Figuring Out Religion

[curlew]

relative: There is no way to decide upon absolute truth.

The only problem is that that's an absolute truth statement. So is all truth relative apart from that one? :-)

Anybody who has ever played the "absolute truth" and "objective morality" game with a Christian apologist knows exactly where it is leading. It's a lot like a card trick I used to be good at. You keep leading the person down a path of binary choices until the only one that is left is the one you have chosen for them. The trick is to not let them see how you are leading them down the path. You just keep presenting the binary choices, as long as it takes, until they get where you want them to go.

In the case of the Christian apologist the ultimate choice is that there is only one possible source of absolute truth and morality and it is the HOLY BIBLE.

[MachineGhost]

The biggest presupposition in a religious discussion is "God" itself. It's almost always the Abrahamic meme since we're in the West. But as usual, actual reality is far more complex:

Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction:

as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical entity or category;
as the "Ultimate", the summum bonum, the "Absolute Infinite", the "Transcendent", or Existence or Being itself;
as the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand; and so on.

The first recordings that survive of monotheistic conceptions of God, borne out of henotheism and (mostly in Eastern religions) monism, are from the Hellenistic period. Of the many objects and entities that religions and other belief systems across the ages have labeled as divine, the one criterion they share is their acknowledgement as divine by a group or groups of human beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

And if you take the position that "God" has no unambiguous definition, then that is Ignosticism where the idea of the question of the existence of "God" is meaningless. So really, the onerus isn't on non-believers, it is on True Believers to prove why their "God" concept and their religion kowtowing out of 4,000+ is "The One". But you can't expect any actual engagement on the merits; they dance around the issue or throw out tautological "proofs" as if it were self-evident, etc.. It's eye rolling but just part of the territory.

And BTW Mountaineer, my "presuppositions" are secular humanism since I don't believe in divine immanence or divine providence (i.e. I have seen nor experienced any logical evidence for either):

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.[1][2][3][4]

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

That's the core. For the satellites, think panpsychic pantheism.

[Kbg]

I've often felt the crux of the matter is what one accepts as evidence. For me the evidence comes down to some very specific events that have happened in my life that I could contribute to:

A. Mind blowing random chances

B. Specific neurological events that happened in my brain with regard to specific precursor events

C. A combination of A & B

D. God making injects into my life

Now with my basic humility on absolutes, I'm open to maybe it was A-C but I'm going with D and D influences what kind of person I want and try to be. I have no problem with someone thinking it is A-C, period, full stop. I just have a problem with people who don't allow me to choose D and disrespect me for it. Last time I checked black swans happen and no one had a cat scan hooked up to my head when the above mentioned things occurred. I can't prove they were D and no one else can prove they were A-C, so I don't see the point of arguing about any of it.

[Mountaineer]

relative: There is no way to decide upon absolute truth.

The only problem is that that's an absolute truth statement. So is all truth relative apart from that one? :-)

Anybody who has ever played the "absolute truth" and "objective morality" game with a Christian apologist knows exactly where it is leading. It's a lot like a card trick I used to be good at. You keep leading the person down a path of binary choices until the only one that is left is the one you have chosen for them. The trick is to not let them see how you are leading them down the path. You just keep presenting the binary choices, as long as it takes, until they get where you want them to go.

In the case of the Christian apologist the ultimate choice is that there is only one possible source of absolute truth and morality and it is the HOLY BIBLE.

Your last sentence seems to be an assertion you are absolutely sure of. How do you know it is true and what is the source of that truth?

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

In the case of the Christian apologist the ultimate choice is that there is only one possible source of absolute truth and morality and it is the HOLY BIBLE.

Your last sentence seems to be an assertion you are absolutely sure of. How do you know it is true and what is the source of that truth?
... Mountaineer

Are you absolutely sure that I'm absolutely sure and what would be your source for that?

These are just word games as far as I'm concerned - "Absolute Truth", "Real Presence", "Inerrant Bible" - all meaningless terms.

And my authoritative source is ME and my common sense.

(And the reason "inerrant Bible" is meaningless is because the definition of an error, according to the belief, is that which cannot exist in the Bible.)

