Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3808 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


(1)
Message 16 of 380 (712375)
12-03-2013 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
12-03-2013 11:04 AM


Re: on religion.
So in that case you're a Christian culturally without the literal belief in Christianity's teachings? I suppose by this culturally elaborate definition I'm still a Christian too, since it is so embedded in my background and I've spent so many years embracing it. I still celebrate Christmas! But on a rational level, come on, let's be honest with ourselves...it probably isn't the truth. Glad you at least managed to weave some acknowledgement within all of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 12-03-2013 11:04 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 12-03-2013 11:32 AM scienceishonesty has replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3808 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 17 of 380 (712376)
12-03-2013 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
12-03-2013 11:25 AM


Re: on religion.
I don't recall mentioning that "anything" is not a "true" religion. I said that religion is a belief system which assumes it is correct no matter what (there are always varying degrees of picking and choosing). If it is not believed by the person to be 100% correct, it just isn't a religion anymore.
That's the conflict.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 12-03-2013 11:25 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 12-03-2013 11:36 AM scienceishonesty has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2013 11:37 AM scienceishonesty has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 18 of 380 (712377)
12-03-2013 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 11:26 AM


Re: on religion.
Sorry but you are simply wrong yet again.
So in that case you're a Christian culturally without the literal belief in Christianity's teachings?
Not sure what you mean by that but I definitely believe in Christian teachings. Now if by "literal" you are using the Christian Cult of Ignorance version of "literal" which is to claim it while denying the actual evidence, then certainly. I am not a member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:26 AM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:38 AM jar has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 380 (712379)
12-03-2013 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 11:31 AM


Re: on religion.
scienceishonesty writes:
If it is not believed by the person to be 100% correct, it just isn't a religion anymore.
And that's the No True Scotsman fallcy - i.e. No True Religion allows any leeway from 100% correctness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:31 AM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:46 AM ringo has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1515 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 380 (712380)
12-03-2013 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 11:31 AM


Re: on religion.
Welcome to the fray scienceishonesty,
Then there is agnosticism -- not needing to decide and not enough information to base a rational decision means you can wait for new information. Open-minded skepticism balanced by need to know.
This position also holds up well for all those things that science doesn't know.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:31 AM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3808 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 21 of 380 (712381)
12-03-2013 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
12-03-2013 11:32 AM


Re: on religion.
jar, I'm sorry but if you want me to understand your position better you're going to have to help me out here. I'm now left with two distinct positions you have.
#1.
quote:
I know that Christianity is almost certainly wrong as is also true of all religions.
and now:
#2.
quote:
I definitely believe in Christian teachings
Not sure what to make of the seeming discrepancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 12-03-2013 11:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-03-2013 11:59 AM scienceishonesty has replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3808 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 22 of 380 (712383)
12-03-2013 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
12-03-2013 11:36 AM


Re: on religion.
Individuals who embrace a particular religion may allow leeway within certain aspects (every religious person does this), but there is always a core set of ideas that they embrace as certainty -- and that was my point.
For example, for a Christian, there may be a thousand different strands and differing degrees of devotion and minor theological flexibilities, but there's no leeway in terms of whether or not there is a God and Jesus figure. If there isn't, then they are no longer a Christian.
Unless, in your world, someone can still be a Christian and still question whether or not they are real.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 12-03-2013 11:36 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 12-03-2013 11:52 AM scienceishonesty has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 23 of 380 (712384)
12-03-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 11:46 AM


Re: on religion.
scienceishonesty writes:
For example, for a Christian, there may be a thousand different strands and differing degrees of devotion and minor theological flexibilities, but there's no leeway in terms of whether or not there is a God and Jesus figure. If there isn't, then they are no longer a Christian.
So now the goalposts are moving. First it was No True Religion allows any leeway in its core tenets and now it's No True Christian questions the existence of God and/or Jesus. It's still the same fallacy.
The bottom line is that you don't get to decide who is a True Christian and you don't get to decide what is a True Religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:46 AM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:56 AM ringo has replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3808 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 24 of 380 (712385)
12-03-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
12-03-2013 11:37 AM


Re: on religion.
Thanks for the welcome! I find that the difference between agnosticism and atheism is more just linguistic. I mean, atheism seems to say that it knows for sure that there is no God, but that's not really true. It is just a lack of belief, in the very same way agnosticism is. Both have the same default position: not proclaiming an affiliation in anything other than what we can know. The term "atheism" just strikes people as stronger but I think it means the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2013 11:37 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 12-03-2013 9:48 PM scienceishonesty has not replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3808 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 25 of 380 (712386)
12-03-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
12-03-2013 11:52 AM


