Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

We seem to be going around in circles here. Allow me to try a different approach, if you don't mind.

Does it matter more to you that your beliefs are correct (i.e. reflect reality) even if that reality is not all that appealing, or that your beliefs are emotionally satisfying, even if they may not be exactly true?

Well, I can't know whether my beliefs are correct or not, can I, so it's not something I can answer one way or the other. No point in wishing for something you can't have. :-)

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I did not suggest that you believe in lots of gods. I am saying that the one you believe in is the Anglican god. Since you already said you are an Anglican and believe in God, this is not a lie.

But the thread comes full circle and back to the topic in the subject line. It is disrespectful of me to talk as if the Anglican god is just one of the long list of gods various Christian sects have described.

Since I have not suggested that there are several gods, one of which is an "Anglican god", this is your invention. Again I ask you to stop putting words into my mouth.

To say that "various Christian sects have described a long list of gods" shows your absolute ignorance of Christian theology. It might be worth your while educating yourself in something before starting to comment on it...

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Wonderful! You might recall these two posts from yesterday - I've bolded the contradiction as you seem to have missed it first time around::rolleyes:

How are they contradictory? I am pointing out that I am not the one talking about proof - you and your pals are, yet when asked for proof yourselves, you go all coy...

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And you believe all of them are wrong except you, but you can't say how you arrived at the only true religion among all the false ones, since you say no-one can know anything about this stuff.

But we must respect it!

When did I say I believe they are wrong?

katydid

smacl wrote: »

Yet these all co-exist in the same context, in terms of time and place. There are many people right now in this country for example who have directly conflicting religious beliefs. Most of those beliefs must therefore be wrong.

For example, most Christians and Muslims would consider Scientology to be a cult that deserves little or no respect, as I would myself. Why should we respect religion, or more specifically, what is about a religion that we do not subscribe to that merits our respect?

In my books, the only "religions" that don't deserve respect are ones that are founded or maintained for other purposes, such as exploitation, mind control and/or financial profit. "Religions" such as Scientology.

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

Yet how can you use "logic" to decide that "logic doesn't apply to religion"?

.

That is a REALLY stupid question. If you read my post, you will see the logic.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

In my books, the only "religions" that don't deserve respect are ones that are founded or maintained for other purposes, such as exploitation, mind control and/or financial profit. "Religions" such as Scientology.

How is that any different than your religion ? or the one you left ?

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

In my books, the only "religions" that don't deserve respect are ones that are founded or maintained for other purposes, such as exploitation, mind control and/or financial profit. "Religions" such as Scientology.

Mind control is practised by every religion.

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Wrong. It is clear from your posting history that you know nothing of either science or christianity.

The fact that you cannot prove gods existence is due to its utter lack of evidence. If something has no evidence, then we must logically deduce that it doesn't exist, until such time as evidence is furnished for its existence. To do anything else is stupidity, plain and simple.

And the reason why you should want scientific proof of your god as a christian is because it is the only system we have for looking at reality which even closely approaches comprehensive, systematic, unbiased and accurate. Nothing else we have created has come even remotely close, and that is why the scientific method (an outgrowth of the overthrow of suspicion, superstition and religon by the enlightenment) is the greatest single human invention bar none. It is a damned sight better than the christian method of ascertaining truth, the writing down of the garbled rantings of deluded nonsensical madmen who have spent too much time in deserts eating magic mushrooms and consequently have their brains fried and taking their useless and lying ramblings as fact.



Wrong. But then again your problem is that you are annoyed that your delusional view of the world is these days being called out as delusional and you are no longer allowed to burn us at the stake for doing so.

The world has moved on, yet religion is still in the dark ages. To misquote Nietsche, "religion is dead. Religion remains dead. Science killed it."



You delude yourself, and expose your lack of knowledge of basic English.

Belief is holding something is true when there is no evidence, or when the evidence says that thing is false. Knowing is having sufficient evidence to make an informed decision. Both positions are mutually exclusive.



It is obvious to any person who uses their intelligence to analyse the matter that the abrahamic god is a lie, and has no existence.

