a T-Rex having a smaller critter for lunch is just plain stupid.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 9:37:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 5:36:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:


What religion teaches about morality evolves. Christians used to believe that the Bible supported slavery, but no most Christians now believe the opposite. Religion is more than scripture. It a social institution that allows moral rules to evolve. The rules evolve bases upon collective experience over many generations.

The Bible doesn't allow for moral rules to evolve. There were people who used the Bible to condone slavery, and those who probably believed that the Bible supports slavery once New World Slavery was introduced into the world.

The problem with your usage of the word evolve is that is suggests a gradual change in a particular direction that would indicate that the earliest Christians supported slavery as well. And that from day one of the history of Christianity it was supported until New World slavery was abolished.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 9:53:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?
The problem is that the word religion is a problem. In it's broadest definition, it includes just about everything. There are those who claim that their beliefs are not religions like Buddhism, deism, and yes....atheism, but still fall into either one, or a general broad category of religion. So if you're trying to work the angle that no religion can be true because there's no solid proof of any of them, then you have to include atheism.

Jesus Himself identified false religion, but not in the sense of identifying a right religious sect. Rather He identified the problem as an issue of the heart, as did the Apostle Paul.

What are the chances of a Creator existing? And if you can acknowledge at least that possibility (as I think most people do), then what are the chances of the Creator extending a message to us (Bible, Koran, etc.) versus taking no apparent interest in us (deism)?

The field of options narrows far more than you suggest.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 9:56:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts.

So your complaint is that religion is not science?

Are you also complaining that art is not science? Or that philosophy is not science? Or that economics is not science?

The thing you are complaining about, here, is exactly what makes religions effective where science is not. It's exactly because we can fill in the god-mystery with whatever ideals we choose, that it becomes so pliable and effective in helping us to deal with the unanswerable questions of life, that might otherwise eat us up alive. Just consider the horrendous suffering that someone feels when they lose a life-long mate to some idiotically avoidable accident. And consider how the unfairness and meaninglessness of that loss makes that suffering so much worse, and so difficult to overcome. " And then apply religion to the scenario.

Through religion, the bereaved can perhaps find (or invent, it doesn't mater) a reason for this otherwise senseless death. And maybe even find a purpose in it to keep on living his/her own life. And in so doing be able accept the unfairness of it all.

Science can't do any of that. In fact, all science can do is render the death even more pointless and meaningless by rendering life as just a lot of pointless and meaningless physical facts.

There is far, far more to humanity and to any individual human being than science will ever appreciate or explain. And it would be very easy for one to lose their humanity by worshiping science as the only valid method of finding truth in life.

Beware of that bias.
laocmo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 3:12:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The thing you are complaining about, here, is exactly what makes religions effective where science is not. Through religion, the bereaved can perhaps find (or invent, it doesn't mater) a reason for this otherwise senseless death."

One of the few and best thought out answers I have ever received on this forum!
Saska
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 4:29:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 9:56:44 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts.

So your complaint is that religion is not science?

Are you also complaining that art is not science? Or that philosophy is not science? Or that economics is not science?

The thing you are complaining about, here, is exactly what makes religions effective where science is not. It's exactly because we can fill in the god-mystery with whatever ideals we choose, that it becomes so pliable and effective in helping us to deal with the unanswerable questions of life, that might otherwise eat us up alive. Just consider the horrendous suffering that someone feels when they lose a life-long mate to some idiotically avoidable accident. And consider how the unfairness and meaninglessness of that loss makes that suffering so much worse, and so difficult to overcome. " And then apply religion to the scenario.

Through religion, the bereaved can perhaps find (or invent, it doesn't mater) a reason for this otherwise senseless death. And maybe even find a purpose in it to keep on living his/her own life. And in so doing be able accept the unfairness of it all.

Science can't do any of that. In fact, all science can do is render the death even more pointless and meaningless by rendering life as just a lot of pointless and meaningless physical facts.

There is far, far more to humanity and to any individual human being than science will ever appreciate or explain. And it would be very easy for one to lose their humanity by worshiping science as the only valid method of finding truth in life.

Beware of that bias.

So you are saying that religion is a coping mechanism? When we can't understand things, we look to religion to find a stop-gap answer to keep us content. I believe that this is extremely true. It used to be that religion tried to explain volcanoes and rain and astrology as well. As science improves, religion stops trying to explain those things. The more science learns about life and death, the less relevant religion will become.

The part you are ignoring when you talk about religion making the death have more purpose is how often religion has directly lead to deaths. Dictators rule countries under the guise of being a god because people are more likely to bend to their will if they believe their leaders are divine. So many wars are fought because of religious beliefs. There is nothing in this world that people are more willing to kill and die for than for faith.

Religion can offer some meaning to people in the face of death, and because of religion, there is a lot more senseless death for which people need to find meaning.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:26:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

If you were to visit a desert island and see the letters SOS written in the sand on the beach then you would feel pretty sure that a person wrote it, opinion or not.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:26:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 2:32:57 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I do.

Answer this question for me.

Why do you think humans form governments? Borders? Or have Bars on windows, jails, guns, wars? Lie detectors? Courts?Police? Armies?

Because it is plain to see that there is a problem with human nature. All of us a prone to sin. All of us are drawn to evil. Something is wrong with us.