[MachineGhost]

Are you absolutely sure that I'm absolutely sure and what would be your source for that?

These are just word games as far as I'm concerned - "Absolute Truth", "Real Presence", "Inerrant Bible" - all meaningless terms.

“... because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.” -- Donald Rumsefld

[Kbg]

“... because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.” -- Donald Rumsefld

Exactly! And the reason why it is beyond me why people spend so much time arguing about religion. Good inquiring, respectful discussion I understand, heated argument, no so much. It just seems so pointless.

So now that I've been sucked into this thread...a moment of weakness for sure I think I will go back to investments and trading.

[Mountaineer]

“... because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.” -- Donald Rumsefld

Exactly! And the reason why it is beyond me why people spend so much time arguing about religion. Good inquiring, respectful discussion I understand, heated argument, no so much. It just seems so pointless.

So now that I've been sucked into this thread...a moment of weakness for sure I think I will go back to investments and trading.

Kbg, it is good of you to join the conversation, and in my opinion the topic is certainly about making wise decisions about investing for future, so don't feel sucked into something that isn't worthwhile.

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

“... because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.” -- Donald Rumsefld

Exactly! And the reason why it is beyond me why people spend so much time arguing about religion. Good inquiring, respectful discussion I understand, heated argument, no so much. It just seems so pointless.

So now that I've been sucked into this thread...a moment of weakness for sure I think I will go back to investments and trading.

I generally try to keep my mouth shut when it comes to religion. When the Jehovah's witnesses knock on my door on Saturday morning I just tell them "not interested" and close the door even though I want to tell them to F**K off it's early Saturday morning.

As an ex-Christian however, I do seem to enjoy the rare opportunity that Mountaineer provides here for sharing my unbelief with someone who used to believe a lot of the things I did.

[MediumTex]

thank you...

i know the ideas i post will not likely change the minds of those who are faith centered Believers anymore than the atheists argument will... the entire religion vs atheist argument seems stuck in the shallow end of religious discussions, the atheists win the back and forth between them, but there isn't much value or light shed by the arguments on either side ... the believers, ...believe... and since reason and logic doesn't really come into play in there thinking, it wont change.. and the atheists wont be convinced to change either since once you start thinking with reason it would cause to much cognitive dissidence to go back, the atheist have rejected the irrational, faith/fear based adult (god) yelling "don't splash", "don't run", "no shouting" from the side of the kiddie pool version of religion, so they rightfully rebel against it and see no point in entering at all ... but there are deeper waters to swim in, ones that don't defy reason or logic and don't demand faith, or fear of hell, or fear of missing out on the big after-death party to swim there.. it is possible without faith or irrational beliefs to experience a moment "in the flow" "in harmony" "in a Zen mind " "of getting out of ones own way" "non duality" or "connectedness" and having felt that, even in the briefest way, whether in meditation, or prayer, or getting a job done at work, or participating in a sport, or practicing a martial art (anywhere in life really), it is then perfectly rational to seek to experience it again, and its rational to believe that with effort you might make that state last longer, and its rational to believe that you might expand that state into other areas of your life, its even rational to believe there is a possibility (dauntingly difficult but possible) to expand that state into every moment of your life...

my hunch is that all the religions from all the different cultures, and all the different time periods, all the different languages and terminologies, with all there different mythologies and metaphors, are all originally manuals for teaching people how to work toward, and hopefully achieve that "every moment of your life in a state of connectedness".. *
all of which seems like just the kind of thing a bunch of do it your self, critical thinking, reason and logic enthusiasts, might have a very cool discussion "figuring out"


*(they unfortunately have all been "turned into political movements, a means of control, an opiate for the masses** and ritualized parodies of the real message" but underneath all that the manual is still there, it is just a lot of chafe to be separated to get to it).

