Theological discussions

[Endless/Nameless]

30 minutes ago, Saxon said:

the notion of 'using common sense' to interrogate genesis, millions of Christians, including Rukh, obviously can't do that, and come to insane conclusions that the Earth was made in 6 days, the entire world was flooded, that man existed before woman, and than the entire human race is the product of their incestuous descendants. Great common sense. 

You're confusing common sense with scientific reasoning. 

Using common sense [in the sense that i meant it] means not picking apart the brush patterns when it's obvious that the picture was painted with broad strokes. Anyone who knows the basics of language should be able to distinguish the literal from the metaphorical with at least mild success. 

If you are going to attempt to understand the Bible, you must approach it with the hypothetical assumption that unexplainable, supernatural phenomena is a possibility. Just like evolutionists must approach their studies with the assumption that such a phenomenon is biologically possible and/or feasible. Trying to throw out entire biblical passages on the grounds that it is scientifically illogical shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

This hypothesis posits that this is a hebrew explanation for the missing baculum, just like the snake's punishment is a mythological explanation for its missing legs? 

Geddit? 

.......................but it's not. 

17 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

Where is this evidence and why has it not been found by the greater scientific community despite repeated attempts to do so?

If history has proven anything, it's that scientific thought has been revised time and time again, no matter how much faith the scholars of the time put into their beliefs. 

We as a society may be much more scientifically correct than ever before, but it's not inconceivable that we could be proven incorrect yet again.

[Conker]

41 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

Except I can also cite a number of delusional ideologies that clearly harm society and people that are not in any way based in religious thinking.  Things such as the ant-vax movement and climate change denial are seriously harmful and neither is related to religion.  Since it is clearly the case that such delusional thinking occurs outside of the context of religion it is too early to claim that religion leads to a greater harm to society.  Such a thing would need to be studied and determined via research not merely assumed because one likes the conclusion.

Not to be a nitpicking ninny, but all the counters to climate change I've seen people spout are religious in nature. Argument basically boils down to:

"God made the Earth and only he can alter its climate. Humans don't have the power" which is silly given we have nuclear bombs which SERIOUSLY fuck stuff up for decades.

But I have seen that made, so yeah, some people do use God to handwave climate change.

[Derin Darkpaw]

Just now, Endless/Nameless said:

We as a society may be much more scientifically correct than ever before, but it's not inconceivable that we could be proven incorrect yet again.

Such a position however completely ignores prior plausibility which factors heavily into scientific thought.

[Endless/Nameless]

1 minute ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

Such a position however completely ignores prior plausibility which factors heavily into scientific thought.

Correct. No argument.

[Derin Darkpaw]

Just now, Conker said:

Not to be a nitpicking ninny, but all the counters to climate change I've seen people spout are religious in nature. Argument basically boils down to:

"God made the Earth and only he can alter its climate. Humans don't have the power" which is silly given we have nuclear bombs which SERIOUSLY fuck stuff up for decades.

But I have seen that made, so yeah, some people do use God to handwave climate change.

And I have seen a large number of people, sadly myself included at one point, manage to argue against climate change based solely on misinterpretations of the scientific data or ignorance of the current evidence.  No god is required in order to believe that mankind isn't causing climate change

[Conker]

1 minute ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

And I have seen a large number of people, sadly myself included at one point, manage to argue against climate change based solely on misinterpretations of the scientific data or ignorance of the current evidence.  No god is required in order to believe that mankind isn't causing climate change

Fair enough.

[Rukh Whitefang]

20 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

No the only thing we know for sure about delusion based ideologies is that they are based on delusion.  You hold a personal philosophical position that delusion is always bad.  To say that something is bad implies either a moralistic or qualitative assessment.  You have neither presented an argument for why delusion is immoral nor have you posited a valid argument for how something being delusional makes it qualitatively worse.  Until such a time as you can actually create an argument for why something merely being delusional is bad your negative assessment of religion will remain nothing more then your own personal opinion and I don't know about you but I want something a little stronger then an individuals personal opinion before I advocate removing something that has been a pillar of society since before recorded history.

Where is this evidence and why has it not been found by the greater scientific community despite repeated attempts to do so?

Personally I have not gone looking for evidence of the flood myself if that's what your asking. How could something be missed by by the secular world? Easy in my opinion when the very existence of God is denied even though I believe nature itself screams it was created.

8 minutes ago, Saxon said:

This hypothesis posits that this is a hebrew explanation for the missing baculum, just like the snake's punishment is a mythological explanation for its missing legs? 

Geddit? 

Choosing the baculum as a candidate is not a 'giant leap', because the word telsa is used to mean 'mast' or 'supporting strut' in some instances. 

 

I don't think it's disrespectful to say that your religion has impaired your reasoning skills; you originally blankly refused to even consider alternative view points about human and earth origins; your expectation of a debate was that you would state your beliefs and that...nobody would be allowed to challenge them, because that's the only way your beliefs can survive. They would dissolve if you actually exposed them to criticism. 

 

Again this hypothesis has no bearing because it has no basis Scripturaly. Also the hypothesis is based on a pretty bad assumption.

"Our opinion is that Adam did not lose a rib in the creation of Eve. Any ancient Israelite (or for that matter, any American child) would be expected to know that there is an equal (and even) number of ribs in both men and women. Moreover, ribs lack any intrinsic generative capacity."

His opinion is that because men and women have the same amount of ribs, Adam's rib could not have been used. He is implying that Adam somehow had to pass down a gene that all men had to have one less rib in order for the "rib" account to hold merit. That is what I have been saying is an invalid argument. Its also known that a rib can regrow if the periosteum (the membrane that covers the bone) must be left intact. Why did the author disregard this?

1 minute ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Yes, that is a problem.

Because the global flood has been geologically proven to have never happened. So the scripture does no longer make sense. Only people like you still believe it because you can't handle the thought of not believing. You fear it would render your life meaningless if there was no god and heaven.

Yeah, resorting to petty insults when someone is willing to have a discussion/conversation is childish behavior. Your making a conscious choice to be disrespectful. I see no reason to waste time with a person who refuses to be amicable.

[FlynnCoyote]

Just now, Rukh Whitefang said:

Yeah, resorting to petty insults when someone is willing to have a discussion/conversation is childish behavior. Your making a conscious choice to be disrespectful. I see no reason to waste time with a person who refuses to be amicable.

That is my observation, Rukh. No insult is intended. Correct me as you see fit.

[Rukh Whitefang]

2 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

That is my observation, Rukh. No insult is intended. Correct me as you see fit.

Only people like you still believe it because you can't handle the thought of not believing. You fear it would render your life meaningless if there was no god and heaven.

Instead of posting that you could have asked why do you still believe when the secular world says its not true? Or what makes you so certain? That's being respectful even while disagreeing. Instead you make a baseless assumption while being rude at the same time. If no insult was intended then you just chose a very poor choice of words.