All of us? Has every single person on this planet done something deserving of jail? Deserving of the death penalty? Is there not a single person on this planet that has ever, even in the past 1000 years alone, reached the age of 70 without doing anything that would land us in jail?

Christianity's initial belief is that there is something wrong with us. Which is why we have and do so much evil to each other. That belief is easily demonstrated to be a fact.

Necessarily? So every single person over the age of 12, has done something that is deserving of being locked up in jail, or being sent to court?

The problem here is the assumption that we are all somehow wrong, that we are all deserving of it. And this is utterly demonstrably wrong.

There are many others that can be shown to be true fact, (as in agreement with reality) There is a reason why Christianity works.

No, Christianity works today because we have dragged it through to the modern ages, and has lasted until today because of force.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 8:46:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 4:29:22 PM, Saska wrote:
At 4/17/2014 9:56:44 AM, PureX wrote:

There is far, far more to humanity and to any individual human being than science will ever appreciate or explain. And it would be very easy for one to lose their humanity by worshiping science as the only valid method of finding truth in life.

Beware of that bias.

So you are saying that religion is a coping mechanism? When we can't understand things, we look to religion to find a stop-gap answer to keep us content. I believe that this is extremely true. It used to be that religion tried to explain volcanoes and rain and astrology as well. As science improves, religion stops trying to explain those things. The more science learns about life and death, the less relevant religion will become.

There are many questions that science will never answer. And they are precisely the questions that matter most to us. These are questions like; 'why do we exist?' (not how do we exist), 'what is our purpose?', and, 'who am I?' (not what am I). Also, we humans perceive a kind of spirit-energy, and always have, that so far science has not even figured out how to look for. Science is about physical interactions. But explaining the physical interactions between things does not explain away the phenomena that results. Which seems to be what you are suggesting. Knowing what a sunset is, does not make it any less beautiful, or wondrous. And I don't think it ever will. If science were such a be-all and end-all of truth, it would not only eradicate religion, it would eradicate art and philosophy as well. And that's not going to happen. At least I sincerely hope not. Because I certainly would not want to live in a world without art or philosophy, or even religion.

The part you are ignoring when you talk about religion making the death have more purpose is how often religion has directly lead to deaths. Dictators rule countries under the guise of being a god because people are more likely to bend to their will if they believe their leaders are divine. So many wars are fought because of religious beliefs. There is nothing in this world that people are more willing to kill and die for than for faith.

People don't kill for their faith. They kill because they want to kill, and they use their religion as an excuse. We humans are a blood-thirsty lot. And we always have been. Any crowd of people can be whipped up into a violent frenzy, anytime, under any number of pretenses. And we do so based on race, ethnicity, politics, and greed, routinely; just as often as we do it under the pretense of religion. If we eliminated all religion, today, I will guarantee you that tomorrow we will still be killing each other, just as we have always done.

Also, you are ignoring all the instances in which religion has stopped people from killing each other, because you can't see that effect. Especially if you aren't even looking for it.

Religion can offer some meaning to people in the face of death, and because of religion, there is a lot more senseless death for which people need to find meaning.

You are swallowing your own bias, here. That's not healthy.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 2:38:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 8:46:24 AM, PureX wrote:
There are many questions that science will never answer. And they are precisely the questions that matter most to us. These are questions like; 'why do we exist?' (not how do we exist), 'what is our purpose?', and, 'who am I?' (not what am I).

The reason why science will never answer questions like that, is because they dont have an actual answer.

The whole point about science is to determine which answer is correct. But asking questions like "Why do we exist" is the same as asking the question of "Which flavoured ice cream is the best?"

Also, we humans perceive a kind of spirit-energy, and always have, that so far science has not even figured out how to look for.

Maybe thats because it doesnt actually exist. And yes, science has figured out how to look for it, through the people who claim they are mediums and can channel this energy. And yet, when these are done in actual laboratory conditions, they fail, every time. James Randi had a standing offer of a million dollars, for many years, to whoever could demonstrate their supernatural powers in experimental lab conditions, and yet, no one has even come close.

I mean, dont you agree that if this kind of "Spirit energy" never actually existed, and that what you were feeling was simply a gut feeling or intuition, then science would also not be able to look for it, and that the end result would be similar?

Science is about physical interactions. But explaining the physical interactions between things does not explain away the phenomena that results. Which seems to be what you are suggesting. Knowing what a sunset is, does not make it any less beautiful, or wondrous. And I don't think it ever will.

Sure. But it also doesnt mean that the phenomena contains something, some aspect that is beyond the physical.

Beauty, wonder, all these emotions are physiological, they are contained within the brain, they exist within this reality. Nothing within the beauty perceived within a painting or a sunset requires elves or faeries or anything supernatural.

If science were such a be-all and end-all of truth, it would not only eradicate religion, it would eradicate art and philosophy as well. And that's not going to happen. At least I sincerely hope not. Because I certainly would not want to live in a world without art or philosophy, or even religion.

Why would it eradicate art and philosophy? Its not like these things are necessarily supernatural. Philosophy is the discussion between beings that actually exist, regarding the nature of things that actually exist.

People don't kill for their faith. They kill because they want to kill, and they use their religion as an excuse. We humans are a blood-thirsty lot. And we always have been. Any crowd of people can be whipped up into a violent frenzy, anytime, under any number of pretenses. And we do so based on race, ethnicity, politics, and greed, routinely; just as often as we do it under the pretense of religion. If we eliminated all religion, today, I will guarantee you that tomorrow we will still be killing each other, just as we have always done.

