Oh, of course. I’d abandon my atheism in a heartbeat if concrete empirical evidence for the existence of God appeared.
I’m just pointing out that faith is a really lousy way of deciding what to believe. You’d be better off flipping a coin.
Which goes back to the point of the OP. How can you take the criticism of the panel seriously when at least 2 of the 3 people on it have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about?
Hoo boy. It’s been a while. Seems to me that I ran across them in my Global Ethics days; I fell off the listserv a while ago. I’ll have to do some digging. It’s a conclusion I came to when I did my own survey of world religions and was pleased when I saw it had been reached by ‘real’ scholars 
It’s a bit late at night in most areas and people have to get to work in the morning. I say give them 24 hours to find evidence. I mean, look what Jack Bauer can do in 24 hours. 
:dubious: I have no idea what you are getting at. What does the Constitution have to do with some studies you read about sometime ?
We are talking about basic principles not nitpicky differences or radical elements. Just as the jihadists are not representative of fundamental Islam, neither is killing unbelievers considered a primary element in Christian teachings. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Is your argument so week that you resort to that?
The First and Second Great Commandments might be considered basic teachings in Christianity. The Beatitudes might be considered basic teachings. The example of how to pray might be considered a basic teaching. Quoting a bit of scripture out of context does not automatically make something a basic teaching – especially when it appears to contradict most of the other teachings of the Christ.
In Judaism, I would think that the Ten Commandments would be considered “basic teachings.” There certainly may be others.
Listing all other Gods sounds like a tall order, Czarcasm. I think that there would be a much shorter list if Revenant and Der Trihs: listed the religions that have as basic teachings that followers should hate other gods and kill unbelievers.
Yes, it would be easier-on those that claim that there are only cosmetic differences between the major religions of the world, that is. I didn’t ask for a list of all possible gods, because that would be silly. I simply asked for a list of common traits among all gods, those things they all have in common. Let’s see the the universally agreed upon traits of “The Divine”.
I can’t speak for those “experts on God.” Is that what they called themselves? Is that how they were introduced? That would be really unusual.
I don’t expect you to be converted by facts. This isn’t about accumulating convincing facts. Did we fail to make that obvious somewhere along the way?
Crap. I’m lumped in with Der Trihs, now? I apologise if i’ve inadvertently insulted anyone. Note that I myself didn’t mention “hating other gods” or “kill unbelievers” as examples; mine were much more reasonable and (I would hope) polite.
But it just so happens I am able to list such religions. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism…
And here the problem lies. You would of course say that these religions teach peace, not killing and hating. Hey, fair enough. But if I go talk to some nutcase out there, i’m sure I can find a few people who think that those are perfectly reasonable conclusions. So answer me this; why should I take your word on what a religion stands for over theirs? How may I know the true, correct interpretation?
Quiddity would like us to look at the meta, not the opinions or actions of people. Problem is, we don’t have any “meta” to look at. All we have are people’s and our own interpretation of such things. Hey, we even have people’s interpretation as to what’s “meta” and what isn’t! And that’s the problem here. Religions can’t just be boiled down to “hey, we all sort of believe in the same thing in the end”. Cutting down to basic concepts doesn’t mean we get to ignore secondary ones. A blue cube and a red cube may be fundamentally similar, but they’re just as much fundamentally different. Now bring colour-blind people into the mix.
So she doesn’t first have to at least mentally list all of the currently worshipped gods before she determines what they all have in common?
Still silly.
Not half as silly as stating as fact that the only differences are cosmetic.
Wow. Did she say the only differences are cosmetic?
Let’s make it even easier. List the common traits of the top 100…no, lets make it 50…hell, lets make it just 20 of the worshiped gods. I’m willing to lower the bar that much.
In this we are somewhat in agreement, because I truly don’t ever expect to see any.
Why believe the few rather than the many anyway? But then, why take his word or mine? Educate yourself. Don’t look at a Christian if you want to know what the teachings of the Christ are. We are human beings and screw things up all the time. Look at the teachings.