[Saxon]

39 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

@Saxon you are entirely missing the point I was making.  I was asking if you can actually construct argument that demonstrates that delusion is inherently bad.  Because the only argument you have presented so far is that delusion is bad because it is obviously bad.  Which is clearly circular reasoning and a fallacious argument.

Delusions are false beliefs maintained in spite of rational argument. So holding a delusion shows that a person's reasoning ability has been compromised, which is bad because it means that they may not be able to reach the right conclusions when they depend on their reasoning skills. 

I think we're getting quite distracted with semantics now though; as if it even needed to be established that being gullible is a detriment. 

 

23 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Personally I have not gone looking for evidence of the flood myself if that's what your asking. How could something be missed by by the secular world? Easy in my opinion when the very existence of God is denied even though I believe nature itself screams it was created.

Again this hypothesis has no bearing because it has no basis Scripturaly. Also the hypothesis is based on a pretty bad assumption.

"Our opinion is that Adam did not lose a rib in the creation of Eve. Any ancient Israelite (or for that matter, any American child) would be expected to know that there is an equal (and even) number of ribs in both men and women. Moreover, ribs lack any intrinsic generative capacity."

His opinion is that because men and women have the same amount of ribs, Adam's rib could not have been used. He is implying that Adam somehow had to pass down a gene that all men had to have one less rib in order for the "rib" account to hold merit. That is what I have been saying is an invalid argument. Its also known that a rib can regrow if the periosteum (the membrane that covers the bone) must be left intact. Why did the author disregard this?

Yeah, resorting to petty insults when someone is willing to have a discussion/conversation is childish behavior. Your making a conscious choice to be disrespectful. I see no reason to waste time with a person who refuses to be amicable.

Obviously the authors aren't describing genetics. The authors don't believe this creation myth, the know it didn't happen. They're trying to imagine what ancient hebrew people ,writing mythological stories, would interpret the world around them. 

Do you accept that their argument is better than any argument that can be contrived to suggest that Adam surrendered a rib or a finger bone? 

 

If you want to argue about genes though... and you believe the entire human race dates back to Adam and Eve...explain why genetic Adam lived 200,000-300,000 years ago while genetic Eve lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

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

 

34 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

You're confusing common sense with scientific reasoning. 

Using common sense [in the sense that i meant it] means not picking apart the brush patterns when it's obvious that the picture was painted with broad strokes. Anyone who knows the basics of language should be able to distinguish the literal from the metaphorical with at least mild success. 

If you are going to attempt to understand the Bible, you must approach it with the hypothetical assumption that unexplainable, supernatural phenomena is a possibility. Just like evolutionists must approach their studies with the assumption that such a phenomenon is biologically possible and/or feasible. Trying to throw out entire biblical passages on the grounds that it is scientifically illogical shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

.......................but it's not. 

If history has proven anything, it's that scientific thought has been revised time and time again, no matter how much faith the scholars of the time put into their beliefs. 

We as a society may be much more scientifically correct than ever before, but it's not inconceivable that we could be proven incorrect yet again.

 

Rukh actually believes that Crazy stuff, though; the stuff you said he should be able to reject just by using his common sense. Obviously common sense isn't good enough, because each person's notion of it differs. 

I study biological evolution, mostly from a fossil perspective, and you don't have to assume that creatures evolve in order to study the fossil record; it's the other way around in fact. Fossil and genetic evidence proves that creatures must evolve, and all observations of the natural world are consistent with this idea.

On the subject of 'scientific thought changing', do you think that scientific thought might change in the future...and prove that Germs don't cause disease?

Of course no, you understand that some scientific theories have amassed so much evidence that they are now essentially facts. 

Only people like you still believe it because you can't handle the thought of not believing. You fear it would render your life meaningless if there was no god and heaven.

Instead of posting that you could have asked why do you still believe when the secular world says its not true? Or what makes you so certain? That's being respectful even while disagreeing. Instead you make a baseless assumption while being rude at the same time. If no insult was intended then you just chose a very poor choice of words.

So can you actually defend your beliefs against the 'secular world' and prove that there was a biblical flood?

Incidentally, the geologist who proved there was no biblical flood was William Buckland, and he was Christian. 

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Saxon

[FlynnCoyote]

8 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Only people like you still believe it because you can't handle the thought of not believing. You fear it would render your life meaningless if there was no god and heaven.

Instead of posting that you could have asked why do you still believe when the secular world says its not true? Or what makes you so certain? That's being respectful even while disagreeing. Instead you make a baseless assumption while being rude at the same time. If no insult was intended then you just chose a very poor choice of words.

Perhaps I did. I'm human. Let me try again?

How then do you reconcile the ever increasing amounts of scientific based evidence for things like evolution and abiogenesis against the story of creation? How do you interpret the measurements of billions of light years that astronomers and astrophysicists have been able to observe with more and more modern telescopes against the story of Creationism over the course of six days? These things are being verified by independent labs all over the planet, and a good 90-95% of the scientific community no longer supports any form of religion having basis in fact.

What about medical advances being able to treat and even fix problems that in ages past were attributed to demons? Epilepsey was once considered caused by malevolent spirits. My own mother suffers from seizures, but her medication has rendered them almost nil. People with lost limbs will soon have bionic prosthetics readily available. But the scripture says no disfigured person shall enter heaven or some such right? I might need clarity on that. 

Most important of all, why has there been no verifiable example of any of this in the last thousand years at least? What makes you so sure Jesus was the messiah? How do you know the jews aren't right? What makes you so sure Mohamed wasn't a prophet? What if the muslims are right? Or better yet, how do you know any of them have basis in fact? They clearly can't all be right but it is perfectly feasible that all three are wrong, one fable built upon another, right? What about the people in other parts of the world growing up with their own religions entirely separate from the Abrahamic god?

So my question really boils down to; why in this modern scientific age do you give bronze age mythologies any credibility whatsoever? If it weren't for the Roman and British empires spreading these stories by sword, torch and pitchfork chances are you would not be growing up with them today. So why hold to them?

[Endless/Nameless]

12 minutes ago, Saxon said:

On the subject of 'scientific thought changing', do you think that scientific thought might change in the future...and prove that Germs don't cause disease?

Of course no, you understand that some scientific theories have amassed so much evidence that they are now essentially facts. 

Yes. I cannot deny that. 

I am of the belief however that archaeological/geological studies haven't quite reached that point of immutable accuracy. 

But I admit that I'm not knowledgable enough in those areas to make any sort of worthwhile argument.

17 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Rukh actually believes that Crazy stuff, though; the stuff you said he should be able to reject just by using his common sense. Obviously common sense isn't good enough, because each person's notion of it differs. 

