I can appreciate what you’re saying. I’m sure there are certain beliefs that I have similar feelings about. Sometimes I have a hard time to resist a little sarcasm.
If you want to declare certain beliefs invalid then be specific and prepared to back it up. Blanket statements or inferences that anyone with spiritual beliefs is somehow dim is just ignorant and baseless. Of course like everyone else, including myself, you are allowed to choose ignorant beliefs if you want to.
The fact is that certain questions remain unaswered and are unverfiable either way. Does God exist? Do we have a soul or spirit that survives physical death? Did Jesus exist and how much if any of that story is fact?
You can choose which side of those unanswered questions you want to be on, but since you can’t prove your position you can’t honestly declare those who choose the opposite to have invalid beliefs. It’s just your own opinion, no more or less valid than anyone elses
I may say that there is no god, but that is only in response to those who claim there is one. This is assuming that all opinions and beliefs carry the same weight. If someone tells me they can walk on water should I be required to prove that they can’t? I think it is the responsibility of the claiment to prove the validity of his claim. Yet when I ask for this proof I invariably get the response that if I’d only look I’d find the answer. I find this as much insulting as you may have found my earlier tone. Atheists don’t become atheists in a world of religion without asking questions and looking for the answers.
.
I agree. Kindness is kindness. Compassion is compassion. Generousity is generousity. I don’t care where they come from when a person exhibits these qualities.
I’m in favor of dispelling the myths myself. It’s all about seperating the myth from the truth. The process goes on. We both know there are questions yet unanswered. Things we can’t prove one way or the other. Those things don’t qualify as myths. Just unsolved mysteries. You may choose to not believe certain things while I choose to believe. Time and a commitment to the truth will answer those questions for both of us. I hear a lot about the horrific acts committed in the name of religion. It’s sometimes used as a conedmnation of all religion. That seems a little ridiculous to me. Governments do horrific things. Should we abolish all governments. Buisnesses do greedy unethical things that hurts and sometimes kills people. Should we abolish all business? Mankinds struggle to grow goes on. Religion with it’s benefits and drawbacks will continue to be a part of trying to answer those unanswered questions.
When a lame and 2500 year old reason for something is given when there is a prefectly reasonable alternative available I don’t like to just let it pass.
How do you separate myth from truth when all you have as source material is a bunch of second hand fables? Maybe one could start the separation by saying that a central tenet, the ressurection, is mythical. All of the miracles are mythical and the idea that Jesus was Jahveh in a human form is mythical. And so on.
Until some extra-Biblical and contemporary accounts are discovered, such attempts to make the separation look like just a case of rehashing was has already been endlessly rehashed.
The only time someone has a responsibility to prove anything to you is if they wish to make an effort to convince you that their viewpoint is the correct one among the choices available. If they’re merely stating a belief there is no such requirement.
If you come into a thread and make the inference that all spirituality is baloney then I think it’s you thats required to offer proof. I see in your first post you admit that you have none. Is that true?
I’m not sure there’s anything offensive about “if you’d only look you’ll find the answer” I think it’s true. I believe the truth eventually will become apparent if we actually want the truth. Would I be safe in assuming the truth about these unanswered questions is what you want? Do you think your knowledge is complete? I’m sure mine isn’t. I’d love to see myths and legends give way to the truth. The answer we find may not be the one either one of us expected, and probably not the one anyone making such a statement intended, but still, finding the answers to unsolved mysteries isn’t such a bad thing is it?
Since I am unfamilar with the Platonic arguement you refer to then you’ll have to explain what was lame about my reasoning and what the reasonable alternative is. I didn’t say that the value in the story was to keep the masses in line. Those were your words.
Don’t assume what my source material is. Aside from what I may or may not believe personally, If you have proof that the things you list are fables then please offer it.
The whole point of an ethical or moral standard is to regulate behavior. “Keep the masses in line” just fell out naturally from that.
I think the idea to be fallacious that even though a story might well be a fabrication or contain fabrications it still should be thought a proper method for enforcing or teaching a moral code. When those taught by that method mature and discover that much, or even a good part, of what was taught to them as fact is, in fact, mere conjecture or even myth they often throw out the whole thing. It would be less objectionable if it were taught as a nice story that illustrates moral points.
There is no source on the life of Jesus other than the New Testament. Everything else is commentary on that. I don’t have to assume anything.
The story of Jesus isn’t just about an ethical or moral standard. Certainly religion has been used and is used still to manipulate the masses. That doesn’t negate all the unanswered questions that spiritual pursuits try to answer.
As I said. The story of Jesus isn’t just about moral behavior, but speaking just of that.
In ages gone by it was probably the best way. I wonder in an educated country like America what the viable alternative is. Considering the morals and ethics represented by our political and economic leaders what method do you think would work better in a practical way?
