Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Past

Page 3 of 5 [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

07 Dec 2012, 5:26 pm

TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.


All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife can't all be correct. Someone must be mistaken.

Think about this. A smart person is smart enough to know he’s smart. A dumb person is often too dumb to know he’s dumb, so he thinks he’s smart, but he’s not. So both of them think they’re smart, but only one is really smart and the other is dumb.

So here’s my question: Do you think you’re smart? If you do, is it because you are smart and you know it, or because you’re actually too dumb to know how dumb you are?

How do you answer that question? There’s only one way to solve this problem. You take a test. That is, you need an outside, objective standard to resolve the issue.



Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


Last edited by NAKnight on 07 Dec 2012, 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

07 Dec 2012, 5:30 pm

NAKnight wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.


All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife can't all be correct. Someone must be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Jake


The religion held by the vast majority of believers is an accident of birth and is that of their own culture. Have you ever wondered what your own religious beliefs would be if you (NAKnight) had been born in an Islamic country? Would you be a devout Muslim, believing in your true god Allah? The likely answer is yes.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 112
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

07 Dec 2012, 5:37 pm

TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.


All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife can't all be correct. Someone must be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Jake


The religion held by the vast majority of believers is an accident of birth and is that of their own culture. Have you ever wondered what your own religious beliefs would be if you (NAKnight) had been born in an Islamic country? Would you be a devout Muslim, believing in your true god Allah? The likely answer is yes.


As usual, Tallyman is correct. :D



NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

07 Dec 2012, 5:43 pm

TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.


All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife can't all be correct. Someone must be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Jake


The religion held by the vast majority of believers is an accident of birth and is that of their own culture. Have you ever wondered what your own religious beliefs would be if you (NAKnight) had been born in an Islamic country? Would you be a devout Muslim, believing in your true god Allah? The likely answer is yes.



You know, that is actually a very personal question you’re asking, and I’d be glad to answer.
But before I do, I want to know if you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person. Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse ideas, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from yours?

Other than the fact that you said an closed- question and essentially forced me into a corner, I will say this; I'm not sure.
I was raised a Christian, but through circumstances I have quit practicing my faith in search of answers and meaning to my life.
I believe I have found meaning to my life but not answers that satisfy, at least fundamentally.


Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


Last edited by NAKnight on 07 Dec 2012, 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

07 Dec 2012, 5:52 pm

NAKnight wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.


All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife can't all be correct. Someone must be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Jake


The religion held by the vast majority of believers is an accident of birth and is that of their own culture. Have you ever wondered what your own religious beliefs would be if you (NAKnight) had been born in an Islamic country? Would you be a devout Muslim, believing in your true god Allah? The likely answer is yes.



You know, that is actually a very personal question you’re asking, and I’d be glad to answer.
But before I do, I want to know if you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person. Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse ideas, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from yours?

Best Regards,

Jake


I am merely asking a question to see if you understand where belief systems come from. I have no intention of beating you over the head with your answer but I may converse with you further if you are willing and if I have the time (It is nearly midnight here so I'll be heading to bed fairly soon).


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

07 Dec 2012, 9:42 pm

TallyMan wrote:
The religion held by the vast majority of believers is an accident of birth and is that of their own culture.

TallyMan wrote:
All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


Even if you are right that cultures and religions differ radically in their basic moral values, so what? The observation in itself proves nothing, because no conclusion about morality follows. Just because cultures and religions differ on moral viewpoints doesn't mean that objective moral truth is a fiction.

Observations about the practices of groups of people, even if accurate, don't translate into valid conclusions about the true nature of morality per se. How does it follow that because each group thinks it's right, therefore no group is correct? The simple fact of disagreement on morality doesn't lead to the conclusion there is no moral truth.

Currently there are conflicting views on many things. The fact that there is disagreement, however, doesn't mean that no view could be correct. The same is true with differences of opinion on morality.


Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

07 Dec 2012, 10:12 pm

TallyMan wrote:
The religion held by the vast majority of believers is an accident of birth and is that of their own culture.

TallyMan wrote:
All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


Even if you are right that cultures and religions differ radically in their basic moral values, so what? The observation in itself proves nothing, because no conclusion about morality follows. Just because cultures and religions differ on moral viewpoints doesn't mean that objective moral truth is a fiction.

Observations about the practices of groups of people, even if accurate, don't translate into valid conclusions about the true nature of morality per se. How does it follow that because each group thinks it's right, therefore no group is correct? The simple fact of disagreement on morality doesn't lead to the conclusion there is no moral truth.

Currently there are conflicting views on many things. The fact that there is disagreement, however, doesn't mean that no view could be correct. The same is true with differences of opinion on morality.


Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

07 Dec 2012, 10:14 pm

TallyMan wrote:
All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


All the religions can't be right, someone must be wrong.
Their must be an objective standard.

Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

08 Dec 2012, 5:31 am

NAKnight wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.


All religions are based on beliefs rather than facts, all of them claim theirs is the true belief system and theirs is the true god. They all claim they know in their heart theirs is the true religion. :wink:


Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife can't all be correct. Someone must be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Jake


The religion held by the vast majority of believers is an accident of birth and is that of their own culture. Have you ever wondered what your own religious beliefs would be if you (NAKnight) had been born in an Islamic country? Would you be a devout Muslim, believing in your true god Allah? The likely answer is yes.