I never meant to imply that the purported events listed in Genesis should be rejected; I was instead trying make the point that the poor terminology used within (e.g., the "snowglobe" thing) should obviously be taken as being metaphorical. Like how when an author says one thing is another thing, we get the idea, but common sense dictates that the object is not really that other thing. You either misunderstood me, or more likely my argument is quite flawed. I am sorry for that. 

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Yes. I cannot deny that. 

I am of the belief however that archaeological/geological studies haven't quite reached that point of immutable accuracy. 

But I admit that I'm not knowledgable enough in those areas to make any sort of worthwhile argument.

I never meant to imply that the purported events listed in Genesis should be rejected; I was instead trying make the point that the poor terminology used within (e.g., the "snowglobe" thing) should obviously be taken as being metaphorical. Like how when an author says one thing is another thing, we get the idea, but common sense dictates that the object is not really that other thing. You either misunderstood me, or more likely my argument is quite flawed. I am sorry for that. 

Biology and Geology have amassed so much evidence to show that biodversity emerges as a result of evolution that it is now an established fact.  

No matter what discoveries occur in the future, this won't now change. Just as no amount of further research will prove that the moon is made of cheese or that the sun orbits the earth. 

Obviously the only interpretation of genesis compatible with modern knowledge is that the entire thing is a metaphor. 

[FlynnCoyote]

7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Obviously the only interpretation of genesis compatible with modern knowledge is that the entire thing is a metaphor.

The story of Adam and Eve being a metaphor for Mankind desiring power and knowledge in place of happiness.

They did not have said knowledge beforehand. How could they have known their choice was supposedly wrong?

Though in my mind, their choice was perfect.

[Endless/Nameless]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Obviously the only interpretation of genesis compatible with modern knowledge is that the entire thing is a metaphor. 

I don't believe there is any interpretation of the Bible that is wholly compatible with modern knowledge.

That's why so many of us are always babbling about "faith", because thats what it all comes down to really.

Quote

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

- 1 Corinthians 2:14

I understand that it sounds like idiocy. It does, and I myself see plenty of ways to pick it apart. But I am confident in the Word, and it makes sense to me. Does that make me an idiot? Yes, probably. But I'm alright with it.

[FlynnCoyote]

Faith is little more than the decision to trust something despite having no tangible reason to trust.

It is a catalyst that allows people to believe comforting illusions or bigoted beliefs in spite of contradicting evidence or lack of any rational purpose.

 

In many cases, Faith perseveres because people were raised with certain beliefs and have not been able to let go of them despite, deep down, knowing better.

Edited March 25, 2016 by FlynnCoyote

[Derin Darkpaw]

49 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Delusions are false beliefs maintained in spite of rational argument. So holding a delusion shows that a person's reasoning ability has been compromised, which is bad because it means that they may not be able to reach the right conclusions when they depend on their reasoning skills. 

If it the presence of any delusional belief meant that a person was more susceptible to further delusional beliefs we should see a cascade of delusional belief in any person that contains delusional beliefs.  However many times we see individuals who are otherwise rational and reasonable who hold singular delusions and they do so without succumbing to a myriad of other delusional beliefs.  Also the inverse is true some one who holds a myriad of delusional beliefs can still maintain excellent reasoning capabilities.  So since we can point to cases such as what I am talking about we can see that delusion does not necessarily compromise ones ability to reason.

[Clove Darkwave]

3 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

You know, I think you came into the conversation with me with the wrong mindset. This isn't a debate. You nor anyone else is going to change my mind lets just get that out in the open. And I never have assumed nor made any claim that I am here to change your mind. I in fact alluded to that when I made that passing comment about your grandfather in which you agreed with. I had hoped perhaps foolishly that open honest engaging respectful conversations could be had.

Let me be honest with you for the motivations of my question and show you the purpose.

Now my question was how you reason in your beliefs when other gods of different faiths existed long before the Abrahamic one. I was hoping, perhaps as foolishly as you hoped, that I would receive an answer that would impress me with its thoughtfulness and acceptance. Something rare.

My position is that these gods of Kemetic faith existed long before yours, and indeed everyone on Earth knows this to be fact as their great wonders still stand to this day as a testament of that. So while it is obvious your faith's assertions about its prominence are false, I am willing to accept that your god is a god and that your heaven is a heaven among others. I'm also willing to accept the theory that there are multiple universes where physics may even function under different laws, and I'm also willing to accept that there may be 4th dimensional beings (that to us would doubtlessly seem as gods or fae or demons) in a manner similar to Carl Sagan's lesson on the matter. The point is, I'm willing to accept your god may exist as perhaps a younger member of the competition on the field. And it's how I accept that maybe just maybe against all science and reason we have that Osiris is a thing too. Because it's all fucking ridiculous.

In return, you gave me what amounted to "That's impossible because my god created everything and has existed since the beginning of time, so I don't see how such a timeline could be.". You basically said "My god is the right idea and yours is just lies since it couldn't have been." So let's be truthful about who's really being honest, engaging, and respectful here. I'm willing to make allowances for you, but you most certainly won't in turn.

Therefore, since your means of dialogue is exactly like that of the athiests in this thread whom you call rude and not worth your time, I believe they are your deserved playmates.

[Saxon]

9 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I don't believe there is any interpretation of the Bible that is wholly compatible with modern knowledge.

That's why so many of us are always babbling about "faith", because thats what it all comes down to really.

- 1 Corinthians 2:14

I understand that it sounds like idiocy. It does, and I myself see plenty of ways to pick it apart. But I am confident in the Word, and it makes sense to me. Does that make me an idiot? Yes, probably. But I'm alright with it.

Given that the bible is reputed to be the divine truth of god himself, its failure to survive even the most tentative scrutiny is disappointing. Why would god desire gullibility...or worship anyway, actually? 

If it the presence of any delusional belief meant that a person was more susceptible to further delusional beliefs we should see a cascade of delusional belief in any person that contains delusional beliefs.  However many times we see individuals who are otherwise rational and reasonable who hold singular delusions and they do so without succumbing to a myriad of other delusional beliefs.  Also the inverse is true some one who holds a myriad of delusional beliefs can still maintain excellent reasoning capabilities.  So since we can point to cases such as what I am talking about we can see that delusion does not necessarily compromise ones ability to reason.

Your opening comment is a 'slippery slope' fallacy and a strawman; it's easy to knock down a contrived argument that nobody was proposing anyway. 

I think that people who are otherwise rational often shield their cherished beliefs from criticism, and that holding those delusions does make them vulnerable; most of the time the delusion may not interact with reason...but when it does, rational skills are impaired. 

Rukh's response is a good example; his capacity to interrogate geological, biological and palaeontological ideas is clearly badly impaired, because he can't do so with a free mind; he has to warp any incoming idea to make it compatible with a belief which he has accepted uncritically. 