Sure, there are people who kill because they want to kill. There are always people who are, as we call them, "evil", who are bad. There have always been people who are mostly good, and people who were mostly bad.

But in order for someone who is good, who is truly well intentioned and decent and kind and caring, to do something truly horrific, truly evil, requires religion or something akin to religion, something that is dogmatic, unquestionable, etc.


Also, you are ignoring all the instances in which religion has stopped people from killing each other, because you can't see that effect. Especially if you aren't even looking for it.

Sure. No one is saying that religion is pure evil, that no good has come out of religion, ever. But every good thing that religion has ever done, doesnt require religion to do it. And when you compare it to the amount of harm it has caused, why would you keep religion around? What would be the point?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 4:26:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?

Wanna debate God sometime? And I will carry the BoP to make you happy.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 5:56:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 4:26:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?

Wanna debate God sometime? And I will carry the BoP to make you happy.

You already have a burden of proof. We've debated God, and you got angry (belying the 'rationalism' of atheism).

The topic here is about the major flaw in 'all' religions, which appears to be, as per usual with such grand, sweeping generalizations, the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion.

Seriously, this thread has all the hall marks of typical atheist argumentation these days ... as in google some major Christian theologians and then pretend we have read them, much less that we understand them, and then just dismiss them as OBVIOUSLY based on nothing more than opinion.

And the real problem? Isn't that someone notices this (who has actually read a few of those theologians) and the absolute dearth of substance in the claim, its that religious people are afraid to debate?

In case you haven't noticed S, there are all kinds of debates about God and religion in this section of the forum. Take your pick.

As you pick, do try to be relevant and actually engage on the subject at hand.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:01:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 5:56:41 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:26:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?

Wanna debate God sometime? And I will carry the BoP to make you happy.

You already have a burden of proof. We've debated God, and you got angry (belying the 'rationalism' of atheism).

The topic here is about the major flaw in 'all' religions, which appears to be, as per usual with such grand, sweeping generalizations, the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion.

Seriously, this thread has all the hall marks of typical atheist argumentation these days ... as in google some major Christian theologians and then pretend we have read them, much less that we understand them, and then just dismiss them as OBVIOUSLY based on nothing more than opinion.

And the real problem? Isn't that someone notices this (who has actually read a few of those theologians) and the absolute dearth of substance in the claim, its that religious people are afraid to debate?

In case you haven't noticed S, there are all kinds of debates about God and religion in this section of the forum. Take your pick.

As you pick, do try to be relevant and actually engage on the subject at hand.

So is that a yes or no? I can send you the debate challenge?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:04:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 5:56:41 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:26:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?

Wanna debate God sometime? And I will carry the BoP to make you happy.

You already have a burden of proof. We've debated God, and you got angry (belying the 'rationalism' of atheism).

The topic here is about the major flaw in 'all' religions, which appears to be, as per usual with such grand, sweeping generalizations, the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion.

Seriously, this thread has all the hall marks of typical atheist argumentation these days ... as in google some major Christian theologians and then pretend we have read them, much less that we understand them, and then just dismiss them as OBVIOUSLY based on nothing more than opinion.

And the real problem? Isn't that someone notices this (who has actually read a few of those theologians) and the absolute dearth of substance in the claim, its that religious people are afraid to debate?

In case you haven't noticed S, there are all kinds of debates about God and religion in this section of the forum. Take your pick.

As you pick, do try to be relevant and actually engage on the subject at hand.

I'll construct the challenge and send it to you now. I am going to target the Christian God and take the BoP, if you want it changed let me know and I'll edit it.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:17:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 9:37:04 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/3/2014 5:36:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:


What religion teaches about morality evolves. Christians used to believe that the Bible supported slavery, but no most Christians now believe the opposite. Religion is more than scripture. It a social institution that allows moral rules to evolve. The rules evolve bases upon collective experience over many generations.

The Bible doesn't allow for moral rules to evolve. There were people who used the Bible to condone slavery, and those who probably believed that the Bible supports slavery once New World Slavery was introduced into the world.

The problem with your usage of the word evolve is that is suggests a gradual change in a particular direction that would indicate that the earliest Christians supported slavery as well. And that from day one of the history of Christianity it was supported until New World slavery was abolished.

Since the wording of the Bible does not change, it has not evolved. The Bible is clear in supporting slavery, at least under some circumstances, e.g.,

Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

I have heard Christians argue that slavery in the Bible was voluntary, essentially indentured servitude without possibility of release, and as such it ought to be permitted under those circumstances even today.

However, Christianity does not equate to the Bible. Christianity is a religion, and it evolves even though the Bible does not. At the time when slavery was common, it was not voluntary and many if not most Christians supported it. Today, they do not. So as a human institution, Christianity has evolved, whether or not the doctrine allows it. The same is true of other Christian moral beliefs, such as the role of women in society.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:21:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:04:15 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 5:56:41 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:26:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?

Wanna debate God sometime? And I will carry the BoP to make you happy.

You already have a burden of proof. We've debated God, and you got angry (belying the 'rationalism' of atheism).

The topic here is about the major flaw in 'all' religions, which appears to be, as per usual with such grand, sweeping generalizations, the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion.