** a reasonably convincing argument can be made that at least half of humanity are frigging idiots, and that their being opiated, and better behaved because of it.. is a benefit to society.. even after all the atrocity in the name of religion is subtracted from the equation...

my hunch is that all the religions from all the different cultures, and all the different time periods, all the different languages and terminologies, with all there different mythologies and metaphors, are all originally manuals for teaching people how to work toward, and hopefully achieve that "every moment of your life in a state of connectedness".. *

I think an important point that should be explicitly made is that religion also seems to be about humanity recognizing that it has the ability to transcend "animal thinking" (for want of a better term), and to provide a series of mental pathways to facilitate the transcendence of our animal nature.

What really, really, really doesn't help, though, is when the war pigs, tyrants and bureaucrats come along and use religion as a pretext for what they already wanted to do. I think that's part of what is so confounding about religion--i.e., it seems to be about transcending human frailty and folly, while at the same time acting as a vehicle for the most horrific expressions of human frailty and folly.

I think that Christianity ironically contains a wonderful secular explanation of how religion works: A truly wise/enlightened person comes along with a set of teachings concerning how to transcend our animal natures. People recognize the truth in the words that he teaches. The authorities see the risk, however, in the same teachings, and murder him as an expression of their own animal natures.

As time passes, however, the belief system shows that it has legs. Sadly, though, the same types of people who had Jesus (or whoever the founding prophet in a belief system happens to be) murdered find themselves in positions of power within the church, and they then proceed to undertake the same kind of animalistic behavior toward other people that they probably would have undertaken no matter what, but they justify it in terms of what their religion demands.

Christian leaders did it in the Middle Ages, and Muslim leaders are doing it today. It seems like it's just part of the way we are made when it comes to moral belief systems--they start off good, but always seems to eventually be subverted by more cynical interests in society.

If religion is the opiate of the masses, then that would make religious leaders drug dealers. Say what you want about the drug business (legal and illegal), but it's a tough way to make a living.

[curlew]

I think that Christianity ironically contains a wonderful secular explanation of how religion works: A truly wise/enlightened person comes along with a set of teachings concerning how to transcend our animal natures. People recognize the truth in the words that he teaches. The authorities see the risk, however, in the same teachings, and murder him as an expression of their own animal natures.

Let alone being the Son of God, was Jesus a truly wise and enlightened person? Have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor and taken up your cross to follow him? I doubt that even Mountaineer has done that. If someone hits you, do you turn the other cheek so they can hit you again? Do you cut off (hate) friends and family to follow Jesus so you can be worthy of him? Do you cut off members of your body to avoid feeling lust?

And if he was truly was a wise and enlightened teacher do you have any clue what he meant by the obscure parables that he spoke, or the apocalyptic predictions he made?

Can you really point to one thing Jesus taught that would be beneficial to us in the modern world? Is epilepsy caused by demons? If not, why didn't he tell us to look for another reason? Should you wash your hands before eating? He said to the disciplines that it wasn't sinful not to wash your hands before eating but could he have given a hint about germs and maybe said it would be beneficial if you did this? How many lives might have been saved if he had simply given that one instruction?

[Mountaineer]

I think that Christianity ironically contains a wonderful secular explanation of how religion works: A truly wise/enlightened person comes along with a set of teachings concerning how to transcend our animal natures. People recognize the truth in the words that he teaches. The authorities see the risk, however, in the same teachings, and murder him as an expression of their own animal natures.

Let alone being the Son of God, was Jesus a truly wise and enlightened person? Have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor and taken up your cross to follow him? I doubt that even Mountaineer has done that. If someone hits you, do you turn the other cheek so they can hit you again? Do you cut off (hate) friends and family to follow Jesus so you can be worthy of him? Do you cut off members of your body to avoid feeling lust?

And if he was truly was a wise and enlightened teacher do you have any clue what he meant by the obscure parables that he spoke, or the apocalyptic predictions he made?

Can you really point to one thing Jesus taught that would be beneficial to us in the modern world? Is epilepsy caused by demons? If not, why didn't he tell us to look for another reason? Should you wash your hands before eating? He said to the disciplines that it wasn't sinful not to wash your hands before eating but could he have given a hint about germs and maybe said it would be beneficial if you did this? How many lives might have been saved if he had simply given that one instruction?

Love your neighbor?