If delusions didn't compromise people's reasoning capacity in any way...then they would abandon the delusion when confronted with criticism and wouldn't be delusional anymore. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Saxon

[Derin Darkpaw]

@Saxon I have provided several points of evidence to establish my argument, that religion is useful, in this thread.  You on the other hand just keep claiming what you believe and have yet to back up any of your assertions.

14 hours ago, Saxon said:

 Rukh's response is a good example; his capacity to interrogate geological, biological and palaeontological ideas is clearly badly impaired, because he can't do so with a free mind; he has to warp any incoming idea to make it compatible with a belief which he has accepted uncritically. 

No this isn't a good example of anything.  It is merely a notable anecdote that you keep referring to because it backs up your point.

 

[Endless/Nameless]

15 hours ago, Saxon said:

Given that the bible is reputed to be the divine truth of god himself, its failure to survive even the most tentative scrutiny is disappointing. Why would god desire gullibility

The answer I always hear given is that God wants people who can believe from their heart, not just their head.

I know that's not a very satisfying answer, but if there was a better one, I'm sure we'd have both heard it by now. 

13 hours ago, Saxon said:

...or worship anyway, actually? 

That bit does raise an interesting question doesn't it? It seems rather pointless. But I wonder if there's quite as much "worship" involved in Christianity as is commonly assumed...

The first record of worship-like activities was in the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4, where the two brothers are shown offering sacrifices of produce and livestock. There is no explanation given as to why they would do that, and as far as we know, up till then God hadn't appeared to want more than simple obedience and to just kinda....hang out apparently. The best that I can think of is that maybe Adam and fam came up with the practice themselves as a way to show remorse for their betrayal, and God just kinda went along with it. All that's only conjecture, but it's the first sign I can recall of any actions being done as a form of worship.

Later, when the Hebrew law was given, a whole shit-ton of rituals and guidelines for worship were set forth. Why? As you say, a supernatural being shouldn't require burnt offerings or robed priests. The only reasons I can think of, aside from keeping the mind of the populace in a spiritual place, are these: a.) Since society at that point in history expected religion to operate that way, the Hebrews wouldn't have gotten any respect from the surrounding pagans. b.) Religious people seem to gravitate toward making their religions more complicated (just look at Catholicism and all the arbitrary intricacies they've piled upon themselves over the years), so God may have decided to preemptively make up His own stuff so they didn't just come up with a bunch of random crap. If that's true, God would have been using the concept of "worship" as a means to an end; not because he really needed it. Also only conjecture.

All that went on until New Testament times, and it hasn't applied since. Since the dawn of Christianity, there really hasn't any demands for "worship", other than the requirement to believe and to keep a moral code. There are a few minor rituals outlined in the New Testament, such as communion or baptism, but those aren't that big of a deal, really. Most all of the elements of worship we see today have been implemented by ourselves. The idea of attending church? No Biblical defense. There were mentions of Christians having meetings, but it was probably just a thing they did on their own behalf; possibly as a way to imitate Jew's attendance of synagogues. (for the record, I do not attend any church, nor do I wish to) The idea of Sunday being a special day? No Biblical defense. The one and only mention of such a thing is in Acts, where mention is made a group of Christians that just so happened to usually gather on Sundays. No big deal, it was probably just what they happened to do. Some Christians try to justify observing Sunday by referencing the Sabbath, but that's simply ludicrous because the Sabbath is the last day of the week, and only the Hebrews were expected to observe that rule. The idea of praise and worship music? I sure as hell don't recall God dictating what we can sing about. The idea of Churches needing to be big 'n' fancy? The idea of tithing? All leftovers from the B.C. days that are no longer relevant. Right-wing conservative types that insist you must pray before every meal, send all their kids to Sunday school, and spend an hour in your closet with your Bible every day? That's not God talking, that's years of preachermen and indoctrination speaking. Christians have put it all on themselves. Not that it's all bad, some of it can at times be quite beneficial; but all the Lord actually wants is for us to be on His side of the game.

I don't even fully consider my beliefs to be a religion. Religion is a way of life, a badge on your chest, a cause you belong to. I don't want any part in that. I simply hold beliefs. Maybe I'm just deluding myself again, because those beliefs still help shape my actions; but at least it comes from my heart instead of an organization. 

Not that any of this matters to you, but I wanted to reply with whatever I could.

[Saxon]

8 hours ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

@Saxon I have provided several points of evidence to establish my argument, that religion is useful, in this thread.  You on the other hand just keep claiming what you believe and have yet to back up any of your assertions.

No this isn't a good example of anything.  It is merely a notable anecdote that you keep referring to because it backs up your point.

 

You provided arguments that religion is a useful comfort blanket for the mentally impaired, while dismissing notable examples of sectarian violent, theocracy, cash swindling and academic constriction.

You were forced so far into a corner that, having conceded religious beliefs are delusional, you began arguing that delusion doesn't have to be a bad thing. 

 

8 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

The answer I always hear given is that God wants people who can believe from their heart, not just their head.

I know that's not a very satisfying answer, but if there was a better one, I'm sure we'd have both heard it by now. 

That bit does raise an interesting question doesn't it? It seems rather pointless. But I wonder if there's quite as much "worship" involved in Christianity as is commonly assumed...

The first record of worship-like activities was in the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4, where the two brothers are shown offering sacrifices of produce and livestock. There is no explanation given as to why they would do that, and as far as we know, up till then God hadn't appeared to want more than simple obedience and to just kinda....hang out apparently. The best that I can think of is that maybe Adam and fam came up with the practice themselves as a way to show remorse for their betrayal, and God just kinda went along with it. All that's only conjecture, but it's the first sign I can recall of any actions being done as a form of worship.

Later, when the Hebrew law was given, a whole shit-ton of rituals and guidelines for worship were set forth. Why? As you say, a supernatural being shouldn't require burnt offerings or robed priests. The only reasons I can think of, aside from keeping the mind of the populace in a spiritual place, are these: a.) Since society at that point in history expected religion to operate that way, the Hebrews wouldn't have gotten any respect from the surrounding pagans. b.) Religious people seem to gravitate toward making their religions more complicated (just look at Catholicism and all the arbitrary intricacies they've piled upon themselves over the years), so God may have decided to preemptively make up His own stuff so they didn't just come up with a bunch of random crap. If that's true, God would have been using the concept of "worship" as a means to an end; not because he really needed it. Also only conjecture.