The process of letting go of our illusions is ongoing and not restricted to spiritual pursuits. What are you saying here? People might throw out any sense of morality if they learn that the story isn’t true? Anything to backup that opinion? The spectrum of beliefs on this story is already pretty wide. Some believe it literaly while others look at Jesus as a holy man or philosopher. I think people are perfectly capable of learning and growing and letting go of illusions when they are ready. I see you ignored my request for any evidence you might have that the things you listed are indeed fables. I would easily grant you that a lot of it is. So what I say. I repeat , the parts that are myth don’t diminish it’s value and I am* not * talking about controlling the masses. Embracing myth in the face of real evidence certainly impedes the progress of human growth. In the case od Jesus, God, and the question of soul, we don’t really know what is myth and what is truth do we? Perhaps it is the atheists who are embracing a myth.
Actually I was talking about the source of my personal beliefs which isn’t limited to any book, but let’s just consider Jesus for a moment. What about the Gnostic gospels and other non canonical writings?
Even in the NT Jesus speaks of a source beyond anything written. You may consider it myth or superstition but it remains an unsloved mystery which may be grounded in reality.
Right. Forgiveness and everlasting life are also important. That’s what makes it so attractive to those who want forgiveness and everlasting life.
Our political and economic leaders pay homage to Christianity as a matter of course, even those who aren’t Christian. It doesn’t seem to have affected their behavior all that much.
Well, I might suggest an early introduction to anthropology; how societies work, what kinds of moral systems have been tried and their similarities and differences. That could lead into learning about why it is better than not for us to respect others rights, including a certain degree of privacy, in order that ours will be respected. Stuff like that there.
The righteous are always telling us (without supplying any proof) that if you don’t believe in God you don’t believe in anything and all bets are off as far as behavior goes. So it isn’t at all strange that someone who has been told that you must believe Jesus was a God so that you will follow His teachings would feel sort of lost if that divinity becomes questionable to them.
Quite possibly a good question but I don’t know evough about that to answer. Does anyone really use Gnostic gospels to explain Jesus these days? I would expect that non-canonical writings are non-canonical because their authenticity is suspect. So would anyone studying Jesus use them as an authority?
Well no. In the NT someone wrote that Jesus spoke of a source beyond anything written (I’ll take your word for that), but that is just meaningless vebiage to me. That’s one of those New Age things that you say while looking way, way off into the distance. I think it might be a line from Lost Horizon.
Last I heard there are no roving bands of Atheists coming to people’s doors preaching their gospel. Last I heard there are not groups of atheists blowing people up in the name of their philosophy. Sorry, it is time for those who make outrageous claims to step up to the plate and prove that what they claim is true.
I have no proof that Zeus doesn’t exist, either. Am I required to prove that? I have no proof that there aren’t large amounts of virgins awaiting suicide bombers upon their death. Yet what is the likelyhood of this in actuality? Should I have to disprove each and every such outrageous claim? Do you think that all opinions carry the same weight as others do? If I have a gun pointed at someone’s head and say it is loaded, should we expect them to believe this statement? I at least have a gun, so the assumption is that I could have a bullet loaded into it. At least we have a basis for the conclusion that I am telling the truth. With spirituality and all that it entails we have nothing other than the words of the people making the claims. If I point my finger at someone’s head and say it’s loaded what could someone make of that statement? I guess they could say I had a gun disguised as a finger, but in all honesty they’d think I was a nut and carry on with their day.
And yet people makes claims being one with Jesus and other spiritual nonsense when in reality it could be nothing more than self delusions.
Of course it is on its own merit. Yet, in discussions of religion it is offensive. It is an easy out for those who claim to have found something, yet can’t prove it to anyone but themselves. It automatically assumes that I haven’t looked. I have looked and found nothing because nothing is all there is to find.
“Excuse me. I’m sorry, but I can’t seem to see or find the magical pink unicorn and I have looked for it, please show it to me before I end up in hell burning for all eternity.”
“The MPU will only appear to those who are willing to look within themselves, take the journey, slaughter the infidels, etc”
“So you are saying you really can’t show it to me then?”
“Well…, Yes that would be essentially correct”.
“Alrighty then”
I agree. Yet, whatever the truth is would have a basis in fact and would be apparent to all.
I find it terribly offensive. It implies that someone is lazy, for starters. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists that are well aware of the issues and answers offered up by believers. They don’t accept them because they’re based on faith rather than facts.
Also, isn’t this rather contradictory? On the one hand, you’re saying you have to look to find the answer, and then you say the truth will become apparent, implying that you don’t need to search for the answer.
I believe the second half of your statement. Eventually, we’ll all find out if there’s life after death, heaven and hell, or an eternal state of nothingness. It either is or it isn’t. I don’t believe any of us can control the outcome anyway. But hey…I could be wrong.
Right and we all know what a bunch of crap that forgiveness thing is.Who needs it? Seriously. I know that carrot of eternal reward is part of the attraction. Many people seek some external authority for their behavior. Thats why they want some book to be the word of God or their pastor to tell them what’s right or wrong, but people can and do work through those weaknesses if they seek the truth over tradition and myth. The message of Christ was that the truth will set us free. The fact that much of modern Christianity has misunderstood or distorted the essence of his message doesn’t diminish the value of it.
