|
Commie NedFlanders posted:It takes real trust, real faith, and the understanding that it's not going to happen your way because a main component is overcoming your own ego, not trying to test God in order to prove yourself right. Of course it works but it takes more than saying a scripted line of words like some spiritual konami code, you have to really mean it in your heart and if you give it up so easily, that's the fruit of doubt, not of faith So it's the
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Things you can learn from the bible, from a historical perspective: The early history of Christian thought and the successive divisions of and edits made by later Christians, along with perhaps broader cultural ideas of the environment Christians found them in, and their changes over time. Things you can't learn: Whether they describe real events or not, whether those descriptions are metaphorical or not, and if so, exactly which parts of metaphors and in what ways. Any way you slice it, you're introducing your own biases as to what you choose to ignore and what you choose to keep - you're not learning about history, you're just discovering what you want to believe. /\/\/\ This exact same logic applies to basically all myths.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not at all, things like treaties are great historical documents, even if they're not textbooks. Religious texts are not historical documents, they're not serving a practical and contemporary purpose, nor are they serious attempts to record actual events. They are persuasive works meant to connect with people emotionally, like fairy tales. They are not reliable, pretending otherwise is delusional. Fairy tales are often more true than primary sourced historical documents
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Fairy tales are often more true than primary sourced historical documents Such as?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So it's the I'm going based on your claim that it didn't work and your current rejection. Abraham was promised children by God and it took an entire lifetime and he never gave up his faith and that faith is what justified him to God Of course I can't know your heart, but if you are claiming that God didn't do something for you and now you reject God....well....that story is as old as mankind is
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Such as? Platos allegory of the cave is more True than nitpicking about what specific month Socrates was or was not born in
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Platos allegory of the cave is more True than nitpicking about what specific month Socrates was or was not born in True in what sense? Commie NedFlanders posted:I'm going based on your claim that it didn't work and your current rejection. So God cannot fail, only be failed. Now where have I heard that before...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Platos allegory of the cave is more True than nitpicking about what specific month Socrates was or was not born in You would think Plato would base his political and epistemological views on a better song.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not at all, things like treaties are great historical documents, even if they're not textbooks. Religious texts are not historical documents, they're not serving a practical and contemporary purpose, nor are they serious attempts to record actual events. They are persuasive works meant to connect with people emotionally, like fairy tales. They are not reliable, pretending otherwise is delusional. They are all historical documents; the distinction between recording "actual events" & religious texts is anachronistic. E:changed a wrong word to the right word. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
I like the Mickey Mouse image, I believe in it. I've based my life around it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It does not mean the event is false, but referencing a real event does not make a fictionally story real. And I'm the one accused of misrepresentation. Who What Now posted:True in what sense? Well I hear it in Libertarianism and Communist circles. But then one could argue they are nothing more then attempts by those without God to replace God.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:It takes real trust, real faith, and the understanding that it's not going to happen your way because a main component is overcoming your own ego, not trying to test God in order to prove yourself right. Of course it works but it takes more than saying a scripted line of words like some spiritual konami code, you have to really mean it in your heart and if you give it up so easily, that's the fruit of doubt, not of faith If you really want to believe, your brain will work overtime trying to interpret anything possible as a sign that He really exists. It's not surprising that you've probably felt and seen things that you think are caused by God. It's the same sort of thing that goes on when someone who believes in ghosts stays in a haunted house. When you point out and demonstrate how the airflow in the house probably caused that door to open last night, not ghosts, they get all pissy and upset. But why? Why this anger? I think it's because they realize that they're wrong, but they get too much out of this belief to let it go. The only solution is to push that terrible knowledge away, to have it be this thing that they never let themselves think. This is a struggle, and so they turn to other people and 'evidence' such as feelings and signs for reassurance. Of course they get angry when they're reminded of this, and they turn to their apologist arguments that don't make any sense when examined, but a true believer never examines them too closely, lest they figure out how wrong they are. It seems like a lot of mental effort is expended on this. Just thinking about it exhausts me. It must have been much easier to be religious in the past, when it still might have seemed possible for the supernatural to exist somewhere out there. It's dying off and everybody knows it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
The arguments based on personal experience and faith are also dumb because you can find people from every religion who claim to have those kinds of experiences and feelings. Why is your experience right but the experience of the other millions of people around the world wrong?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
"reddit euphoria fedora trillby dank memes" -posters wishing to avoid confronting the fact that magic does not exist
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:"reddit euphoria fedora trillby dank memes" Another person who can't see what's being said because they're blinded by their own biases. But don't worry, we're here to help 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
I see the derails about the nature of self, the veracity of bible stories, and pedantry over the definition of atheism to avoid talking about magic just fine. Magic doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Magic doesn't exist. I don't remember anyone here claiming it does?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
They resorted to posting reddit trash instead. As for the human experience, if it wasn't tied to the brain the guillotine would certainly be less effective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Magic is for pagans. If getting compared to Reddit makes you all so heated, then maybe stop posting like this is r/athiesm
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I don't remember anyone here claiming it does? CommieNedFlanders and The kingfish do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Definitely not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If you don't believe in the metaphysical then you don't believe in anything. EDIT : Man, you belive in God.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
But not magic
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Metaphysics isn't magic, even if you're non-religious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
"None of you had better compare me to a Reddit stereotype!" *posts about sky wizards and how metaphysics is magic*
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:
Seriously, are you ever going to actually contribute, or just be a petulant child? The Belgian posted:Metaphysics isn't magic, even if you're non-religious. The Kingfish posted:"None of you had better compare me to a Reddit stereotype!" Metaphysics as you two are using it is just a synonym for supernatural, aka magic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:08
|
|
No u!