All that went on until New Testament times, and it hasn't applied since. Since the dawn of Christianity, there really hasn't any demands for "worship", other than the requirement to believe and to keep a moral code. There are a few minor rituals outlined in the New Testament, such as communion or baptism, but those aren't that big of a deal, really. Most all of the elements of worship we see today have been implemented by ourselves. The idea of attending church? No Biblical defense. There were mentions of Christians having meetings, but it was probably just a thing they did on their own behalf; possibly as a way to imitate Jew's attendance of synagogues. (for the record, I do not attend any church, nor do I wish to) The idea of Sunday being a special day? No Biblical defense. The one and only mention of such a thing is in Acts, where mention is made a group of Christians that just so happened to usually gather on Sundays. No big deal, it was probably just what they happened to do. Some Christians try to justify observing Sunday by referencing the Sabbath, but that's simply ludicrous because the Sabbath is the last day of the week, and only the Hebrews were expected to observe that rule. The idea of praise and worship music? I sure as hell don't recall God dictating what we can sing about. The idea of Churches needing to be big 'n' fancy? The idea of tithing? All leftovers from the B.C. days that are no longer relevant. Right-wing conservative types that insist you must pray before every meal, send all their kids to Sunday school, and spend an hour in your closet with your Bible every day? That's not God talking, that's years of preachermen and indoctrination speaking. Christians have put it all on themselves. Not that it's all bad, some of it can at times be quite beneficial; but all the Lord actually wants is for us to be on His side of the game.

I don't even fully consider my beliefs to be a religion. Religion is a way of life, a badge on your chest, a cause you belong to. I don't want any part in that. I simply hold beliefs. Maybe I'm just deluding myself again, because those beliefs still help shape my actions; but at least it comes from my heart instead of an organization. 

Not that any of this matters to you, but I wanted to reply with whatever I could.

 

For what possible reason is a person's predisposition to believe indicative of their value as a person, though? Even you admit this answer is dis-satisfactory. 

Crucially you then do have a flash of inspiration, when you speculate that religious rituals and worship are 'crap' that is 'just made up'. 

Yes! That's exactly what this all is; that is why you can find no satisfactory answers to explain or justify these behaviours. Not only did people make up the idea of sacrifice and worship themselves; they made God up to. 

God is a human projection of our own feelings and insecurities onto the natural world, much like we imagine that constellations of stars are archers ,hunters or women. Because people attribute human personality to the natural world, they interpret natural disaster as a sign of divine anger, and this is why they try to placate the natural world with grovelling, worship and offerings. 

Look at the bible and I'm sure you will agree that earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and floods, attributed to God's wrath, are just ignorant bronze age humans trying to make sense of their world, without really understanding what's going on. 

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Saxon

[Endless/Nameless]

47 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Not only did people make up the idea of sacrifice and worship themselves; they made God up to

That's one conclusion that can be drawn, and you're free to hold that view. I'm not here to convince you; just to explain where I'm coming from. 

Well, actually I'm here to shitpost, but I ended up here somehow...

[Saxon]

Just now, Endless/Nameless said:

That's one conclusion that can be drawn, and you're free to hold that view. I'm not here to convince you; just to explain where I'm coming from. 

You admitted yourself that you can't contrive a satisfactory explanation for your perspective. :\ This isn't an 'explanation', it is pleading. 

Compare this to justifiable conclusions which you obviously accept as valid just as much as I do, because you presumably believe that all other gods and idols are false, and must have been made up. 

So why is your idol so special compared to all the others? 

 

[DrDingo]

The first guy ever to claim "God told me I should be king of this nation" must have been really crafty

[Endless/Nameless]

24 minutes ago, Saxon said:

You admitted yourself that you can't contrive a satisfactory explanation for your perspective. :\ This isn't an 'explanation', it is pleading. 

Compare this to justifiable conclusions which you obviously accept as valid just as much as I do, because you presumably believe that all other gods and idols are false, and must have been made up. 

So why is your idol so special compared to all the others? 

 

Because I've seen His presence in my life. I can't explain it, but I have. 

Geez man, lighten up. Nobody has to win this argument. 

[Saxon]

2 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Because I've seen His presence in my life. I can't explain it, but I have. 

Geez man, lighten up. Nobody has to win this argument. 

'I'm here to explain where I'm coming from'...'I can't explain it'

You've clearly lost this argument, because you've just conceded that you don't have any better reason to justify your god's existence than people who purport the existence of ghosts, wiccan magic, or alien abductions. :\ 

 

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, Saxon said:

'I'm here to explain where I'm coming from'...'I can't explain it'

You've clearly lost this argument, because you've just conceded that you don't have any better reason to justify your god's existence than people who purport the existence of ghosts, wiccan magic, or alien abductions. :\ 

 

Ok. :^)

[Strongbob]

Unfortunately most religious discussion ultimately trend to this point with one side concluding that the believers are delusional morons and the other side concluding that the non-believers are soulless heathens, and thus we have reached an impasse.

The truth is likely far more subtle than this and is likely impossible for us to truly understand.  If a 'god' does indeed exist, then it likely lives in multiple universes, in more physical dimensions, and with a completely different perception of time and space than we do as humans.  How are we possibly going to reason out what god is from our lowly spot in the universe?   If you claim to understand god you are a fool.  If you insist there can be no god you are blind.  In either case our best option is to do the best we can in this life, and don't be an asshole.  At the end of the day we will all become dust or we will all become gods, and there is very little we can do about it either way. 

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Ok. :^)

I'm just going to comment on how intellectually dishonest and childish it is to endeavour to provide a convincing explanation for belief in god, and then, as soon as you realise you've started loosing, make limp-wristed comments like 'nobody has to win', as if this will actually rescue your ailing arguments.

It is very much like Rukh's perspective, to demand intellectual discussion, and then accuse anybody who disagrees with him of not being respectful or intellectual and refuse to even engage dissenting arguments. 

 

This is broadly what I've come to expect from the religious though. I gather that if they didn't behave like this, they'd probably find themselves leaving religion behind. 

[Derin Darkpaw]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

You provided arguments that religion is a useful comfort blanket for the mentally impaired, while dismissing notable examples of sectarian violent, theocracy, cash swindling and academic constriction.

People in engage in violence without religion.  So you have not proven that religion makes people more likely to commit violence.  Con men succeed in swindling cash from people that are not religious and without using religion.  So you have not established that religion makes one more susceptible to being conned or more likely to commit such fraud.  Many groups with various interests attempt to limit and control what can be taught in schools again without using religion as an excuse or justification.  So you have in no way demonstrated that religion makes a person more likely to attempt or desire to control school curriculum for the worse.

I never denied that religious people or individuals engage in these activities, but the question of whether or not they simply engage in them is irrelevant.  Like any such instance we need to perform studies, collect data, and examine evidence to determine if that factor makes an individual more likely to engage in such negative activities.  What you seem to be suggesting is that in this instance we can toss science out the window because you believe you got this figured out.

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

You were forced so far into a corner that, having conceded religious beliefs are delusional, you began arguing that delusion doesn't have to be a bad thing. 

That's not something I argue when forced into a corner.  Delusion and lying, to a certain degree, are something we regularly accept as good in society.  We do not expect people to be 100% accurate in their beliefs and statements about the world in every other facet of life so why should we hold religion to a different standard.