The bible is an obvious fraud, written by mad megolomanical psychopaths. How else can we explain such an evil being as the creator of everything and arbiter of our desitines? And how else can we explain the fact that he is so sloppily written that his holy book gives us ample evidence of his non existence?

Given that I have a third level qualification in Christian theology I reckon I know a little bit about Christianity...

I don't know a lot about science bar what I did in my Leaving Cert biology and the general knowledge most people have. Can you explain what knowledge of science I would need to have and what relevance it would have to the fact that there is no proof of the non-existence of a deity?

How is the bible an "obvious fraud"? It was written by several people over a thousand years. Are you suggesting a vast, millennium long conspiracy across generations? Have you been reading the Da Vinci Code again? The bible was written at different times by different people with different agenda and different understandings of the divine. To suggest that they all set out o defraud, or that they were all mad is simply ludicrous, and does nothing but further destroy your credibility.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

How is that any different than your religion ? or the one you left ?

I didn't leave any religion...

How is the Roman Catholic church or the Anglican church predicated on abuse, control or financial gain?

katydid

obplayer wrote: »

Mind control is practised by every religion.

How? How, for example, does Christianity operate mind control? Last time I checked, people were free to believe or not.

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

When did I say I believe they are wrong?

You said Jesus was God.

That's all the Muslims and the Jews wrong for starters.

And I doubt you think the Hindu pantheon of gods exist, since you are adamant there is only one god, so the blue guy with the elephant head is right out.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

I didn't leave any religion...

How is the Roman Catholic church or the Anglican church predicated on abuse, control or financial gain?

Ever see the Pope-mobile? Or the golden throne the Pope sits on? During the Middle Ages, the popes ruled their own nation (not just the Vatican as they do today).

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You said Jesus was God.

That's all the Muslims and the Jews wrong for starters.

And I doubt you think the Hindu pantheon of gods exist, since you are adamant there is only one god, so the blue guy with the elephant head is right out.

The deity manifests itself in many ways in different times and places.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

How? How, for example, does Christianity operate mind control? Last time I checked, people were free to believe or not.

Given that there are many bible passages that promise a dire punishment for those who don't believe, this is a method of mind-control. As to your understanding of science and having only LC biology, then I would say that you have not been familiarized with the scientific method. Or of the requirement of looking at something from the null hypothesis.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

The deity manifests itself in many ways in different times and places.

How can you be sure there's only one?

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

The deity manifests itself in many ways in different times and places.

Facepalm. You don't follow Islamic teachings though, or Hindu or Buddhist or any other religious teachings or practices. You follow christian teachings.

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

The deity manifests itself in many ways in different times and places.

The deity manifests itself as the Universe, and tells me there are no deities.

It's as good as yours.

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

How? How, for example, does Christianity operate mind control? Last time I checked, people were free to believe or not.

And they are also heavily persuaded to believe without a scrap of evidence to back up their belief; mind control. I have to admit they have done a first rate job on you.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Given that there are many bible passages that promise a dire punishment for those who don't believe, this is a method of mind-control. As to your understanding of science and having only LC biology, then I would say that you have not been familiarized with the scientific method. Or of the requirement of looking at something from the null hypothesis.

Given that people are free to believe what they wish - and of course free to contextalise two or three thousand year old texts - it hardly qualifies as mind control.

As someone with a masters level of education in literature, I have had plenty exposure to hypotheses and logic. Natural science isn't the only academic discipline that teaches one logic, you know...

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

How can you be sure there's only one?

I can't.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Facepalm. You don't follow Islamic teachings though, or Hindu or Buddhist or any other religious teachings or practices. You follow christian teachings.

And?

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The deity manifests itself as the Universe, and tells me there are no deities.

It's as good as yours.

Yep, it certainly is. But I'm not the dismissing the other's BELIEF...

katydid

obplayer wrote: »

And they are also heavily persuaded to believe without a scrap of evidence to back up their belief; mind control. I have to admit they have done a first rate job on you.

Heavily persuaded how?

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

I can't.