Seriously, this thread has all the hall marks of typical atheist argumentation these days ... as in google some major Christian theologians and then pretend we have read them, much less that we understand them, and then just dismiss them as OBVIOUSLY based on nothing more than opinion.

And the real problem? Isn't that someone notices this (who has actually read a few of those theologians) and the absolute dearth of substance in the claim, its that religious people are afraid to debate?

In case you haven't noticed S, there are all kinds of debates about God and religion in this section of the forum. Take your pick.

As you pick, do try to be relevant and actually engage on the subject at hand.

I'll construct the challenge and send it to you now. I am going to target the Christian God and take the BoP, if you want it changed let me know and I'll edit it.

How about you start a thread?

A debate will not be accepted. I know and see how these things work, and all the atheists will come out to support you no matter what is said.

Start a thread and I will meet you, but I will not do the formal debate thing. Not on this subject.

There is little point in pretending that the audiences involved in this subject are rational.

Start a thread.
chass23RN
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:22:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:01:58 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 5:56:41 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:26:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?

Wanna debate God sometime? And I will carry the BoP to make you happy.

You already have a burden of proof. We've debated God, and you got angry (belying the 'rationalism' of atheism).

The topic here is about the major flaw in 'all' religions, which appears to be, as per usual with such grand, sweeping generalizations, the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion.

Seriously, this thread has all the hall marks of typical atheist argumentation these days ... as in google some major Christian theologians and then pretend we have read them, much less that we understand them, and then just dismiss them as OBVIOUSLY based on nothing more than opinion.

And the real problem? Isn't that someone notices this (who has actually read a few of those theologians) and the absolute dearth of substance in the claim, its that religious people are afraid to debate?

In case you haven't noticed S, there are all kinds of debates about God and religion in this section of the forum. Take your pick.

As you pick, do try to be relevant and actually engage on the subject at hand.

So is that a yes or no? I can send you the debate challenge?

One thing that tells me there is something in Christianity at least for this country is the statistics. Since the increasing moral decay of this world and people it is a fact things have became alot worse. The Bible tells us this will happen. For example in 1960 the murder rate was 9,110 and in 2012 it was 14,827. The total violent crimes in 1960 was 288,460 and in 2012 it was 1,214,464. Look how many people now are addicted to drugs, look at the change for the worse in our school age children, look at the amount of people on antidepressants and committing suicide ect... If this is not linked to our moral decay then what is it? It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see something is wrong here.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:53:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:17:27 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/17/2014 9:37:04 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/3/2014 5:36:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:


What religion teaches about morality evolves. Christians used to believe that the Bible supported slavery, but no most Christians now believe the opposite. Religion is more than scripture. It a social institution that allows moral rules to evolve. The rules evolve bases upon collective experience over many generations.

The Bible doesn't allow for moral rules to evolve. There were people who used the Bible to condone slavery, and those who probably believed that the Bible supports slavery once New World Slavery was introduced into the world.

The problem with your usage of the word evolve is that is suggests a gradual change in a particular direction that would indicate that the earliest Christians supported slavery as well. And that from day one of the history of Christianity it was supported until New World slavery was abolished.

Since the wording of the Bible does not change, it has not evolved. The Bible is clear in supporting slavery, at least under some circumstances, e.g.,

Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

I have heard Christians argue that slavery in the Bible was voluntary, essentially indentured servitude without possibility of release, and as such it ought to be permitted under those circumstances even today.

However, Christianity does not equate to the Bible. Christianity is a religion, and it evolves even though the Bible does not. At the time when slavery was common, it was not voluntary and many if not most Christians supported it. Today, they do not. So as a human institution, Christianity has evolved, whether or not the doctrine allows it. The same is true of other Christian moral beliefs, such as the role of women in society.

What the Bible is clear about is that context matters.

And context does matter.

Tell me, would anyone support slavery in this day and age? Would we do so if say, thousands of Soldiers showed up armed to the teeth and threatened to rape, kill, and pillage your entire city - burning it to the ground unless you supported slavery? Because that is the reality of what ancient civilizations contended with. Legions would quite literally show up and scorch the very earth if any serious resistance to slavery reared its head.

Think Spartacus.

Hundreds of the thousands of people butchered to put down a slave revolt. The entire weight of the Empire brought to bear to crush the revolt and return slaves to their role.

Its pretty easy to say, "I'd be tough! I would not crack," but ... well, yes you would. Either that or you would have to flee into the veritable wilderness, where the dearth of civilization and police forces could very well lead to your capture and enslavement anyway.

Even within the Empire, entire system of justice, law enforcement, and capture existed to sustain slavery.

So what advice DO you give knowing that this is the reality of slavery? Do you make it clear that all are EQUAL before God? Which is in Christian doctrine? Do you nevertheless counsel, with Spartacus and Roman Servile Wars being recent, bloody memories, that masters should be good and kind and that slaves should be good servants, with BOTH extolling the virtues of humanity? Do you counsel following the law or braking the law? insighting Servile Insurrection? Mass murder and war?

The truth of the matter is that slavery would take Sea Change in human thought and politics. the idea of ACTUAL human equality would have to weather the dark and middle ages, wherein a blue blooded aristocracy was given rights over the rest of humanity - a veritable 'ruling class' over the masses - even the 'Free' were hardly 'equal'. It isn't until the breaking of feudal power and privilege, that its even possible to 'think' ably equality in man. That took the advent of cooperative government and finances, the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Renaissance, and other changes that made representative forms of government not just possible, but gave them significant advantages.