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

I think that Christianity ironically contains a wonderful secular explanation of how religion works: A truly wise/enlightened person comes along with a set of teachings concerning how to transcend our animal natures. People recognize the truth in the words that he teaches. The authorities see the risk, however, in the same teachings, and murder him as an expression of their own animal natures.

Let alone being the Son of God, was Jesus a truly wise and enlightened person? Have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor and taken up your cross to follow him? I doubt that even Mountaineer has done that. If someone hits you, do you turn the other cheek so they can hit you again? Do you cut off (hate) friends and family to follow Jesus so you can be worthy of him? Do you cut off members of your body to avoid feeling lust?

And if he was truly was a wise and enlightened teacher do you have any clue what he meant by the obscure parables that he spoke, or the apocalyptic predictions he made?

Can you really point to one thing Jesus taught that would be beneficial to us in the modern world? Is epilepsy caused by demons? If not, why didn't he tell us to look for another reason? Should you wash your hands before eating? He said to the disciplines that it wasn't sinful not to wash your hands before eating but could he have given a hint about germs and maybe said it would be beneficial if you did this? How many lives might have been saved if he had simply given that one instruction?

Love your neighbor?

... Mountaineer

Sorry. He was just quoting the Old Testament with that one. I mean something new that would be beneficial if God really came down to earth and had something to share with us because he really loves us?

[Mountaineer]

Let alone being the Son of God, was Jesus a truly wise and enlightened person? Have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor and taken up your cross to follow him? I doubt that even Mountaineer has done that. If someone hits you, do you turn the other cheek so they can hit you again? Do you cut off (hate) friends and family to follow Jesus so you can be worthy of him? Do you cut off members of your body to avoid feeling lust?

And if he was truly was a wise and enlightened teacher do you have any clue what he meant by the obscure parables that he spoke, or the apocalyptic predictions he made?

Can you really point to one thing Jesus taught that would be beneficial to us in the modern world? Is epilepsy caused by demons? If not, why didn't he tell us to look for another reason? Should you wash your hands before eating? He said to the disciplines that it wasn't sinful not to wash your hands before eating but could he have given a hint about germs and maybe said it would be beneficial if you did this? How many lives might have been saved if he had simply given that one instruction?

Love your neighbor?

... Mountaineer

Sorry. He was just quoting the Old Testament with that one. I mean something new that would be beneficial if God really came down to earth and had something to share with us?

Love your neighbor, that would be really new and beneficial if only we knuckleheads would listen. (It really is not cool to change the rules after you ask a question and it gets answered.)

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

Love your neighbor, that would be really new and beneficial if only we knuckleheads would listen. (It really is not cool to change the rules after you ask a question and it gets answered.)

... Mountaineer

What rule did I change? Jesus was only quoting scripture in Leviticus 19:17 when he said this so how was this a new teaching?

[Mountaineer]

What rule did I change? Jesus was only quoting scripture in Leviticus 19:17 when he said this so how was this a new teaching?

You asked a question. I answered it. Then you said my answer was not what you were looking for (in so many words) but you did not define what you were looking for in the original question. You must be taking Democrat lessons.

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

What rule did I change? Jesus was only quoting scripture in Leviticus 19:17 when he said this so how was this a new teaching?

You asked a question. I answered it. Then you said my answer was not what you were looking for (in so many words) but you did not define what you were looking for in the original question. You must be taking Democrat lessons.

... Mountaineer

I have forwarded your email to Hillary and Huma and will answer as soon as they respond with what I am supposed to say next. Please allow at least 48 hours for processing.

[Mountaineer]

What rule did I change? Jesus was only quoting scripture in Leviticus 19:17 when he said this so how was this a new teaching?

You asked a question. I answered it. Then you said my answer was not what you were looking for (in so many words) but you did not define what you were looking for in the original question. You must be taking Democrat lessons.

... Mountaineer

I have forwarded your email to Hillary and Huma and will answer as soon as they respond with what I am supposed to say next.

Indeed you do have a great sense of humor. Love it!