[Endless/Nameless]

14 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I'm just going to comment on how intellectually dishonest and childish it is to endeavour to provide a convincing explanation for belief in god, and then, as soon as you realise you've started loosing, make limp-wristed comments like 'nobody has to win', as if this will actually rescue your ailing arguments.

It is very much like Rukh's perspective, to demand intellectual discussion, and then accuse anybody who disagrees with him of not being respectful or intellectual and refuse to even engage dissenting arguments. 

 

This is broadly what I've come to expect from the religious though. I gather that if they didn't behave like this, they'd probably find themselves leaving religion behind. 

I didn't go into this argument expecting to win it. I know can only take my argument so far. You should be glad I admit it; at least I'm not calling you an idiot.

[Hakar-Kerarmor]

7 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I didn't go into this argument expecting to win it. I know can only take my argument so far. You should be glad I admit it; at least I'm not calling you an idiot.

Truly we live in enlightened times.

[Saxon]

34 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

People in engage in violence without religion.  So you have not proven that religion makes people more likely to commit violence.  Con men succeed in swindling cash from people that are not religious and without using religion.  So you have not established that religion makes one more susceptible to being conned or more likely to commit such fraud.  Many groups with various interests attempt to limit and control what can be taught in schools again without using religion as an excuse or justification.  So you have in no way demonstrated that religion makes a person more likely to attempt or desire to control school curriculum for the worse.

I never denied that religious people or individuals engage in these activities, but the question of whether or not they simply engage in them is irrelevant.  Like any such instance we need to perform studies, collect data, and examine evidence to determine if that factor makes an individual more likely to engage in such negative activities.  What you seem to be suggesting is that in this instance we can toss science out the window because you believe you got this figured out.

That's not something I argue when forced into a corner.  Delusion and lying, to a certain degree, are something we regularly accept as good in society.  We do not expect people to be 100% accurate in their beliefs and statements about the world in every other facet of life so why should we hold religion to a different standard.

Of course violence and swindling would exist without delusional ideologies, like religion; religion is the catalyst.

I think you know that this argument doesn't stand up, because it's like saying 'you can catch diseases without having sex, so using barrier protection isn't established to reduce your risk of contracting disease'. The argument doesn't follow. 

Religion's role in justifying violence or lining the pockets of con artists and clergymen is relevant. You can see the harm being done, without having to go to the length of contriving a study.

Never the less, here you go:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111214113448/http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

-This review demonstrates that more the more theistic a prosperous western style nation is, the greater its homicide rate. 

-Lifespans decrease as religiosity rises.

-Theistic countries struggle to control sexually transmitted diseases, compared to less theistic countries. 

-Theistic western peoples are more likely to have abortions than non believers. (Ironically religious institutions like the Vatican often claim the opposite)

 

By contrast, lots of the 'health benefits' of religion are actually results of a 'black sheep' phenomenon, whereby people who are perceives as outsiders in a society are more likely to develop poor health outcomes. This is demonstrable, because people who belong to minority religions, or convert from one religion to another, don't enjoy the same health benefits as people who have always belonged to the dominant religion.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017006

 

Unfortunately most religious discussion ultimately trend to this point with one side concluding that the believers are delusional morons and the other side concluding that the non-believers are soulless heathens, and thus we have reached an impasse.

The truth is likely far more subtle than this and is likely impossible for us to truly understand.  If a 'god' does indeed exist, then it likely lives in multiple universes, in more physical dimensions, and with a completely different perception of time and space than we do as humans.  How are we possibly going to reason out what god is from our lowly spot in the universe?   If you claim to understand god you are a fool.  If you insist there can be no god you are blind.  In either case our best option is to do the best we can in this life, and don't be an asshole.  At the end of the day we will all become dust or we will all become gods, and there is very little we can do about it either way. 

I don't think that subtleties do exist here; not only have religious users who posted here demonstrated that they hold delusions, they've admitted that their own arguments are inconsistent with a belief in god, and that they can't offer any convincing justification for belief in gods.

Other exotic defenses have included arguing that delusion can be good, 'because we don't expect truth all the time', or that criticising religion is unfair. Even after the huge amount of harm that religion does is established as well known, people are only willing to accept this truth when arguments from authority are presented (Let's be honest guys, I know you're not even going to read the research I quoted; nobody on this forum ever does when I go to the length of using citations). 

 

Your argument that god may exist as a multi-dimensional, imperceptible space monster, who one would be 'blind' to deny, is silly; because the same argument could be used to support the existence of faeries or dragons. :\ 

Faeries, dragons, ghosts, elves, angels, gods, demigods, vampires, spirits and spectres...they are all made up. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Saxon

[Strongbob]

54 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Your argument that god may exist as a multi-dimensional, imperceptible space monster, who one would be 'blind' to deny, is silly; because the same argument could be used to support the existence of faeries or dragons. :\ 

Faeries, dragons, ghosts, elves, angels, gods, demigods, vampires, spirits and spectres...they are all made up. 

 

I think that's a bit of a stretch.  I'm simply suggesting that to deny any possibility of the existence of a higher power is a bit shortsighted.  Many people take great comfort in the belief that death may not be permanent regardless of if it's true or not.  None of us want to die and I'm pretty sure that most of us would prefer that some part of us goes on after we die.  To simply reject that idea as delusional would be extremely depressing.  Don't get me wrong though, I have accepted the fact that there may be nothing to look forward to except a dusty grave, but I'm not sure I want to live in a world that cruel while I'm alive.  

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Strongbob said:

 

I think that's a bit of a stretch.  I'm simply suggesting that to deny any possibility of the existence of a higher power is a bit shortsighted.  Many people take great comfort in the belief that death may not be permanent regardless of if it's true or not.  None of us want to die and I'm pretty sure that most of us would prefer that some part of us goes on after we die.  To simply reject that idea as delusional would be extremely depressing.  Don't get me wrong though, I have accepted the fact that there may be nothing to look forward to except a dusty grave, but I'm not sure I want to live in a world that cruel while I'm alive.  

Reality's a bitch, isn't it? 

[Strongbob]

5 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Reality's a bitch, isn't it? 

Yes, that's why I choose to fuck anthropomorphic foxes in my mind

[Endless/Nameless]

5 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Reality's a bitch, isn't it? 

Are you always this cranky? 

[Hakar-Kerarmor]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Are you always this cranky? 

Are you always so bitchy?

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Are you always this cranky? 

 

[Endless/Nameless]

20 minutes ago, Hakar-Kerarmor said:

Are you always so bitchy?

I'm not bitching. I've been totally casual and respectful. I've even conceded that a lot of @Saxon's points have a solid foundation. But he's just been really frickn rude. It's easier to argue with Rassah!!!

[MalletFace]

10 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Since society at that point in history expected religion to operate that way, the Hebrews wouldn't have gotten any respect from the surrounding pagans. b.) Religious people seem to gravitate toward making their religions more complicated (just look at Catholicism and all the arbitrary intricacies they've piled upon themselves over the years), so God may have decided to preemptively make up His own stuff so they didn't just come up with a bunch of random crap. If that's true, God would have been using the concept of "worship" as a means to an end; not because he really needed it. Also only conjecture.

