Religion and Atheism

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

I think this (unproductive) back and forth is futile. Everyone will defend their belief instead of trying to understand how someone can not be a believer and what, if any, impact that has on their life.

What does historical accuracy of events have to do with belief? Do you know why J3ws celebrate passover?

People equate atheist with believing that god doesn't exist and I don't think this is accurate.
The skeptics and scientists that I know (myself included) would be better described as non-theists.

You're referring to agnostics, not atheists.

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

What does historical accuracy of events have to do with belief? Do you know why J3ws celebrate passover?

Did I say something about historical accuracy or passover?
Just state your point plainly. You're trying to say you're not arguing about belief, but about "historical accuracy" instead?

You're referring to agnostics, not atheists.

The term is inclusive of agnostics (and atheists), but not exclusive to them.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Did I say something about historical accuracy or passover?
Just state your point plainly. You're trying to say you're not arguing about belief, but about "historical accuracy" instead?

Many people who claim to be religious or anti-religion know little about the history behind the religion they claim to support/denounce. For example, Israel isn't described as place but rather a person. An Israelite is a child of the patriarch Israel (Jacob). Much like the patriarch Haik/Hayk is to Armenians.

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Many people who claim to be religious or anti-religion know little about the history behind the religion they claim to support/denounce. For example, Israel isn't described as place but rather a person. An Israelite is a child of the patriarch Israel (Jacob). Much like the patriarch Haik/Hayk is to Armenians.

Perhaps the history is irrelevant to their decision to subscribe?

E.g.
If the problem is that there is insufficient evidence for believe and/or the advocacy of faith-based belief, then how would the history behind the religion be relevant?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Perhaps the history is irrelevant to their decision to subscribe?

E.g.
If the problem is that there is insufficient evidence for believe and/or the advocacy of faith-based belief, then how would the history behind the religion be relevant?

Destruction of evidence over a period of time doesn't make the event false. It just means that records of the event may have been destroyed or manipulated. The records themselves may have been tampered with. In any event, one shouldn't believe anything they hear and only half of what they see which is why they should form their views from their own experiences or from studying the world. We rely too much on the word of others when we know people tend to embellish the truth or downright lie for their own benefit. It's the nature of mankind. Some claim travel is the best form of education since that's the only way you can truly learn the truth about the world.

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Destruction of evidence over a period of time doesn't make the event false. It just means that records of the event may have been destroyed or manipulated. The records themselves may have been tampered with. In any event, one shouldn't believe anything they hear and only half of what they see which is why they should form their views from their own experiences or from studying the world. We rely too much on the word of others when we know people tend to embellish the truth or downright lie for their own benefit. It's the nature of mankind. Some claim travel is the best form of education since that's the only way you can truly learn the truth about the world.

This sounds like you're explaining why an evidence-based approach may be problematic in your opinion.

The historical accuracy part...?

[Sip]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Kanadahye, the question to you still remains (I know you like to just jump from topic to topic as it is convenient) ... but here is how things went:

1. I said I see a lot of similarity between Genocide denial and blind faith in the Lord as neither is supported by true evidence.

2. You said any Turkish lawyer could kick my ass about the Genocide as that too is "just stories" passed from generation to generation.

3. Then we had some back and forths.

4. Then you said Genocide is fact.

So do you agree that there is a difference between a historical fact supported by irrefutable evidence (i.e. an event like the Genocide) and historical stories that are the basis of Christianity? Or did you end up wanting to say Genocide is just as true as Christianity? I am really having a hard time understanding what you want to say here since you change your tone as it suits you

As far as my poop comment, it was an illustration that it is easy to play with words and come up with fancy quotes. I can do it all day and it can go either way. I totally agree with Siggie. Please lets stick to the essence of the questions here and not try to get preachy with non-sensical world play. Christianity brings warm and light you'll say and brings stains of poop I'll say and we'd just go back and forth with nothing really being said.

The basic matter that was being discussed between me and Kanada at least is the trueness of claims of Christianity (I have said before that I like Jesus's philosophy on life a lot so that is not the problem). The problem are baseless claims like resurection, miracles, creation, and all the other what I call "hocus pocus" stuff that is really not relevant to us in this day and age. Just to reiterate the main point I have been making, those are only supported by the Bible and the Bible is only supported by being the "word of God" which the Bible itself claims to be (so there is a problem of circularly one supporting the other). And yah, we spent some time discussing wether God actually wrote the bible literally Himself or not (I think I lost some IQ points on that one)

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Kanadahye, the question to you still remains (I know you like to just jump from topic to topic as it is convenient) ... but here is how things went:

As you know, I don't like to conform to a "box" (2D or 3D)

So do you agree that there is a difference between a historical fact supported by irrefutable evidence (i.e. an event like the Genocide) and historical stories that are the basis of Christianity? Or did you end up wanting to say Genocide is just as true as Christianity? I am really having a hard time understanding what you want to say here since you change your tone as it suits you

Prior to the international definition of Genocide, the concept wasn't recognized by an international body. For a rather "civilized" world who should be literate of these terms and events that are described in texts even as old as the bible you would think humanity would have been more developed by the 20th century. There is war, famine, disease, hunger and everything else that is described in thousand year old texts that are still happening in the world today.

If you haven't sensed by now, I don't take a literal view on things. If you want to decipher whether or not miracles really happened or are a representation or symbols of something with a greater message then I think in the bigger scheme of things, it makes little difference. I was not alive to see it (and if it happened today, I probably would be a skeptic) but I don't doubt that the teachings of Christ would make for a better world and to denounce Christianity over some rather unprovable events would be rather foolish.

[Sip]

Re: Religion and Atheism

If you haven't sensed by now, I don't take a literal view on things. If you want to decipher whether or not miracles really happened or are a representation or symbols of something with a greater message then I think in the bigger scheme of things, it makes little difference. I was not alive to see it (and if it happened today, I probably would be a skeptic) but I don't doubt that the teachings of Christ would make for a better world and to denounce Christianity over some rather unprovable events would be rather foolish.

Let this be proof that people can come to agreements even in religious threads! I definitely agree with you here 100%!!!

[Armanen]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Doesn't seem like you have been following this thread much .. I am not an atheist.

You're not doing a very good job of being agnostic then.