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Can you really point to one thing Jesus taught that would be beneficial to us in the modern world? Is epilepsy caused by demons? If not, why didn't he tell us to look for another reason? Should you wash your hands before eating? He said to the disciplines that it wasn't sinful not to wash your hands before eating but could he have given a hint about germs and maybe said it would be beneficial if you did this? How many lives might have been saved if he had simply given that one instruction?

Don't be cynical. "Jesus" changed the world from one of cruel barbarism to the depths that raping babies or children of either sex and flinging them aside to die from being split apart was "not my problem" to one of compassion. Do we really want to go back to that, short of those RIFFF dingleberries?

[curlew]

Can you really point to one thing Jesus taught that would be beneficial to us in the modern world? Is epilepsy caused by demons? If not, why didn't he tell us to look for another reason? Should you wash your hands before eating? He said to the disciplines that it wasn't sinful not to wash your hands before eating but could he have given a hint about germs and maybe said it would be beneficial if you did this? How many lives might have been saved if he had simply given that one instruction?

Don't be cynical. "Jesus" changed the world from one of cruel barbarism to the depths that raping babies or children of either sex and flinging them aside to die from being split apart was "not my problem" to one of compassion. Do we really want to go back to that, short of those RIFFF dingleberries?

There is an interesting book coming out soon questioning the idea that Christianity was responsible for ending those practices. Maybe I'll have more to say on the subject after I read it but do you really think it was the teachings of Jesus that put an end to these things?

[MachineGhost]

There is an interesting book coming out soon questioning the idea that Christianity was responsible for ending those practices. Maybe I'll have more to say on the subject after I read it but do you really think it was the teachings of Jesus that put an end to these things?

It'll be interesting to hear about that book. But as far as "Jesus" goes, the details of his message don't matter, only the philosophy. The details were for Christians; the philosophy was for the world. For whatever reason, "Jesus" was the one that hit the jackpot.

[Mountaineer]

This is one of the more profound statements I've read in a while. Think how our world would be different today if people thought the same way about guilt as Elie Wiesel, holocaust survivor (one would think Mr. Wiesel had every reason to believe in collective guilt, but yet he did not). It seems to me many of our "causes" are currently driven by the concept of collective guilt: the LGBTQ agenda, the transgender bathroom/shower room agenda, obama's bowing tours, voting for obama in 2008, white guilt, those who bring up the Spanish Inquisition and the like when bad-mouthing Christianity, those who hate all Muslims, the slavery retribution agenda, much of immigration turmoil, etc. The world would be a better place, in my opinion, if we forgave one-on-one those who offended us, hurt us, bad-mouthed us; just stayed focused on forgivness and loving our neighbors as God loves us. Forgive but don't forget seems to be a better way. Our current society seems more focused on forgetting than forgiving - e.g. forgetting the reasons that resulted in the founding of the USA, forgetting God given rights, forgetting Judeo-Christian values, forgetting the importance of the Bill of Rights, etc.

“Has Germany ever asked us to forgive?” Mr. Wiesel asked. “To my knowledge, no such plea was ever made. With whom am I to speak about forgiveness, I, who don’t believe in collective guilt. Who am I to believe in collective innocence?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/world ... .html?_r=0

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

This is one of the more profound statements I've read in a while. Think how our world would be different today if people thought the same way about guilt as Elie Wiesel, holocaust survivor (one would think Mr. Wiesel had every reason to believe in collective guilt, but yet he did not). It seems to me many of our "causes" are currently driven by the concept of collective guilt: the LGBTQ agenda, the transgender bathroom/shower room agenda, obama's bowing tours, voting for obama in 2008, white guilt, those who bring up the Spanish Inquisition and the like when bad-mouthing Christianity, those who hate all Muslims, the slavery retribution agenda, much of immigration turmoil, etc. The world would be a better place, in my opinion, if we forgave one-on-one those who offended us, hurt us, bad-mouthed us; just stayed focused on forgivness and loving our neighbors as God loves us.

Yup, victimology is the new progessivism. Touchy feely!

[MachineGhost]

[curlew]

The "non-religious" are now the country's largest religious voting bloc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ting-bloc/

(Probably a misleading headline if you look at the chart, however)