Katydid, I'm genuinely baffled as to what you actually believe and why you believe it. You've said yourself you've no proof of any of what you believe, that you discount loads of stuff in the bible, and moved from one denomination to another. What, exactly, is your belief system and how can you possibly derive any substantive benefits from it when you can see yourself how impossible it is to believe any of it? Whatever 'it' is.

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

Heavily persuaded how?

Verbally by their priests, in writing by their magic book, by threats of hell.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

Given that people are free to believe what they wish - and of course free to contextalise two or three thousand year old texts - it hardly qualifies as mind control.

As someone with a masters level of education in literature, I have had plenty exposure to hypotheses and logic. Natural science isn't the only academic discipline that teaches one logic, you know...

Really? How come in all your posts on this thread, I see NOT A SINGLE SHRED of logic then?

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Katydid, I'm genuinely baffled as to what you actually believe and why you believe it. You've said yourself you've no proof of any of what you believe, that you discount loads of stuff in the bible, and moved from one denomination to another. What, exactly, is your belief system and how can you possibly derive any substantive benefits from it when you can see yourself how impossible it is to believe any of it? Whatever 'it' is.

I am a Christian. I believe that the deity is a triune entity which manifested itself on earth as human. I, just like the vast majority of Christians, don't feel the need to literally believe in a two to three thousand series of texts, written by people who often had a different concept of narration and of the lines between fact and imagination, but who were exploring in their own way the relationship between God and humanity.

Of course, you can't understand any of this, because you have obstinately decided that I can't possibly believe something I do believe. If you are starting from this premise, and failing to understand that your BELIEF is not everyone's, then you are wasting your own time.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Really? How come in all your posts on this thread, I see NOT A SINGLE SHRED of logic then?

That may say more about you than about me...

Let me try you on one consistent piece of logic you seem to have overlooked - that in huffing and puffing about lack of proof of a deity, those making such an argument fail to see their own inconsistency in failing to admit that there is likewise no proof of the non-existence.

Logic is there if you really want to find it. But if you blind yourself to it, it'll remain out of reach.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

I am a Christian. I believe that the deity is a triune entity which manifested itself on earth as human. I, just like the vast majority of Christians, don't feel the need to literally believe in a two to three thousand series of texts, written by people who often had a different concept of narration and of the lines between fact and imagination, but who were exploring in their own way the relationship between God and humanity.

Of course, you can't understand any of this, because you have obstinately decided that I can't possibly believe something I do believe. If you are starting from this premise, and failing to understand that your BELIEF is not everyone's, then you are wasting your own time.

But if the bible is the word of god, how can you pick and choose which bits are correct? How can you possibly know that god doesn't get madder and madder about you eating prawns? How come some bits don't apply any more and other bits do?
You are making no sense. I don't know what you believe in. Some bits of the bible, I gather, but what about all the other religious texts, from the ancient Egyptians, for example, are they referring to the same god you are? How come you get to decide Joseph Smith didn't start a real Christian sect, but millions of Mormons call themselves Christian?

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

That may say more about you than about me...

Let me try you on one consistent piece of logic you seem to have overlooked - that in huffing and puffing about lack of proof of a deity, those making such an argument fail to see their own inconsistency in failing to admit that there is likewise no proof of the non-existence.

Logic is there if you really want to find it. But if you blind yourself to it, it'll remain out of reach.

Null hypothesis, have you heard of it? In case you haven't, it's the mental position of non-belief in a given claim, and of staying in that position until the claim is substantiated with evidence.
The concept of a god has not been disproven, yes, but what you're doing is a classic reversal of burden of proof. "I'll believe in this thing because it hasn't been proven false!"

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Null hypothesis, have you heard of it? In case you haven't, it's the mental position of non-belief in a given claim, and of staying in that position until the claim is substantiated with evidence.
The concept of a god has not been disproven, yes, but what you're doing is a classic reversal of burden of proof. "I'll believe in this thing because it hasn't been proven false!"

Er, yes, I have heard of it. I don't need a lesson in logic, thanks all the same.

It can work both ways - my mental position is that a deity exists. You claim otherwise. I can stay in my position until your claim is substantiated with evidence.