I would doubt in the use of ritual as a means to make the Hebrews more respectable. Even with those rituals, the Hebrews were seen as nothing more than a minor people surrounded by great empires. Bordered by ziggurats, god-kings, pyramids, great temple complexes, and the three greatest militaries in the area, ritual did little to improve the status of the Hebrew people. They were so insignificant to the neighboring nations - even with their law - that the Hebrews making land-grabs and building in Egyptian territory was completely ignored as the Egyptians built entire cities, made campaigns, and made massive cultural changes. There is a reason the Assyrians and Babylonians felt no need for caution in taking Israel to open the way to invade something worthwhile.

If anything, the strict rules were there for the same reason other religions were likely to have theirs; a clear, strict, and enforced rule of law was critical to the survival of ancient civilizations. Make a man fear stealing a crumb and he will never kill, for example. If their law was given as a means to an end, this is what I would expect that end to be.

Also, if I may ask, which Catholic intricacies are arbitrary? I'm fairly certain that everything from Mass (John 6:55-56, Luke 22:14,19, Matthew 18:20, etc) to the Papacy (Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 10:2, Acts 10:1-48, etc) is based on New Testament teachings and the interpretations of Paul and Peter of the fulfillment of the OT law by Christ. For all of their rituals and structures, they can point out verses that act as fairly convincing defenses. It is their collective interpretation of the text, and it should be wholly respectable to any person that bears their own interpretation. That other people believe these laws are not there does not mean that they are not.

There are things outside of ritual and structure that seem arbitrary; however, I cannot think of any that actually are. For example, the often-mocked dress of a pope - which Pope Francis admirably avoids outside of the most formal occasion- is more a reflection of the formality of the event taking place and a remnant of the politics of Europe just before and after the schism. For example, you dress well for a ceremony, and you dress plainly any other time. While there are no rules of dress laid out anew in the NT as far as I am aware, Catholics see it as respectful of the whole deal to dress as well as you can during things like Mass.

One may not agree with Catholic tradition, policy, and doctrine, but it is not like they pulled it all out of that fancy hat; there are reasons.

[Endless/Nameless]

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

I would doubt in the use of ritual as a means to make the Hebrews more respectable. Even with those rituals, the Hebrews were seen as nothing more than a minor people surrounded by great empires. Bordered by ziggurats, god-kings, pyramids, great temple complexes, and the three greatest militaries in the area, ritual did little to improve the status of the Hebrew people. They were so insignificant to the neighboring nations - even with their law - that the Hebrews making land-grabs and building in Egyptian territory was completely ignored as the Egyptians built entire cities, made campaigns, and made massive cultural changes. There is a reason the Assyrians and Babylonians felt no need for caution in taking Israel to open the way to invade something worthwhile.

Well like I said, it was purely conjecture on my part. But I still think it could have helped a bit, even if on a smaller scale.

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

If anything, the strict rules were there for the same reason other religions were likely to have theirs; a clear, strict, and enforced rule of law was critical to the survival of ancient civilizations. Make a man fear stealing a crumb and he will never kill, for example. If their law was given as a means to an end, this is what I would expect that end to be.

I assume you're referring more to the rules that were more like actual laws, right? Stuff like "thou shalt not steal"? Then yeah, I agree. Plus there were a lot of rules that helped promote good health and cleanliness, apparently.

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Also, if I may ask, which Catholic intricacies are arbitrary?

Well, to answer your question....

• The worship of Mary.
• Priests forgiving sins.
• Praying to saints.
• Fish on friday.
• The sale of indulgences.
• The idea of purgatory.

^^There's a few. None Biblical, all man-made.

You mention mass and the papal system. Yes, mass (or "communion") is in the Bible, but the Catholics have taken the concept and blown it out of proportion. And yes, you can make the argument that Papacy is in there too, with Peter as the first "pope", but I find such arguments quite shaky. Whatever structure the early church had has long since collapsed, and I highly doubt it worked the same way Catholics do it. Plus, theres no way I'm going to assume that the word of the Pope is equal to Christ's, no matter what they say.

But I don't want to knock Catholics too harshly, because I know of many wonderful Catholic people. 

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

but it is not like they pulled it all out of that fancy hat; there are reasons.

Thank you for that beautiful mental image. But anyway....

Ok, yes, there are reasons. I'll concede that. I guess "arbitrary" was a poor choice of a word. But even all the best reasons and intentions didn't stop them from turning a simple religion into a bloated behemoth.

[Conker]

It's funny to mention fish on Friday since Lent ends tomorrow with Easter. My new place of employment, the religious one I mentioned a handful of pages back, a few of us wind up going to some fast food joint on Friday to waste a bit of time. My boss usually drives. Fuck where I work is cool.

But anyways, Lent has made that kinda strange some some people are of the opinion that they CANNOT EAT FISH ON THIS DAY OR BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN. I make it a point to order chicken or beef.

One lady was going to a cookout with her family on Good Friday, and she was pissed that the guy running it didn't know how to grill fish. She's bringing her own food and I guess being a sourpuss about it because her branch of Catholicism says she can't eat fish for reasons.

"My kids can eat meat though, because they aren't 14 and my priest says this only applies if your 14 and up. When they hit that age though, then no meat on Fridays"

It was so hard to keep my mouth shut. So fucking hard.

[FlynnCoyote]

I always make it a point to enjoy a healthy meal of beef or chicken each day over easter. Otherwise it's too easy to get carried away with chocolate in the absence of real food. Tradition be damned.

[MalletFace]

 

3 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

The worship of Mary.

To say that Catholics worship Mary is as saying Buddhists worship Buddhas.

Catholics look to saints as the image of Christ, as saints in the Bible often had the ability to act in the will and with the power of Christ. Acts 3 exemplifies this. While never technically canonized, Catholics consider Mary to be the first and most primary saint for obvious reasons. As Catholics view Revelation 5 as showing that saints hear the prayers of the living, they pray that the saints pray for them and act in their favor just as they might ask a friend.

You will note that most official Catholic prayers addressing Mary routinely end with a request for Mary to pray for the sinner, for Mary to help the sinner, or for Mary to show the sinner Jesus. They feel free to do this because they believe Deuteronomy 18 bans conversing with spirits as though they are prophets. They are merely asking for prayers, for a kind hand, and for sympathy.

There are many passages specifically showing what Catholics see as evidence of sainthood in Mary and the ability of the dead to pray after death, but I would rather not considering that I must do it again in a moment.

4 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Priests forgiving sins.