|
Why would you assume that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Metaphysics isn't magic, even if you're non-religious. Google'd Metaphysics. Definitions: Google posted:The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. No basis in reality kind of sums up Magic. And, for atheists, sums up God. One in the same, and all that. Can we please stop this self-serving crapfest, admit what side of the ideological aisle we're posting from, and get back to the topic at hand? Wait, we can't, because we've already cleared the topic pages ago. rudatron posted:Your dumb little gotcha has already been disarmed, somewhat at length. To remind you: all beliefs are choices, are choices are subject to moral judgement, but there are still right and wrong choices, and if you want to be right, you need to make the right choice. Don't give up your day job, because you're a terrible trapper of the most dangerous game. So stop being pendantic, you damned pendants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
I wish I could choose to be agnostic of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:Google'd Metaphysics. Definitions: Googled magic. Definitions: quote:the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. "No basis in reality" doesn't have much to do with the definition of magic. They aren't the same thing. Edit: I'm not even being pedantic here, you people are using words wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
If a god isn't magic , then it must be part of the natural world. That means there should be some evidence of its existence. What is it? If we don't have that evidence, what reason do we have to believe that such a god exists?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
"the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." sounds suspiciously like God. Not all magic is Harry Potter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
ped my rear endThe Kingfish posted:They are all historical documents; the distinction between recording "actual events" & religious texts is anachronistic. *fast forward to future achaeologists digging up a Law & Order dvd case* "Look at this ancient media! An actual live recording of police detectives in New York City! Some information at the start is missing, but it still seems to be intact" "Wait a second, according to this other evidence we have, Ice-T was a musician, not a detective. I'm not sure this is an actual historical account" "Oh don't be so anachronistic, why else would they make this if it wasn't based on actual people?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why would you assume that? I'm not assuming anything, that's a stone hard fact. I know you people really don't like it when someone cuts to the chase like that, but I've been through this whole song and dance too many times before. See, what you're going to do next is either whine and stomp your feet about how I'm being a "big old meanie redditor" or you'll scoff and pretend that no, when you say metaphysics you actually mean *faaaaaaaaaaaaart*. But in the end you're just going to be lying, to us and more importantly to yourself. Because you're at least smart enough to have picked up on the fact that "supernatural" is a dirty word in these conversations. You might even understand why it is. But lucky for you (or so you think) apologists have found a very sciency-sounding way to say supernatural: metaphysics. Where 'meta' is a replacement for 'super' and 'physics' for 'natural'. It even has a proper application you can pretend to use! But you don't use it properly, because it cannot properly be applied to any God-concept. So you misuse and abuse the word, twisting and contriving it to almost sort of look legitimate if you're half-blind and squint a little. But it's not. So now the only question is how you're going to try and deflect; stamp and cry or scoff and fart?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Googled magic. Definitions: I'm going to base my argument away from Clarke's law on magic and technology, simply for the sake of clarity. 'Mysterious' and 'Supernatural' are, in their useage, not based in reality. Whatever causes the action isn't knowable or observable using realistic natural laws, and therefor comes from somewhere outside of reality. So, yeah, still having no basis in reality. And that right there? The little passive-aggressive 'Well, that's not the EXACT text' thing you did? That's the definition of pedantic. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedantic posted:pedanticor pedantical Covers the bases. And, yeah, I mis-spelled it the first time around. I can admit my mistakes. And once again, it all just detracts from what people are saying to you in this thread: That God, and Religion, don't have a scientific basis to work from. It's a matter of faith, which itself precludes reason, and shouldn't be treated in the same manner as scientific observation. Personally, that's not to say that religion is wrong. They're just two separate questions, and mashing them together makes this complicated and messy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
rudatron posted:ped my rear end You are still mistakenly using terms like "historical accounts" and "historical documents" to mean "objective facts about history." I suggest you try reading some historical accounts from the Crusades; they provide ready examples of how the factual and the mythic become all mixed up in pre-modern writings, and how you can read between the lines of a primary source to tease out what was likely true from what is obviously false.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
No I'm not, I'm calling you out for calling the loving Bible a historical document. Here's a question: who loving wrote the gospels? The names they're given are arbitrary, ehll they could have all been written by multiple people. They're also not dated by anything other than writing style. Where were they written? You can guess, but you don't loving know. Comparing a mythology to dumb poo poo soldiers passing on gossip, rumors, or exaggerating for effect is absolutely insane. They are written for very different reasons, and the reasons that the gospels were written makes them unreliable! If you get enough personal, contemporary accounts from people you can place in a context, you can sort through the bullshit. That's not necessarily the case with texts that are primarily written for narrative effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:I'm going to base my argument away from Clarke's law on magic and technology, simply for the sake of clarity. Metaphysics doesn't cause action and deals only with abstract concepts, which is actually a big difference. Getting back to the topic of the thread, I don't think faith should be treated the same as scientific observation. In fact, I don't think that there is ANY compelling physical evidence for faith and that being an atheist isn't a choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Metaphysics doesn't cause action and deals only with abstract concepts, which is actually a big difference. Metaphysics as you're using it is worthless garbage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
rudatron posted:No I'm not, I'm calling you out for calling the loving Bible a historical document. Here's a question: who loving wrote the gospels? The names they're given are arbitrary, ehll they could have all been written by multiple people. They're also not dated by anything other than writing style. Where were they written? You can guess, but you don't loving know. The Gospels are classically written greco-roman biographies and are not distinctly mythological or religious compared to their contemporaries in the genre. They are as reliable as any greco-roman biography (not very) but they do have historical value and historians generally accept that the subjects of greco-roman biographies were actual people. Accounts of the Crusades include the same sort of supernatural stuff as the Gospels do, yet we accept the general message of the texts, to do otherwise is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:58
|
|