And as that spirit of equality spread, there lay the question in Christian theology: Are all men equal before God? If so, what does that mean?

On one side of the Atlantic, that meant William Wilbureforce could over the course of generation, use reason to bring about the consensus driven rejection of slavery. On the other? It took America its bloodiest War to finally ride ourselves of slavery. And there is little doubt that, without the superior industrial capacity of the Northern States, the ENTIRE STATE APPARATUS being arrayed to enforce freedom, that the South - arrayed much as Rome was - would have prevailed and slavery would have been the norm.

Now it is easy. Correct?

Then why do so many who are so critical of 'Biblical' support for slavey find it so hated to condemn modern slavery? Human Trafficking and sexual servitude? The excuses are quite prolific including the irrational belief that million of women just 'choose' prostitution, even as mounting evidence of human trafficking, enslavement, and testimonies of former call girls and UN, US State, Academia, all notice the rising costs of sexual servitude.

The Bible is quite clear about such things is it not? All men and women ARE equal, so why would we think enslaving someone merely for sexual relief - or unabashedly rationalizing their plight to scratch our particular itch was correct? And yet what advice to give to girls and boys trapped in this system in countries where the legal system, Thailand, Myanmar, are geared toward treating them like property and returning them to pimps? What advice do you give those who MUST either endure grave injustice or commit suicide? All while waiting for the Sea Change required for their governments to acknowledge that what is happening is wrong and bury the pimps in jail rather than the victims?

So yes, it is in the Bible, but its not ... as black and white as its so often presented.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:50:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Context matters for the few new age kristians such as brother neutral who think they can reconcile religious superstitious beliefs with scientific facts or near facts. It's his last ditch effort to preserve all the hocus-pocus of religion by trying to reconcile it with something a lot more plausible.

And it's a bloody wonder that anybody is still stuck in the past with their sky fairy beliefs. Except for Americans and in that case it isn't a wonder at all. It's an indication of the level of intelligence of the US southern hillbilly.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 11:34:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:22:25 PM, chass23RN wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:01:58 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 5:56:41 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:26:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?

Wanna debate God sometime? And I will carry the BoP to make you happy.

You already have a burden of proof. We've debated God, and you got angry (belying the 'rationalism' of atheism).

The topic here is about the major flaw in 'all' religions, which appears to be, as per usual with such grand, sweeping generalizations, the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion.

Seriously, this thread has all the hall marks of typical atheist argumentation these days ... as in google some major Christian theologians and then pretend we have read them, much less that we understand them, and then just dismiss them as OBVIOUSLY based on nothing more than opinion.

And the real problem? Isn't that someone notices this (who has actually read a few of those theologians) and the absolute dearth of substance in the claim, its that religious people are afraid to debate?

In case you haven't noticed S, there are all kinds of debates about God and religion in this section of the forum. Take your pick.

As you pick, do try to be relevant and actually engage on the subject at hand.

So is that a yes or no? I can send you the debate challenge?

One thing that tells me there is something in Christianity at least for this country is the statistics. Since the increasing moral decay of this world and people it is a fact things have became alot worse. The Bible tells us this will happen. For example in 1960 the murder rate was 9,110 and in 2012 it was 14,827. The total violent crimes in 1960 was 288,460 and in 2012 it was 1,214,464. Look how many people now are addicted to drugs, look at the change for the worse in our school age children, look at the amount of people on antidepressants and committing suicide ect... If this is not linked to our moral decay then what is it? It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see something is wrong here.

Convenient how you didnt post what the crime rates were in the 1980-1990s, since it has actually decreased today. In 1960, Murder in the US was 5.1 per 100,000 people, in 1980, it was 10.4 per 100,000 people, and today, it is only 4.7 per 100,000.

The reason why you cant just post a total number, is because the population changes. In 1960, there was only 179 million people in the US. Today there is 310 milion people in the US. This is a very dishonest way of representing crime.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 11:54:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:53:22 PM, neutral wrote:
What the Bible is clear about is that context matters.

And context does matter.

Tell me, would anyone support slavery in this day and age? Would we do so if say, thousands of Soldiers showed up armed to the teeth and threatened to rape, kill, and pillage your entire city - burning it to the ground unless you supported slavery? Because that is the reality of what ancient civilizations contended with. Legions would quite literally show up and scorch the very earth if any serious resistance to slavery reared its head.

Think Spartacus.

Hundreds of the thousands of people butchered to put down a slave revolt. The entire weight of the Empire brought to bear to crush the revolt and return slaves to their role.

Its pretty easy to say, "I'd be tough! I would not crack," but ... well, yes you would. Either that or you would have to flee into the veritable wilderness, where the dearth of civilization and police forces could very well lead to your capture and enslavement anyway.

Sure. But this is only because we had no choice, because we were forced to become slaves. Just because you were forced to become slaves, doesnt mean you support slavery. Nor does being forced to accept something, doesnt mean you actually accept it.

If a Muslim put a gun to my head and said "Become a Muslim or else you die", sure, id be praising allah all the way. But I wouldnt actually be a muslim, I wouldnt actually believe, I would simply be lying.

