Crisis of Faith

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 09:04am

Ethereal41 wrote:Yes it is fallacious, but its a doctrine that is preached from pulpits across the United States. I would argue that Relgion is often associated with absolutes, which is what attracts people because it offers security and finality.]

But don't forget that only a Sith thinks in terms of absolutes. By the way, aren't you making an idol out of the Bible by thinking this way?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 09:06am

Hillary wrote:But if the only "evidence" of Christianity is the bible, then it is pretty much black and white, isn't it? Either the bible is wholly true or it isn't? If it isn't, which bits do you believe in?

As for the last bit, I'm a raving heathen so you're preaching to the converted so to speak

It must be nice to be able to live life with your brain literally turned off. I wish I could. Ignorance has always been bliss. Even if I choose to think this way, I feel like an idiot because it's like living a lie.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-10-31 09:08am

Ethereal41 wrote:
It's working from the premise that the bible must either be absolutely true or not true at all. That's frankly a severe form of black and white thinking, which is highly fallacious as anyone can tell you.
Yes it is fallacious, but its a doctrine that is preached from pulpits across the United States. I would argue that Relgion is often associated with absolutes, which is what attracts people because it offers security and finality.

And now we come to the appeal to popularity fallacy. Hitler's ideals were followed by nearly every German in the 30s and 40s. The amount of believers in a given faith does not make it any more right than believing in say. . .the flying spaghetti monster.

Second, why not make up your own mind as to what you believe instead of having it spoon fed by old men in robes and thinking it must be true because your parents/church/etc believes so and so way?
I've been trying to make up my mind about what I beleive, and I was hoping you could help me do it.

I'd recommend a few courses in logical deduction and critical thinking then. Read a few sites like nizkor, the skeptics annotated bible, etc. Those'll be a good start.

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 09:09am

But don't forget that only a Sith thinks in terms of absolutes. By the way, aren't you making an idol out of the Bible by thinking this way?

Touche

Star Wars references aside, I would argue what is most attractive about religion is, as I said, that it offers security in absolutes. I stopped taking the Bible literally a long time ago, but I am still struggling to remain a member of a denomination that has not. I see some really great things in religion, and I guess I am just relectaunt to lose them.

Anyway, It's nightime on this side of the Pacific. I'm going to bed. I'll pick this up tommorow.

Ethereal41 · Post by **Ethereal41** » 2006-10-31 09:11am

I'd recommend a few courses in logical deduction and critical thinking then. Read a few sites like nizkor, the skeptics annotated bible, etc. Those'll be a good start.

The first few suggestions hurt.

I suppose I asked for it.

I will, however, take a look at said websites.

Thanks

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2006-10-31 09:12am

Superman wrote:
Hillary wrote:Why? I think it's rather logical myself. If you believe the bible is God's word and he is infallible, then you have to follow all of it, not pick and choose..
You are still 'picking and choosing.' No matter what you profess, there are thousands of protestant evangelical morons in different denominations who all claim to believe the Bible is the infallible word of god. You still follow a subjective interpretation.

Oh true enough, but quite different from those who actively dismiss parts of the bible (the anti-Gay stuff, for example). They are stating that the bible is wrong, in effect.

Superman wrote:
Hillary wrote:If, on the other hand, you believe that it is written by men who are very fallible, how on earth do you decide which bits to believe in?]
The Catholic church existed for almost 2,000 years before any evangelicals spouted this crap, and they existed under the authority of their church. They told people what was and what wasn't. This is the job of clergy or 'holy men' in almost any religion. When the authority of the church was rejected, the door was opened for what exists now.

Why not just realize it's bullshit and not live life worrying about nonsense? You really need some book to tell you not to kill your neighbor?

I don't disagree about the Catholic church, but it has no relevance to whether his comments were logical or not.

You appear to also be under the illusion that I believe in this nonsense - most certainly not.

Superman wrote:
Hillary wrote:Most Christians seem (in my view) to run the bible through their own morality filter - picking the bits they agree with and dismissing the rest as allegory. Surely that's totally illogical as they are putting their own moral values above that of their God. That, or they are claiming to know their God well enough to decide which bits he means literally and which he doesn't, which is rather arrogant and not at all humble as they are supposed to be.
Good example of a 'no true scottsman' fallacy.

No. The ONLY source of "proof" for Christianity is the bible. It is not unfair to say that the only true Christians are the ones who try to follow it to the letter. It goes without saying that the more Christian a person is, the more dangerous and deluded they are.[/quote]

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-10-31 09:18am

Hillary wrote:No. The ONLY source of "proof" for Christianity is the bible. It is not unfair to say that the only true Christians are the ones who try to follow it to the letter. It goes without saying that the more Christian a person is, the more dangerous and deluded they are.

Right, so belief in the Bible is sufficient for Christianity. How is it necessary?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 09:21am

Hillary wrote:Oh true enough, but quite different from those who actively dismiss parts of the bible (the anti-Gay stuff, for example). They are stating that the bible is wrong, in effect.