Our economic leaders? How so? I don’t blame Christianity for the dishonesty of our leaders who mouth empty platitudes. My point is that our political and economic leaders behave as they do because they consider thier behavior a proper response to living in the “real” world.
Great. I’m all for education. Sociology. Philosophy. Science. History. All great. I’d like to include a course in the world’s religions, their basic beliefs, and their historical significance in society. Since we believe in honesty we couldn’t teach that God doesn’t exist because we don’t know that to be true. We couldn’t teach that Jesus is a myth because we don’t know that to be true either. When kids ask do we have a soul that survives our physical death {and they will} we’d have to say we don’t know. There seems to be some popular theory among ahteists that the world would be better off without any religion since it is the source of so many of our problems. Honestly, that’s just the sort of unfounded pie in the sky belief that they scoff at in believers.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here but it seems to be pointless speculation. Here on the SDMB we can find examples of people who used to believe but now don’t. We also have examples of atheists and skeptics who now believe. In my case, my beliefs have changed of study and personal experience. I believe it’s about the truth and not myth and tradition.
The Gnostic gospels are being studied in an attempt to find out more about Christian history and the possibilities concerning Jesus. A more scholarly study of history would include non canonical writings. Some were discarded because of authenticity questions. Others because of doctrine issues. Some books now included in the Bible were almost left out because of passages that seemed to confilict with official doctrine. To explore the possibilities of what Jesus taught honestly we’d have to explore writings about him beyond Christian tradition. In short, the NT is not the only source.
Okay someone wrote that Jesus spoke those words. Fair enough. Thats my point.
It may be meaningless verbiage to you based on your own experience but that doesn’t make it meaningless or untrue. Just beyond your present experience. You may scoff at those who speak of being moved by the spirit but thats only your opinion and has no more validity or value than anyone elses. If the Jesus of the NT never existed but the spirit is indeed a reality then there is the value of what you refer to as a fable. If a man tells me he is Thomas Edison and charges me $50 for a light bulb he is a cheat and a liar. That doesn’t diminish the light from the bulb or prevent it from lighting my way.
Try to pay attention. I specifically mentioned if they are trying to convince you their beliefs are the right ones. That would cover those coming to your door. Religious zealots committ horrific acts. So do atheists. I suspect that if followed terrorism back to the manipulators of power you’d find their motives have nothing to do with their religious beliefs. Greed and the lust for power have been constant throughout our history. Getting rid of religion wouldn’t change that. I agree that when peoples beliefs, religious or otherwise, reach into and affect the lives of others then we have every right to challenge them. Other than that you have no right to demand anybody prove anything.
Sigh… What are you suggesting. The mind police? People need evidence they can demonstrate to everyone before they’re allowed to believe something? “The End of Faith” changed my thinking in that I no longer consider religious beliefs to be politely off limits for questioning. Especially if those beliefs cross the bounds of their private worship into the lives of others. I do however support people’s rights to believe whatever they want to without any form of oppression as long as their beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.
Work calls. I’ll have to complete my response later.
I see your point. It’s condesending and it’s showing little respect for your right to choose your own path. {A right most believers would say God gave you} One of my pet peeves is the belief that God wrote the Bible. Here’s a belief that I think there is plenty of solid evidence that it isn’t true. Yet inevitably in discussions about that belief the blanket defense is “Well it’s something I accept on faith” Arrrrggghhhhh!!
I also am offended by the concept of “Christian values or principles” As if love, mercy, compassion, kindness, forgivness, and courage, are owned by Christianity or somehow made more valuble by being a member of their particular club.
Then again, I think the attitude that some atheists have is about the same. Condesending amd showing little respect for an indivduals right to choose their own path. If an atheist wants to challenge a specific belief then have at it. Blanket statements that all spiritual beliefs are just foolish or stupid, may be your sincere opinion but since you can’t back it up with any real evidence then perhaps it’s best, when considering those big unanswered questions, to respect someone’s right to choose. When you think about it, considering questions for which there is no definative evidence for proof or disproof, how could chooseing either way be stupid or foolish?
That would be nice. Certainly the truth is grounded in fact but I’m not sure the truth about our spiritual side will ever be apparent to all in this world. Our beliefs spiritual or not, are born from our personal experience, our backgrounds and influences and are unique and personal. I don’t think it’s something that can be apparent to all anymore than love or truth will be the same to everyone.
If you read my post to Uzi you’ll see I agree it’s offensive because it’s condesending and disrespectful. I would submit that all people have beliefs that are based in part on faith. Some have faith in an intangible God or Universal creative spirit. Others have faith {or not} in other intangibles such as Love, honor, truth, courage. etc. It’s really not that different. We make moral choices based on these intangibles every day.
1 Cor 13: 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I don’t think so. It means the truth will become apparent if the truth is what you really want and what you seek. Some choose not to lose their illusion.
I think we are active participants. We choose and we face the consequences of our choices.
No foolin’ ?? OKie Dokie 