Re: on religion.
I just used Christianity as an example. Every religion has its core belief idea that is assumed to be the truth no matter what. If that isn't part of it, it just isn't religion. Your semantics on "true religion" and "false" religion are not aiding you in whatever point you're trying to make.
So answer me, is someone a Christian if they don't believe in a Christ or God figure?
Let's make it even more simple yet. Is someone a theist if they don't believe in a god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 12-03-2013 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 12-03-2013 12:10 PM scienceishonesty has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 26 of 380 (712387)
12-03-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 11:38 AM


Re: on religion.
As I said, the Map is not the Territory. When you buy a map you must always understand that it is just a representation and not reality. When you come to a bridge don't rely on the map; look and make sure it is really there.
Religion is taught properly is a map, a guide to how to live your life. Like maps, no religion is actually the territory, they are all just guides and so like maps, will have places where they are wrong, incomplete, not up to date, confusing.
That is true of any and all religions.
Christian teaching are about how to live this life, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick or injured. educate the ignorant, comfort the sorrowful. It's work, hard, often unpleasant work.
But not all Chapters of Club Christian teach that. Many teach the easy and pleasant, "Are you saved", "Not perfect, just saved", "Born Again" and the cop-out of cop-outs, Original Sin.
It's pitiful.
So it depends on what you mean by "teachings"
If, for example, you mean "the Bible is God's word" then I'd just laugh and pat the child on the head. If you look at the evidence and are honest then you must come to the conclusion that the Bible (and note there is no such thing as "The Bible") was written by men, just plain old humans.
If, for example, you mean "there are no contradictions in the Bible" then I'd just laugh and pat the child on the head. If you read just the first two chapters of the Old Testament and are honest then you must conclude that the God described in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God described in Genesis 2&3 and that the creation myths involve entirely different methods and order of creation.
If, for example, you mean "There is original sin and all mankind is fallen since Adam & Eve sinned" then I'd just laugh and pat the child on the head.
There is no discrepancy when I say those two things unless you interpret it from the Christian Cult of Ignorance perspective.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:38 AM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:02 PM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 27 of 380 (712388)
12-03-2013 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 11:20 AM


Wiggle room
The bottom line is, someone can somehow try to make their all-knowing religion and science compatible in their mind, but it really can't be done.
I recognize some Christians have a problem with what they think to be the evidence for evolution. Kurt Wise solved it by conceding the evidence is there but he believes the Bible anyway and expects that eventually the evidence will give way to further study.
I personally don't think the evidence is there. I think it's a lot of smoke and mirrors. It's all really just unproven and unprovable plausibilities at best anyway. Can you prove that the apparent order of the fossil record shows evolution over billions of years? No you can't, it's something the order suggests to your mind but you can't prove it.
I take the position that YEC has no problem whatever with science, actual science, true science, but evolution is not science, it's just a collection of unprovable plausibilities.
You are getting answers from some here who have their own self- invented version of Christianity so they are going to insist they believe in God, even the Christian God, even if they don't believe fully in the Bible. The lack of "wiggle room" you are talking about comes from believing in the Bible as our inerrant revelation, and there is no room for deviating from it because the Bible is the word of God. But there's plenty of wiggle room if you just make up your own God.
So you've chosen to give up on the God of Bible based Christianity. But you are getting arguments from people who never had that belief. Just so you know. JAR will drive you crazy if you try to make sense out of what he's saying. He's a "devout Christian" who doesn't believe one thing Christians believe but that doesn't stop him from calling himself a Christian. I'm the only Bible believer on this thread and a YEC.
But I don't really want to get into the argument here, just wanted to point out some areas of confusion I'm finding in the discussion for what it's worth. Maybe it's not worth anything. So carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:20 AM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 12:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 33 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:21 PM Faith has replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3808 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 28 of 380 (712389)
12-03-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
12-03-2013 11:59 AM


Re: on religion.
Just remember that all of those "Christian teachings" can still be embraced without using the word "Christian", but I think I partially understand where you might be coming from, albeit as confusing as a lot of it still seems to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-03-2013 11:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 12-03-2013 12:10 PM scienceishonesty has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 380 (712390)
12-03-2013 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by scienceishonesty
12-02-2013 11:41 PM