Ah yes, your 'picking and choosing' is not the same 'picking and choosing' and is quite different. Good point. Touche!

I don't disagree about the Catholic church, but it has no relevance to whether his comments were logical or not.

Logical or not? This had to do with 'how do I know what I am supposed to believe in?' and I gave an example on how other groups have carried out their faith.

You appear to also be under the illusion that I believe in this nonsense - most certainly not.

What the fuck are you talking about? Trust me, it's obvious you ARE this stupid.

No. The ONLY source of "proof" for Christianity is the bible. It is not unfair to say that the only true Christians are the ones who try to follow it to the letter. It goes without saying that the more Christian a person is, the more dangerous and deluded they are.

The only? Even non evangelicals who believe in their 'Holy Tradition' alongside the Bible? You're an idiot. It's always the 'other' Christians... Come up with something new for once.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-10-31 09:25am

Belief in the bible to some extent is necessary to believe in christianity, unless you want the term "christian" to lose all meaning. It'd be a bit pointless to describe all christians as literalists/people that follow it to the letter, because that's just dumb.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 09:30am

Hillary wrote:You appear to also be under the illusion that I believe in this nonsense - most certainly not.

Misread that. My bad. Sorry. You're not stupid.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-10-31 09:37am

Rye wrote:Belief in the bible to some extent is necessary to believe in christianity, unless you want the term "christian" to lose all meaning. It'd be a bit pointless to describe all christians as literalists/people that follow it to the letter, because that's just dumb.

Belief in Jesus' death and resurrection, as recounted in at least one of the New Testament sources, is necessary, since that's how you define Christian. Hillary's mixing up the fact belief in the total Bible is sufficient with the claim that it's necessary, which simply doesn't follow.

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2006-10-31 09:49am

Surlethe wrote:
Rye wrote:Belief in the bible to some extent is necessary to believe in christianity, unless you want the term "christian" to lose all meaning. It'd be a bit pointless to describe all christians as literalists/people that follow it to the letter, because that's just dumb.
Belief in Jesus' death and resurrection, as recounted in at least one of the New Testament sources, is necessary, since that's how you define Christian. Hillary's mixing up the fact belief in the total Bible is sufficient with the claim that it's necessary, which simply doesn't follow.

What I'm trying to say (and obviously doing it rather badly) is that if you don't believe that the every word of the bible is completely true, then you must pick and choose which bits are and which bits aren't. If you do that, surely you are putting your judgement above God's unless you don't believe the bible is God's word. In which case, are you really a "believer" anyway, as there is no other source for the Christian God's existence.

Does that make sense?

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2006-10-31 09:51am

Superman wrote:
Hillary wrote:You appear to also be under the illusion that I believe in this nonsense - most certainly not.
Misread that. My bad. Sorry. You're not stupid.

Mrs Hillary wouldn't agree with you

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-31 09:53am

Hillary wrote:
Surlethe wrote:
Rye wrote:Belief in the bible to some extent is necessary to believe in christianity, unless you want the term "christian" to lose all meaning. It'd be a bit pointless to describe all christians as literalists/people that follow it to the letter, because that's just dumb.
Belief in Jesus' death and resurrection, as recounted in at least one of the New Testament sources, is necessary, since that's how you define Christian. Hillary's mixing up the fact belief in the total Bible is sufficient with the claim that it's necessary, which simply doesn't follow.
What I'm trying to say (and obviously doing it rather badly) is that if you don't believe that the every word of the bible is completely true, then you must pick and choose which bits are and which bits aren't. If you do that, surely you are putting your judgement above God's unless you don't believe the bible is God's word. In which case, are you really a "believer" anyway, as there is no other source for the Christian God's existence.

Does that make sense?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-10-31 10:00am

Hillary wrote:What I'm trying to say (and obviously doing it rather badly) is that if you don't believe that the every word of the bible is completely true, then you must pick and choose which bits are and which bits aren't. If you do that, surely you are putting your judgement above God's unless you don't believe the bible is God's word.

Bingo, but cut the ambiguity. You can believe that the Bible is not entirely God's word without believing the Bible is not at all God's word.

In which case, are you really a "believer" anyway, as there is no other source for the Christian God's existence.

Of course: would it be belief if there were any other source for the Christian God's existence? What kind of faith requires evidence?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-10-31 10:02am

Hillary wrote:
Surlethe wrote:
Rye wrote:Belief in the bible to some extent is necessary to believe in christianity, unless you want the term "christian" to lose all meaning. It'd be a bit pointless to describe all christians as literalists/people that follow it to the letter, because that's just dumb.
Belief in Jesus' death and resurrection, as recounted in at least one of the New Testament sources, is necessary, since that's how you define Christian. Hillary's mixing up the fact belief in the total Bible is sufficient with the claim that it's necessary, which simply doesn't follow.
What I'm trying to say (and obviously doing it rather badly) is that if you don't believe that the every word of the bible is completely true, then you must pick and choose which bits are and which bits aren't. If you do that, surely you are putting your judgement above God's unless you don't believe the bible is God's word. In which case, are you really a "believer" anyway, as there is no other source for the Christian God's existence.

