You are making an either/or distinction that I’m not. What if the bible is divinely inspired, but not true? E.g., what if the universe was not created in six days, but that’s how g-d wanted it explained? Is g-d then a liar or a realist? And, under either interpretation, how does it affect the validity of religions based on the bible?
Sua
As far as I am concerned, if the bible is divinely inspired, then it is true, no matter how absurd or contradictory. If an actual, honest-to-goodness, omnipotent being decided to write (er, dictate) in metaphor and parable, then who am I to quibble? There is not always a “happy medium” in an issue, and I think this one IS an either/or proposition.
I don’t understand how we are supposed to have any breathing room for argumentation if an all-powerful being does exist and had a hand in the creation of its holy text. Unless he is is jerk, of course. In that case, I think the idea of the bible having any value is pretty well settled in the negative.
I suppose this all comes back to the nature of God, as almost all religious arguments eventually do.
Well, I just want to know if the person who came to my door asking me to join them in Kissing Hank’s Ass has stopped by your place as well…
pause for people to go to that link, read it and chortle appropriately
Okay, you back? Good.
Now, the question using this new, very important bit of information I helpfully provided above, is as follows:
Does it matter whether the whole issue of Kissing Hank’s Ass is factual or not?
I would say, no… to John and Mary!!. They believe it to be real. They have faith that Kissing Hank’s Ass will get them a million dollars.
Even though there has been no tangible evidence to support their wishes, they still have faith that it happened, and not a single very clear and logical argument to the contrary from the fine fellow (played by David B as a stand-in) at the door will change their mind.
If we add to the fact that they “feel” Hank’s presense, and that they can pray to Hank and know that when He speaks back to them that He is telling them to Kiss His Ass, they just “know” it even more. Sure, the story doesn’t go into their personal relationship™ with Hank (or His Ass, for that matter), but many proponents of many religions sure do!
As such, I maintain that the belief in something is what makes it real. As long as people are out there Kissing Hank’s Ass, it keeps Hank alive (even if He never existed).
If Jesus was a sham, it wouldn’t make the guys proponents any more noble (using Polycarp and RTFirefly), nor would it make the annoying mind-melded fundie zealots any less annoying. One group accepts Him as real and use His example to be good people in His image. The other group ignore His message for the most part and use the guy as a wayto feel better than others while allaying their own fears that they might be, in fact, wrong about some things.
Even if we disregard Hank’s Ass for a minute (and, God, why would you want to?!?), the fact that people such as Polycarp or cmkeller and sdimbert can both find use the inspiration of totally different Gods (well, not totally… bear with me, okay?) to both become as good as they can be and strive to be better, while the SAME GODS (certainly the same books and words) are “responsible” for idiots who kill abortion doctors and who stone ambulances in the Middle East that dare respond to a call after sundown?
There mere fact that the same words have SO MANY different interpretations (how many different Protestant sects are there?) tells me that it’s the belief that counts here.
Yer pal,
Satan
Yes, a great many people who follow their own unique interpretation of the bible do very good things. As many, (probably more, but I am a cynic) use their own interpretation as an excuse for the evils they commit. I think that the balance of good and evil done in its name is, in the best case, even.
Well, that is the thing, isn’t it? The whole point of the original question(s) is to find out wheather Chrisitanity is a positive influence, even if it is false–that is, there is no Christian God, Jesus was just a man, no hell…etc. You seem to feel that it doesn’t make a difference, am I wrong?
I will go further and say that good people are good people under any religion, culture, or political climate. They need no reason to be moral; they just are. Whatever the shortcomings of a religion, good people who practice it give it a good name. Those that are bad (immoral, maladaptive, whatever) most certainly do need a reason to justify their behavior. No one believes themselves evil, and they will find any excuse to avoid such realization.
An apocalyptic, authoritarian, and retributive religion, particularly one that is vague and contradictory enough to support any interpretation, fits the bill nicely.
**
I thought the whole point of this thread was whether any religion meant anything even if it was, in the end, a work of man and not a “God,” pick yer poison.
Many Christians (to use an example) say that the Bible has to be the inerrent word of God, to the point of suspending common sense to do so (Creationism, pi=3, ad nauseum), for example.
And I say that it is belief in the words which make them mean something, not merely the words there.
I disagree. Too many people in history and on this board have pointed out how faith helped them become beter people, and certainly, we’ve seen the damage that faith in certain things (cults, obsessing over a religion) can lead to as well. From turning you into a mind-melded fundie zealot to ODing on Kool Aid and everything in between.