Even within the Empire, entire system of justice, law enforcement, and capture existed to sustain slavery.

Didnt Moses bring forth a new set of laws to the hebrews?

So what advice DO you give knowing that this is the reality of slavery? Do you make it clear that all are EQUAL before God? Which is in Christian doctrine? Do you nevertheless counsel, with Spartacus and Roman Servile Wars being recent, bloody memories, that masters should be good and kind and that slaves should be good servants, with BOTH extolling the virtues of humanity? Do you counsel following the law or braking the law? insighting Servile Insurrection? Mass murder and war?

If your freedom is tranpled upon, is it better to just stay silent? If your government is corrupt, is it better to leave it be? Was it wrong for the countries to wage war against Hitler? Im sure surrendering wouldve spared a lot less bloodshed. Was it wrong the US to engage in civil war to abolish slavery? Is it wrong to stand up and fight to protect something?

The truth of the matter is that slavery would take Sea Change in human thought and politics. the idea of ACTUAL human equality would have to weather the dark and middle ages, wherein a blue blooded aristocracy was given rights over the rest of humanity - a veritable 'ruling class' over the masses - even the 'Free' were hardly 'equal'. It isn't until the breaking of feudal power and privilege, that its even possible to 'think' ably equality in man. That took the advent of cooperative government and finances, the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Renaissance, and other changes that made representative forms of government not just possible, but gave them significant advantages.

You mean the sort of change that Jesus Christ tried to instill that lead to the initial persecution and bloody massacres and genocides of his followers for decades to come?

I mean, even with Moses, he came down with a new set of laws, did he not? What wouldve prevented him from coming down with a set of laws that abolished slavery? It doesnt have to be violent and bloody, like "free all slaves and kill their masters", all it has to be is simply stating "Hebrews can no longer own another human being as property."

And as that spirit of equality spread, there lay the question in Christian theology: Are all men equal before God? If so, what does that mean?

On one side of the Atlantic, that meant William Wilbureforce could over the course of generation, use reason to bring about the consensus driven rejection of slavery. On the other? It took America its bloodiest War to finally ride ourselves of slavery. And there is little doubt that, without the superior industrial capacity of the Northern States, the ENTIRE STATE APPARATUS being arrayed to enforce freedom, that the South - arrayed much as Rome was - would have prevailed and slavery would have been the norm.

Sure. And do you forget the initial reason why the south had endoresed slavery? Are you not aware of the many pastors and preachers who said and believed that slavery was a God given right, given to them through the divine interpretation and revelation of the bible, both old and new?

Now it is easy. Correct?

Then why do so many who are so critical of 'Biblical' support for slavey find it so hated to condemn modern slavery? Human Trafficking and sexual servitude? The excuses are quite prolific including the irrational belief that million of women just 'choose' prostitution, even as mounting evidence of human trafficking, enslavement, and testimonies of former call girls and UN, US State, Academia, all notice the rising costs of sexual servitude.

Im pretty sure most atheists are against this too.

The Bible is quite clear about such things is it not? All men and women ARE equal, so why would we think enslaving someone merely for sexual relief - or unabashedly rationalizing their plight to scratch our particular itch was correct? And yet what advice to give to girls and boys trapped in this system in countries where the legal system, Thailand, Myanmar, are geared toward treating them like property and returning them to pimps? What advice do you give those who MUST either endure grave injustice or commit suicide? All while waiting for the Sea Change required for their governments to acknowledge that what is happening is wrong and bury the pimps in jail rather than the victims?

Women and men are not equal, according to the bible.

So yes, it is in the Bible, but its not ... as black and white as its so often presented.

Its certainly black enough.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 2:40:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 11:54:16 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:53:22 PM, neutral wrote:
What the Bible is clear about is that context matters.

And context does matter.

Tell me, would anyone support slavery in this day and age? Would we do so if say, thousands of Soldiers showed up armed to the teeth and threatened to rape, kill, and pillage your entire city - burning it to the ground unless you supported slavery? Because that is the reality of what ancient civilizations contended with. Legions would quite literally show up and scorch the very earth if any serious resistance to slavery reared its head.

Think Spartacus.

Hundreds of the thousands of people butchered to put down a slave revolt. The entire weight of the Empire brought to bear to crush the revolt and return slaves to their role.

Its pretty easy to say, "I'd be tough! I would not crack," but ... well, yes you would. Either that or you would have to flee into the veritable wilderness, where the dearth of civilization and police forces could very well lead to your capture and enslavement anyway.

Sure. But this is only because we had no choice, because we were forced to become slaves. Just because you were forced to become slaves, doesnt mean you support slavery. Nor does being forced to accept something, doesnt mean you actually accept it.

If a Muslim put a gun to my head and said "Become a Muslim or else you die", sure, id be praising allah all the way. But I wouldnt actually be a muslim, I wouldnt actually believe, I would simply be lying.

Even within the Empire, entire system of justice, law enforcement, and capture existed to sustain slavery.

Didnt Moses bring forth a new set of laws to the hebrews?

So what advice DO you give knowing that this is the reality of slavery? Do you make it clear that all are EQUAL before God? Which is in Christian doctrine? Do you nevertheless counsel, with Spartacus and Roman Servile Wars being recent, bloody memories, that masters should be good and kind and that slaves should be good servants, with BOTH extolling the virtues of humanity? Do you counsel following the law or braking the law? insighting Servile Insurrection? Mass murder and war?