Does that make sense?

I seem to recall a certain Church deciding what should and shouldn't officially be included in the Bible centuries ago before there even was a Bible. Perhaps you could explain how picking and choosing any different than what the Roman Catholic Church did when they decided which books would be canon and which wouldn't.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-10-31 10:03am

Ghetto edit: How picking and choosing is any different. Meh.

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2006-10-31 10:13am

Surlethe wrote:
Hillary wrote:What I'm trying to say (and obviously doing it rather badly) is that if you don't believe that the every word of the bible is completely true, then you must pick and choose which bits are and which bits aren't. If you do that, surely you are putting your judgement above God's unless you don't believe the bible is God's word.
Bingo, but cut the ambiguity. You can believe that the Bible is not entirely God's word without believing the Bible is not at all God's word.

In which case, are you really a "believer" anyway, as there is no other source for the Christian God's existence.
Of course: would it be belief if there were any other source for the Christian God's existence? What kind of faith requires evidence?

Logic in an illogical world - I'm obviously not cut out for it. Thanks.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-31 10:33am

Hillary wrote:No. The ONLY source of "proof" for Christianity is the bible.

Christianity isn't based on proof. It's based on faith. In reality, the Christians who rely upon an assumption of Biblical literalism have weak faith; that's why fundamentalists are always trying to contest scientific conclusions, make up pseudoscientific "evidence" for Bible stories, dress up myths like the Great Flood in the language of science, etc. They need the Bible to be literally true, because their faith is so brittle that it won't survive being cast out into the oceans of uncertainty. That's why they're also so terrified of "pagan" or "worldly" influences; they're afraid that these influences will introduce ideas or facts into their world which upset this delicate apple-cart.

It is not unfair to say that the only true Christians are the ones who try to follow it to the letter.

The definition of a "true" Christian is subject to debate but the definition of a Christian is simply one who believes that Christ was divine.

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2006-10-31 10:54am

Darth Wong wrote:
Hillary wrote:No. The ONLY source of "proof" for Christianity is the bible.
Christianity isn't based on proof. It's based on faith. In reality, the Christians who rely upon an assumption of Biblical literalism have weak faith; that's why fundamentalists are always trying to contest scientific conclusions, make up pseudoscientific "evidence" for Bible stories, dress up myths like the Great Flood in the language of science, etc. They need the Bible to be literally true, because their faith is so brittle that it won't survive being cast out into the oceans of uncertainty. That's why they're also so terrified of "pagan" or "worldly" influences; they're afraid that these influences will introduce ideas or facts into their world which upset this delicate apple-cart.
It is not unfair to say that the only true Christians are the ones who try to follow it to the letter.
The definition of a "true" Christian is subject to debate but the definition of a Christian is simply one who believes that Christ was divine.

Yes - my problem was I was thinking scientifically. As the bible is the only "evidence" I mistakenly deduced that Christians must use this as their guide or not be real Christians. Of course, that's not how it works at all.

Thanks to all for your patience

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2006-10-31 11:43am

Ethereal41 wrote:
I'd recommend a few courses in logical deduction and critical thinking then. Read a few sites like nizkor, the skeptics annotated bible, etc. Those'll be a good start.
The first few suggestions hurt. I suppose I asked for it.

Seriously, logic and critical thinking are not common skills. They take practice, and they're well worth the effort. Don't avoid learning about them just because you feel insulted.

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2006-11-01 02:28am

In reference to the OP

How to treat pagans.

Pagans like a double whisky, single malt. If none is availiable then a rum and coke will do. In return said pagan will share some home brew (either beer or cider, but occasionally spirits) with you.

Pagans throw some of the best parties and so it is always good to be friends with them. It is advisable to go easy on any biscuits offered unless laughing at toes is your thing.

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2006-11-01 02:35am

Oh sorry, I forgot.

Tax collectors (and accountants)

Tax collectors like schnapps. They are grim, serious people who like to go from vertical to horizontal with a minimum of fuss. Nevertheless, they are quite friendly, especially around 6:30 in a bar on fridays. The best thing you can do for a tax collector is place a cushion where their head will hit.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-01 03:05am

I think it's ironic he find security in the 'absolutes' of religion... but isn't sure what to think. Is it just me, or is that hilarious? It's not absolute AT ALL!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-11-02 09:01am

Stark wrote:I think it's ironic he find security in the 'absolutes' of religion... but isn't sure what to think. Is it just me, or is that hilarious? It's not absolute AT ALL!

It's interesting how so many religious believers describe religion as an intellectual construct based on "absolutes" when in fact it has none whatsoever. What they don't realize is that it's only "absolute" once you accept that its core assumptions are true.

Many religious arguments and ideas fail to recognize that, which is one of the reasons they have so much trouble talking to a true atheist (as opposed to a lapsed Christian). They tend to assume that you share some of those basic assumptions.