Now, to be sure, many people are quite capable of being good and moral without religion, and many an asshole didn’t care either way about God.
But any positive (or negative) reinforcement can mold someone and point them in a certain direction, and to think that something as cosmic as God can’t have the same effect that, say, a beautiful Sunrise might have towards someone doing some good, or a record of metal music could help influence some disturbed person to kill, I think shos a lack of respect for what religion really means to a lot of people.
Yer pal,
Satan
I get the feeling we are talking past each other here, but…
I hope I haven’t implied that I think religion, even if false, is something unimportant to humanity, something that does not really mean anything. I certainly do not think that. I am a fairly hard atheist and a metaphysical naturalist, but I absolutely recognise the power of religious belief itself.
This power would not exist, however, if the adherents of religions did not believe their respective faiths were actually true. (And not “true” in a polite, fuzzy-wuzzy, universalist sense; true in the every day, real-world sense.) I think that someone’s faith would mean a great deal less to them if they became convinced that the claims their religion makes are false. Hell, this is how you get atheists, right?
All I am asking, as per my take on the thread’s subject, is that if Chritianity were proven absolutely false, would it still be beneficial?
This is pure opinion, of course, but I don’t think it is good for anyone to believe in something that is not true just because it makes them feel good, or because someone else thinks it makes them a better member of society. Of course, I have already stated that I don’t think Christianity does even that, so…
**
Yes. They have to believe it.
**
The point is moot. You can’t prove any faith false. Or true either. The former is why people who believe the religion believe it. The latter is why you (probably) reject it.
I mean, you can’t disprove Christianity, can you? Yet you reject it. Why? Well, I’m sure you gave it some thought. But in spite of the fact that you are in the minority on the issue, you do not have faith, specifically in Jesus.
So why are Christians going to suddenly, no matter what evidence is presented, turn tail? Are you prepared to turn tail should God tell you that you are wrong? What if you were drunk at the time? What if it was your best friend with the revelation? Everyone can rationalize away something if they really want to.
(Like the commentary someone once came up with on the other side of the coin: God comes down to a Creationist and says, “That’s not the way I did it. It was a parable. Evolution is correct; I wouldn’t create a bunch of lies! Forget about that stuff and work on being good to each other in my name, okay?” And the Christian would wake up the next morning and tell his friends, "Guess what! Satan visited me last night…)
Maybe it’s my limitation, and if so I apologize, but the hypothetical you propose is impossible: Literally, one cannot “disprove” faith, and since that has to be removed, and since we already know that all of the so-called evidence that convinced you to not believe (and ten times more) would not sway the belief of a huge portion of the devout, it’s a hypothetical I cannot even fathom being there.
So I am sorry if I am just too dense to get it. But you are making a hypothetical which requires a leap I don’t think possible.
Yer pal,
Satan
Geez. The title of the thread is “If the Bible is completely false, does it matter?” I thought that this hypothetical had long since been granted by everyone involved.
You can’t logically prove or disprove the existence of anything with total certainty (unless it is self-refuting…“married bachelors”…“square triangles”…yadda-yadda), but for the purposes of debate it can be easily allowed. I have to do it all the time when theists argue with me, and I grant the existence of God as a certainty, for the sake of the debate at hand.
I am not an atheist because faith cannot be proven with absolute certainty (this would be a cheap debater’s trick, of the stripe most used against atheists). I am an atheist because the evidence suggests it is highly unlikely that God exists.
This question is a little loaded, and probably rhetorical, but if God spoke to me, and I was not under the influence, I would revise my position as to his existence. I certainly wouldn’t “turn tail”. I did the best with the reason he gave me. If he faults me for it, he’s a prick, and I’d have been screwed anyway.
Anyhow, I don’t see how we can argue further if the original premise isn’t accepted. It has been interesting so far, however.
Hmm, I’m no anthropologist, and while I agree those ideas have been a recurring one through out history, I don’t think it’s quite so absolute. Even ignoring that individuals may not share the morality of the society in which they live, there’s still room to quibble. For one, perhaps you meant it, but you didn’t qualify that these rules have often only been applied to other members of the society. Of course, that isn’t relevant for the “no incest” bit, but it certainly is for “don’t kill” and “don’t steal”.
I suspect “don’t kill us, the people, but those sub-human dogs on the other side of the river are fair game” has probably been more universal in sentiment. Even then it has been more like “don’t kill (except in those situations where it is allowed)”. The prevaling morality in the US currently allows for killing in certain circumstances, for instance.