If your freedom is tranpled upon, is it better to just stay silent? If your government is corrupt, is it better to leave it be? Was it wrong for the countries to wage war against Hitler? Im sure surrendering wouldve spared a lot less bloodshed. Was it wrong the US to engage in civil war to abolish slavery? Is it wrong to stand up and fight to protect something?

The truth of the matter is that slavery would take Sea Change in human thought and politics. the idea of ACTUAL human equality would have to weather the dark and middle ages, wherein a blue blooded aristocracy was given rights over the rest of humanity - a veritable 'ruling class' over the masses - even the 'Free' were hardly 'equal'. It isn't until the breaking of feudal power and privilege, that its even possible to 'think' ably equality in man. That took the advent of cooperative government and finances, the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Renaissance, and other changes that made representative forms of government not just possible, but gave them significant advantages.

You mean the sort of change that Jesus Christ tried to instill that lead to the initial persecution and bloody massacres and genocides of his followers for decades to come?

I mean, even with Moses, he came down with a new set of laws, did he not? What wouldve prevented him from coming down with a set of laws that abolished slavery? It doesnt have to be violent and bloody, like "free all slaves and kill their masters", all it has to be is simply stating "Hebrews can no longer own another human being as property."

And as that spirit of equality spread, there lay the question in Christian theology: Are all men equal before God? If so, what does that mean?

On one side of the Atlantic, that meant William Wilbureforce could over the course of generation, use reason to bring about the consensus driven rejection of slavery. On the other? It took America its bloodiest War to finally ride ourselves of slavery. And there is little doubt that, without the superior industrial capacity of the Northern States, the ENTIRE STATE APPARATUS being arrayed to enforce freedom, that the South - arrayed much as Rome was - would have prevailed and slavery would have been the norm.

Sure. And do you forget the initial reason why the south had endoresed slavery? Are you not aware of the many pastors and preachers who said and believed that slavery was a God given right, given to them through the divine interpretation and revelation of the bible, both old and new?

Now it is easy. Correct?

Then why do so many who are so critical of 'Biblical' support for slavey find it so hated to condemn modern slavery? Human Trafficking and sexual servitude? The excuses are quite prolific including the irrational belief that million of women just 'choose' prostitution, even as mounting evidence of human trafficking, enslavement, and testimonies of former call girls and UN, US State, Academia, all notice the rising costs of sexual servitude.

Im pretty sure most atheists are against this too.

The Bible is quite clear about such things is it not? All men and women ARE equal, so why would we think enslaving someone merely for sexual relief - or unabashedly rationalizing their plight to scratch our particular itch was correct? And yet what advice to give to girls and boys trapped in this system in countries where the legal system, Thailand, Myanmar, are geared toward treating them like property and returning them to pimps? What advice do you give those who MUST either endure grave injustice or commit suicide? All while waiting for the Sea Change required for their governments to acknowledge that what is happening is wrong and bury the pimps in jail rather than the victims?

Women and men are not equal, according to the bible.

So yes, it is in the Bible, but its not ... as black and white as its so often presented.

Its certainly black enough.

You tell me atheist. Is it better to remain silent or get entire families, villages, and cities raped, pillaged, burnt to the ground, the men slaughtered viciously, and the lot of you hauled off to be slaves.

You tell me rather than play the high an mighty atheist God who will always be right - because you were indoctrinated to into a position of self righteousness?

So what is your advice, die .. or be silent. Not just die, but everything around gets ripped apart and destroyed included thousands of innocent people. What's your choice? Right, form perfect safety you advocate what ... exactly? Whatever choice allows you to Lord in superiority over others?

Where indeed in your condemnation of modern sexual slavery? Right, its just a self righteous pot shot against religion - well, atheists on;t value women as equals either, because last time I checked, the income gap between genders is still there among you atheists - so ... just by your own standard.

But when it comes to violence? Are you one of the 1%? Did you go off to combat and serve your country when it called? Or did you bravely go shopping? DO you have any idea what it feels like to watch another human being get ripped apart right in front of your eyes? To walk into a rape and torture room, whose sole existence is meant to terrorize populations into silence feels or smells like?

So when you advocate your self righteous swill of standard, know that you do so from a position of both extreme arrogance and ignorance. And you could not even bring you anti slavery BD to condemn modern slavery ... yet we are to be judged by arrogance and overt hypocrisy are we?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 6:31:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 2:40:37 PM, neutral wrote:
You tell me atheist. Is it better to remain silent or get entire families, villages, and cities raped, pillaged, burnt to the ground, the men slaughtered viciously, and the lot of you hauled off to be slaves.

You tell me, theist. In this hypothetical scenario of yours, what is the cost of remaining silent, and what prevents us from fighting back?

You tell me rather than play the high an mighty atheist God who will always be right - because you were indoctrinated to into a position of self righteousness?

I dont think ive ever claimed that I was always right. But that doesnt prevent me from realizing what is right.

So what is your advice, die .. or be silent. Not just die, but everything around gets ripped apart and destroyed included thousands of innocent people. What's your choice? Right, form perfect safety you advocate what ... exactly? Whatever choice allows you to Lord in superiority over others?

Be silent and... What will happen, exactly? Be silent and have my children become slaves? Be silent and watch my neighbors be dragged off to become slaves?