In Matthew 28, Jesus instructed the disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations." While Jesus here only tells them to "[baptize] them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and [to teach] them to obey everything [he/He has] commanded," Catholics do not believe Jesus had yet permitted them to forgive sins. This comes in John 20 when Jesus breathes on the disciples - something you certainly know is of the most important symbols in Christianity - and tells them that sins they forgive have been forgiven. There are other passages, but these are the most important to the standard Catholic.

There are issues here with translation, but to nit-pick Catholics for the translation they choose to accept is rationally odd if you are anything but without religion.

5 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Praying to saints.

Catholics believe strongly that those in heaven can hear their prayers. Revelations 5, Revelations 8, Hebrews 12, and Matthew 22 are the most frequently cited passages I can recall about this. As they can hear their prayers, they see no reason not to ask them to help. They are not praying to them, and they are actually most often asking them to pray for them.

They do not official believe you must pray to saints - most would think that is crazy and heretical - but they do believe it can only help to have the soul of a saint pray for them. As James 5:16 says, “The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.”

While a logical conclusion of the information presented in the Bible, you are also right in that it is without direct biblical origin. It is, however, not arbitrary.

5 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

• Fish on friday.
• The sale of indulgences.
• The idea of purgatory.

I'll need more time on these. The Catholics I know seem divided on them, so I can't check my information against them.

5 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

You mention mass and the papal system. Yes, mass (or "communion") is in the Bible, but the Catholics have taken the concept and blown it out of proportion. And yes, you can make the argument that Papacy is in there too, with Peter as the first "pope", but I find such arguments quite shaky. Whatever structure the early church had has long since collapsed, and I highly doubt it worked the same way Catholics do it. Plus, theres no way I'm going to assume that the word of the Pope is equal to Christ's, no matter what they say.

If the Bible is up for interpretation, then the Catholic interpretation should be just as acceptable as any other. If the Bible is not up for interpretation, then the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church actually are about the closest you can get to the early churches in anything with followers around the world.

The issue of interpretation is key to whether or not Paul alone was given the power to act the will of Christ or whether he passed this on to those he taught. It also happens to be key to the schism and the whole mess post-Luther.

[Saxon]

10 hours ago, Conker said:

It's funny to mention fish on Friday since Lent ends tomorrow with Easter. My new place of employment, the religious one I mentioned a handful of pages back, a few of us wind up going to some fast food joint on Friday to waste a bit of time. My boss usually drives. Fuck where I work is cool.

But anyways, Lent has made that kinda strange some some people are of the opinion that they CANNOT EAT FISH ON THIS DAY OR BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN. I make it a point to order chicken or beef.

One lady was going to a cookout with her family on Good Friday, and she was pissed that the guy running it didn't know how to grill fish. She's bringing her own food and I guess being a sourpuss about it because her branch of Catholicism says she can't eat fish for reasons.

"My kids can eat meat though, because they aren't 14 and my priest says this only applies if your 14 and up. When they hit that age though, then no meat on Fridays"

It was so hard to keep my mouth shut. So fucking hard.

I'm vegetarian, so no meat on any days. Much simpler. 

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

28 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I'm vegetarian, so no meat on any days. Much simpler. 

I wonder how many packs of tofu you have at home

[Saxon]

1 hour ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

I wonder how many packs of tofu you have at home

None; I don't really like it. 

[Derin Darkpaw]

@Saxon Thank you for posting those articles I really appreciated being approached and talked to as if I am some one capable of rationally understanding a topic.  As a tip such rational displays of evidence is what got me to give up both my anti-vax and climate change denial beliefs so if you want to convince me this the best way to go. 

In the future however there is no need to use the way back machine if you are linking to the Journal of Religion and Society there website is still operational with their seemingly complete archive and the pdf format they are currently using for their articles makes it much easier to read.  Also the version of the article you posted seemed to have some sort of error and it wasn't properly displaying all the figures so here is the pdf version.  Unfortunately even the pdf displays the figures just a tad blurry, but with the ability to zoom in on the page it is made mostly legible.

https://dspace.creighton.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10504/64409/2005-11.pdf?sequence=1

First lets look at the figure 2 the graph for homicide since that would be one of the clearest indicators of a higher tendency towards violence.  In these graphs we see that the United States and Portugal have some of the highest homicide rates.  In both of these countries we see some of the highest number of reported belief in god, highest reported number of respondents taking the bible literally, and the lowest number of reported atheist/agnostics.  So this would seem to support a hypothesis that religion leads to higher homicide rates, but this very hypothesis is called in to question when we examine the various other points on the graph. 

In none of the other countries reported do we see a correlation between the points being measured.  The other countries show vary levels of the measurements for religion, but this variance does not correlate with a rising trend of homicide.  Instead among every other country the rate of homicide goes up and down independent of rising belief in god.  If you look at the section where it compares the results of likely hood to take the bible literally you see that most of the countries are clustered around a single point of the X axis, but they scatter as to their position on the Y axis. 

What this demonstrates here is that these obscenely higher homicide rates are seemingly endemic to the United States and Portugal for reasons beyond merely that of religion.  As for why this is the case there are a large number of potential candidates, but it would beyond the scope of this discussion to address them.

However in figures 4, 8, and 9 we do seem to notice a stronger correlation between the measured negative health outcomes and rise in religious tendency across most countries, so a stronger argument can be made here.  However I believe that it is important to keep in mind that in the case of the United States our healthcare systems is notoriously inefficient and ineffective especially when compared to the systems of many European countries.

I am not saying that these concerns render the article invalid, but these are just some of the concerns I personally noticed as I read the article.  However I was able to find a research note that directly addressed the article.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2006/2006-1.pdf

After reading these research notes I am inclined to agree with the conclusion the authors came to which I will restate here.

"As mentioned earlier, Paul’s investigation should be applauded for bringing to the attention of scholars an important and neglected problem- the relationship between worldview commitments and societal health. Paul’s work brings to the fore the importance of various beliefs for the prosperity of democratic polities. At the same time, however, its methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify. What one can state with certainty is that one cannot in any way be certain as to the effects of religiosity and secularism upon prosperous democracies at least as based upon the methods and data of Paul’s study."

Then there is the second article you posted I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusion about what it says seeing as the authors of that study had this to say about it "

Mechanisms for these results, such as the elucidation of potential glucocorticoid stress pathways leading to atrophy, need to be more clearly identified, making the interpretation of these findings necessarily speculative". 

Emphasis added by me.  The very authors of this study say that to interpret this study to conclusively prove anything is to engage in guessing and unfounded opinions.  I will however to admit I completely agree with the final conclusion of the article.

"Future research exploring neuroanatomical changes in late life should not overlook the potential impact of religious factors, which remain relevant for a substantial proportion of the US population."

Essentially the consensus of the second article you posted and the research notes I posted seem to agree with one of the primary arguments I have been making this entire thread.  Serious research in regards to the effects religion has on individuals and populations needs to be done to determine whether or not religion is a net positive or negative.