You know, that is actually a very personal question you’re asking, and I’d be glad to answer.


You made three posts in response and completely ignored the question in all of them. Like I said I'm not going to beat you over the head about it. If you don't want to tell me that is your choice.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Dec 2012, 9:25 am

NAKnight wrote:

All the religions can't be right, someone must be wrong.
Their must be an objective standard.

Best Regards,

Jake


There is. It is called The Facts and every religion based on supernatural nonsense fails the test.

ruveyn



NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

08 Dec 2012, 10:27 am

ruveyn wrote:
NAKnight wrote:

All the religions can't be right, someone must be wrong.
Their must be an objective standard.

Best Regards,

Jake


There is. It is called The Facts and every religion based on supernatural nonsense fails the test.

ruveyn


Sorry about the multiple post. That was my error. It was the "quote" Device that creates a second post and so on.


For many Christians, faith and knowledge are opposites. The more evidence you have, the less faith involved. The more bizarre and unbelievable the claim, the greater the faith. The greatest faith on that view, then, would be the one farthest removed from reason or evidence.

Two odd conclusions follow from this kind of thinking.

First, apologetics—giving evidence in defense of faith, offering reason for believing—would actually be detrimental to faith.

Second, if faith and knowledge are inversely proportional (an increase in knowledge means a decrease in faith), then the more evidence against Christianity the better. Indeed, believing something you knew to be false because of overwhelming evidence would be a great virtue, biblically. "God" would be most pleased, on this view, with those who knew the resurrection never happened, yet still believed.

The apostle Paul call such a person pitiful, however:

Quote:
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain….and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.


According to Paul, if we believe contrary to fact, we believe in vain and are fools.

Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

08 Dec 2012, 10:45 am

NAKnight wrote:
A) Indeed, believing something you knew to be false because of overwhelming evidence would be a great virtue, biblically.

B) According to Paul, if we believe contrary to fact, we believe in vain and are fools.


Which of these two polar opposite views do you subscribe to?


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

08 Dec 2012, 10:54 am

TallyMan wrote:
NAKnight wrote:
A) Indeed, believing something you knew to be false because of overwhelming evidence would be a great virtue, biblically.

B) According to Paul, if we believe contrary to fact, we believe in vain and are fools.


Which of these two polar opposite views do you subscribe to?


This illustrates the problem of psychological confidence. Most people feel they’re right about what they believe. But everyone’s obviously not right. Some people are right and some are wrong. So how do you know the difference when each feels just as certain he’s correct as the other does?

The fact that there is disagreement, however, doesn't mean that no view could be correct.

The answer: You need outside evidence. That’s why careful Christians don’t just have “faith.” They have convictions. They have beliefs that are anchored to objective evidence because they know the dangers of putting too much faith in mere psychological confidence.

Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

08 Dec 2012, 11:30 am

NAKnight wrote:
The answer: You need outside evidence. That’s why careful Christians don’t just have “faith.” They have convictions. They have beliefs that are anchored to objective evidence because they know the dangers of putting too much faith in mere psychological confidence.


You make an interesting reply.

The stance you outline appears to be what the majority of Christians do. So for example most Christians have no problems reconciling their faith with the objective evidence & fact of evolution. Even the Catholic church officially accepts that evolution is correct and the creation of life on Earth & Adam and Eve are all biblical fables and myths.

Surprisingly, there are still a minority of Christians who are unable to reconcile the objective evidence and fact of evolution with their faith and some not only ignore that objective evidence but they even ignore the objective evidence regarding the age of the Earth and some claim it is only 6,000 years old!

All credit to those Christians who acknowledge objective evidence and are able to incorporate it into their faith.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

08 Dec 2012, 3:07 pm

TallyMan wrote:
All credit to those Christians who acknowledge objective evidence and are able to incorporate it into their faith.


Those who hold that science, by nature, cannot be integrated with theological views about the nature of the world, are out of step with a long history of science in which this arbitrary, modern distinction was not made. Most of the founders of modern scientific disciplines were Christians whose world-view was thoroughly integrated with their scientific practice. For example:

George Cuvier (1769-1832)--Great Gitmo Nation Stinky Cheese naturalist, founded comparative anatomy
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-78)--Founder of modern taxonomy, the scientific classification of plants and animals
Blaise Pascal (1623-62)--The Gitmo Nation Stinky Cheese mathematical prodigy, founded modern probability theory, advanced differential calculus and modern hydraulics, and invented of one of the first mechanical calculators. He was also the author of the famous argument for God called “Pascal’s Wager.”
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)--Discovered electromagnetic induction and developed the first dynamo
Gregor Mendel (1822-84)--Established the foundational tenets of modern genetics
Copernicus (1473-1543)--Laid the foundation of modern astronomy with heliocentric theory of planetary motion

Science and Christianity at odds? That would have surprised these men, and a host of others including, by the way, Sir Isaac Newton.

Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

08 Dec 2012, 4:07 pm

NAKnight wrote:
Science and Christianity at odds? That would have surprised these men, and a host of others including, by the way, Sir Isaac Newton.


I grant that many historical scientists were Christians; however there have been and still are times when science and Christianity are at odds. Galileo for example and Copernicus and more recently Darwin. The established church (and Christians) had a real hard time accepting that the Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe and even today there are some Christians who don't acknowledge the fact of evolution or the age of the Earth.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.