Have I offered anything as “fact” that you disagree with or are you just being snide out of habit?
If we go by “number of worshippers” and using Wikipedia, the top 20 religions are;
Christianity
Islam
Non-Adherent (Secular/Atheist/Irreligious/Agnostic/Nontheist) (Not a religion, so we’ll discount this one.)
Hinduism
Chinese folk religion
Buddhism
Primal indigenous (“Pagan”)
African traditional and diasporic
Sikhism
Juche
Spiritism
Judaism
Bahá’í Faith
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jainism
Shinto
Cao Dai
Zoroastrianism
Tenrikyo
Neo-Paganism
Unitarian Universalism
I’m very much looking forward to seeing the links with Juche, for one.
An excellent plan! Let’s go with Quiddity’s earlier example; we don’t look at people who follow the Constitution of the U.S. to learn about it, we look at it ourselves. So, let’s do so.
Alright; the Constitution says that people have the right to bear arms. Superb! I didn’t really want them lopped off, anyway. They’re quite handy for moving things about.
What? It means arms as in weaponry? Oh, fair enough then. I’ll just go join my local militia so I get to carry one of these guns.
You don’t have to be in a militia? Huh. Looks like my interpretations of the text differ from yours. I wonder whose is correct?
Zoe, Bible quotes are used to support the equality of all human life. And they’re used for other religion, gender, and sexuality-bashing. They’re used to point out how we should enact a theocratic state, and for saying we should live and let live. Reading the texts doesn’t solve the problem; we all look out on the world through lenses of our own personality. If I ask you and **Der Trihs ** to read the Bible, would you both come up with similar ideas? Of course not. Now, I don’t like **Der Trih’s ** way of thinking or his opinions of religions and religious people in general; but which of his and your interpretations of the Bible would be the correct one? Bar obvious logical disconnects (Aha! “love thy neighbour!” that means “disco rules!”) there’s no way for us to say one is right over the other.
I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you offer something as “fact” first, then we’ll see if I disagree with it, o.k.?
Fairly easy to substantiate, though - simply line up every proof offered so far, and show them to be invalid. This work has already been done. I don’t have to do the disproving, just say that it has been done. Yes, it’s a bold assertion, but suddenly the onus is on you to prove I’m wrong, because I’m stating that the disproving has been done.
The onus is on those opposing the claim to show a proof that hasn’t been disproved. That is the only way you can prove that my simple statement is false. Note, that the argument “You’re lying when you say the work has already been done” is not a valid one unless you come up with a proof that hasn’t been dealt with. You have to show me to be a liar. Asking me for a cite may leave egg on my face, but it doesn’t prove me to be a liar, from that same fallacy of ignorance other theists in this thread love so well.
Or in other words, the only way you can disprove my statement is to stop dodging and come up with a proof.
I’m still waiting for **Quiddity Glomfuster **to tell me what aspect of “The Divine” the worship of a priest of Xipe Totec and the worship of a Christian/Jew/Muslim had in common.
It was an example. As in Constitution is to groups proclaiming to follow it as religion is to scattered groups who claim to be adherents. Get it yet?
Asked and answered. Boil down the Ten Commandments, you end up with 'honour a Divine (not necessarily a persona, but something greater) and ‘be good to others’. Same goes for the basic tenets of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.
Well, yes; it’s what you do when you step a level above the individual religions and examine common precepts of the phenomenon as a whole.
Precisely. Which is why trying to do analysis at the level of fine detail will mislead you. You need to pull back (or up) to where the bigger picture exists.
On the subject of ‘proofs’, nobody has yet satisfactorily answered me how they can accept the existence of similarly unprovable abstract concepts. Give me a hunk of proof I can touch and see and smell that ‘thought’ exists. Or love. Or hope. You simply cannot claim you live in a world where nothing that is not concrete doesn’t exist for you because the vast majority of the most important concepts about life are not concrete. Somebody give me proof that hope exists. Show me a photo. Measure me its size. Send me a piece.