Where indeed in your condemnation of modern sexual slavery? Right, its just a self righteous pot shot against religion - well, atheists on;t value women as equals either, because last time I checked, the income gap between genders is still there among you atheists - so ... just by your own standard.

Ill condemn modern sexual slavery right now. I dont think I ever said I didnt condemn modern slavery. Why would you think I wouldnt condemn modern slavery? I dont understand why youre bringing this up. I condemn modern slavery. I condemn the slavery that is endorsed within the bible. I condemn all forms of slavery.

But when it comes to violence? Are you one of the 1%? Did you go off to combat and serve your country when it called? Or did you bravely go shopping? DO you have any idea what it feels like to watch another human being get ripped apart right in front of your eyes? To walk into a rape and torture room, whose sole existence is meant to terrorize populations into silence feels or smells like?

I still dont understand this hypothetical situation you are bringing up, of "Stay silent or be killed/tortured/raped".

But since its irrelevant to this discussion, I will say yes, I am one of the 1%, I did go off to combat and serve my country.

So whats your point? Are you saying that if you see your daughter, your son being dragged off to become a slave, it is better for you to sit there and stay silent? Its easy to stay silent when you are not the one being dragged off to become a slave.

So when you advocate your self righteous swill of standard, know that you do so from a position of both extreme arrogance and ignorance. And you could not even bring you anti slavery BD to condemn modern slavery .

I told you, I condemn modern slavery, as do most atheists. What does any of this have to do with the depiction of slavery in the bible?
chass23RN
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:17:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 11:34:16 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:22:25 PM, chass23RN wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:01:58 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 5:56:41 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:26:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 4:10:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:02:46 AM, rroberts wrote:
It would seem to me one of the major weaknesses of all religions is that they are formed on pure opinions as opposed to verifiable, proven facts. We assume Moses was given the 10 Commandments because in his opinion God talked to him. Assuming Moses didn't lie, how did he know for sure it was God speaking to him. It was his opinion. A native in the middle of the Amazon today might listen to a CD in his language giving him the 10 commandments. He would very probably think his God had spoken, just as Moses did. That would be an opinion.

In the early years of the Church, theologians from Athanasius (c.296-373) , Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory (540-604) all the way up to Thomas Aquinas wrote thousands of pages all based on their pious speculations and opinions. The early church accepted their writings most likely because they were all learned, cultured, and pious men. Sometimes their logic was faulty. Like "all complex things require a designer/creator" which begs the question who then created the most complex thing imaginable, i.e. God.

Sometimes their writings were so abstract as to be unintelligible to most men of the day. And in Aquinas's case never even completed. He made the final comment "I will write no more, I go to await my death, what has been revealed to me makes all my writings seem as straw." In his day straw was used to soak up the mud on the floor of stables and primitive houses. That's a harsh thing to say if he really believed what he wrote.

Does anyone know of some religious beliefs that are based on fact, not just opinion?

Are you kidding?

Do you even know what an argument is? How beliefs are derived? Simply because you dismiss the writings of others as opinions without merit doesn't actually make it so.

So here is a trick for you:

Mohammed, Buddha, and Jesus Christ were all quite real. That is a fact.

Your opinion that everyone else JUST has an opinion? Is an opinion.

Better yet? Your belief that there is no God? Is not based on evidence now is it? Its an opinion.

Honestly, do atheists really think the entire world was utterly bat crap crazy until they showed up as discovered what logic was?

Wanna debate God sometime? And I will carry the BoP to make you happy.

You already have a burden of proof. We've debated God, and you got angry (belying the 'rationalism' of atheism).

The topic here is about the major flaw in 'all' religions, which appears to be, as per usual with such grand, sweeping generalizations, the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion.

Seriously, this thread has all the hall marks of typical atheist argumentation these days ... as in google some major Christian theologians and then pretend we have read them, much less that we understand them, and then just dismiss them as OBVIOUSLY based on nothing more than opinion.

And the real problem? Isn't that someone notices this (who has actually read a few of those theologians) and the absolute dearth of substance in the claim, its that religious people are afraid to debate?

In case you haven't noticed S, there are all kinds of debates about God and religion in this section of the forum. Take your pick.

As you pick, do try to be relevant and actually engage on the subject at hand.

So is that a yes or no? I can send you the debate challenge?

One thing that tells me there is something in Christianity at least for this country is the statistics. Since the increasing moral decay of this world and people it is a fact things have became alot worse. The Bible tells us this will happen. For example in 1960 the murder rate was 9,110 and in 2012 it was 14,827. The total violent crimes in 1960 was 288,460 and in 2012 it was 1,214,464. Look how many people now are addicted to drugs, look at the change for the worse in our school age children, look at the amount of people on antidepressants and committing suicide ect... If this is not linked to our moral decay then what is it? It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see something is wrong here.

Convenient how you didnt post what the crime rates were in the 1980-1990s, since it has actually decreased today. In 1960, Murder in the US was 5.1 per 100,000 people, in 1980, it was 10.4 per 100,000 people, and today, it is only 4.7 per 100,000.

The reason why you cant just post a total number, is because the population changes. In 1960, there was only 179 million people in the US. Today there is 310 milion people in the US. This is a very dishonest way of representing crime.

Good, this country is safer then ever. There should be no reasons for liberals to cause a big stink over our assault rifles...