I used to debate here years ago under a different alias
Which one?
I then realized that I can only either believe in religion or science, since both are completely incompatible with each other - I used to try to make both work for so long until integrity made me realize it just isn't possible and it wouldn't be right to pretend that they can work together.
I'm not having that problem. I just check my religion at the door when I go into the lab.
Religion asserts certain ideas as true and those beliefs outrank anything else in life, including any inconvenient scientific discoveries.
Um:
quote:
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
That means that if science were to show something within that religion as false, the religious person then has to allow religion to trump the scientific discovery in their mind, making the supposed harmony between the too illusory. This is why they can't work together. The only way for them to be compatible would be for the one embracing a religion to treat the religion as being falsifiable which is inherently not what religion can be - the religious person already has all the answers and already knows that their religion is “true” no matter what. Of course, they really don't, they just want to believe that and shun everything that may say otherwise.
Not all religions are like that. Protestants maybe, but Catholic doctrine accepts evolution for instance.
So why do I believe in evolution now and do not accept the existence of a god without evidence? Well, because I decided to stop refusing to accept the obvious. If someone were to ask a religious believer to start believing in the flying spaghetti monster and to let “him” into their hearts, the religious person would point out how ridiculous it is and then probably cite the lack of evidence that there's even such a thing. You see, they know how to use logical arguments when it doesn't touch a belief system that they cherish and want to be true even though the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster and “god” or “gods” is exactly the same, nil.
Yeah, that's just standard noob atheist stuff. You might get over it one day. There's more to religion than just accepting baseless claims. And many of the claims of religion are not totally baseless. And there's still valuable stuff you can learn from religion.
From Message 8
The main problem I see with theistic evolution is that it reverts to telling oneself in a tamer way that they still for sure know the answer (again). It is just another form of clinging on to the vestiges of "already knowing the truth".
No, not "knowing" the truth, just "believing" that this is the case.
It still wants to believe that it "for certain" knows the answer (inside a protected, unfalsifiable realm) as a substitute for waiting until a truthful answer emerges.
And its not for certain either. Its just that I lean that way.
The big question is, is the theistic evolutionist willing to lay aside their belief if emerging scientific evidence invalidates the probability of their current beliefs? If that's the case, then it's time to be honest and just accept that they really are just waiting on the answers and that they don't absolutely know for sure -- which instantly makes them no longer part of a "religion" since religion already knows the purpose for everything and needs no answers.
No, that's a non-sequitor. Its still a religion even if I don't absolutely know for sure, and religions can encourage question things and not just believe them blindly.
The bottom line is, someone can somehow try to make their all-knowing religion and science compatible in their mind, but it really can't be done.
But it has been done.
From Message 10
Then I would argue that you are probably not a devout Christian. Do you know it 100% to be the "truth" or not? If you admit that it might be wrong, then it isn't a religion, it's just some abstract pet idea to make yourself feel better.
I could sit here and say the same thing, well, I'm a Christian but if science invalidates everything then I'll be willing to accept that I'm wrong. I already did that and realized there's no purpose in doing that.
Religion already knows and doesn't need the answer, it understands already (for a fact). Science is constantly seeking truth and making itself willing to adapt and change based on new evidence. Is it really hard to see that there is an inherent conflict?
No, that's just how your old religion was. Not everyone's is like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-02-2013 11:41 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 30 of 380 (712391)
12-03-2013 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 11:56 AM


Re: on religion.
scienceishonesty writes:
Every religion has its core belief idea that is assumed to be the truth no matter what.
That's where you're wrong. A religion is any relatively systematic belief system. The concept of "absolute truth" is superimposed by you.
scienceishonesty writes:
So answer me, is someone a Christian if they don't believe in a Christ or God figure?
Someone is a Christian if he is a member of a group of Christians, the same as he is a Smith if he is a member of a group of Smiths. If the Christians or Smiths adopt him as a member, he is one of them. They may or may not require their members to hold (profess) certain beliefs but you don't get to proclaim that they must have an inviolable set of core beliefs.
I personally make a distinction between large-C Christians who are members of a Christian church and small-c christians who are followers of Christ's (supposed) teachings. You can be a christian without believing that Christ even existed.
scienceishonesty writes:
Is someone a theist if they don't believe in a god?
That's different. Theism is not a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:56 AM scienceishonesty has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024