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

But if the bible is the word of god, how can you pick and choose which bits are correct? How can you possibly know that god doesn't get madder and madder about you eating prawns? How come some bits don't apply any more and other bits do?
You are making no sense. I don't know what you believe in. Some bits of the bible, I gather, but what about all the other religious texts, from the ancient Egyptians, for example, are they referring to the same god you are? How come you get to decide Joseph Smith didn't start a real Christian sect, but millions of Mormons call themselves Christian?

I've addressed the question of the bible several times. I even outlined it in my last post. I suggest you actually read it.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

Er, yes, I have heard of it. I don't need a lesson in logic, thanks all the same.

It can work both ways - my mental position is that a deity exists. You claim otherwise. I can stay in my position until your claim is substantiated with evidence.

I forgot a key word there. I meant to say "non-belief in a positive claim". The claim "There is a god" is a positive claim, and the only logical position one ought to be in with regards to that claim is the null hypothesis, until it is substantiated.
What evidence has substantiated your claim of the "triune god"?

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Given that I have a third level qualification in Christian theology I reckon I know a little bit about Christianity.

What styles of textual criticism did they teach on that course?

And did you read the NT in ancient Greek and become aware of the philosophical context of the NT?

katydid

robindch wrote: »

What styles of textual criticism did they teach on that course?

And did you read the NT in ancient Greek and become aware of the philosophical context of the NT?

Nope, can't read Ancient Greek. But yep, aware of the philosophical content of the NT.

And this is relevant to this discussion how, exactly?

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

I didn't leave any religion...

How is the Roman Catholic church or the Anglican church predicated on abuse, control or financial gain?

How is Scientology ? Answer that and you can answer your own question .

You just think it is an utterly weird belief system (as do I) and at the same time not realizing how weird your religion is to someone not brought up in it .

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

I don't know a lot about science bar what I did in my Leaving Cert biology and the general knowledge most people have. Can you explain what knowledge of science I would need to have and what relevance it would have to the fact that there is no proof of the non-existence of a deity?

Well the obvious gap in your knowledge is that you have no idea what the 'scientific method' is or how it works.

Otherwise you would stop requesting proof for the non existence of something .

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

Well the obvious gap in your knowledge is that you have no idea what the 'scientific method' is or how it works.

Otherwise you would stop requesting proof for the non existence of something .

I'm not requesting proof. I'm pointing out the irony of you requesting proof from me, but not seeming to understand that it works both ways.

A pretty basic logical concept - which you would realise if you took time out from being patronising...

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

How is Scientology ? Answer that and you can answer your own question .

You just think it is an utterly weird belief system (as do I) and at the same time not realizing how weird your religion is to someone not brought up in it .

Scientology is totally about mind control.

http://nomoreliesscn.blogspot.ie/2012/11/scientology-is-hypnotic-mind-control.html

Being or seeming weird and being designed to control minds are not the same thing.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

And this is relevant to this discussion how, exactly?

It's relevant because you claim you've years studying a topic to the extent of acquiring a recognized qualification, but still appear to have virtually no grasp of it at all

Neither do you appear to have read any of the texts at all critically, but that omission pales into insignificance when placed next to your use of what you call "logic" to justify what your viewpoints appear to be.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

I'm not requesting proof. I'm pointing out the irony of you requesting proof from me, but not seeming to understand that it works both ways.

A pretty basic logical concept - which you would realise if you took time out from being patronising...

It doesn't work both ways . That is the same mind-set that believes the other side deserves equal time and representation when it comes to Climate change, evolution, the holocaust or homophobic bullying as happened in a school in Dublin today.

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

Given that I have a third level qualification in Christian theology I reckon I know a little bit about Christianity...

Bloody hell, she/he is a Jesuit! I knew I recognised the superb training in evasion!

Ha! I have it now.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

It doesn't work both ways . That is the same mind-set that believes the other side deserves equal time and representation when it comes to Climate change, evolution, the holocaust or homophobic bullying as happened in a school in Dublin today.

Climate change, evolution and the holocaust are provable...

(Sometimes I wonder if I'm engaging with adults)

I've no doubt homophobic bullying happens in schools in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland every day. Not quite sure what it has to do with this discussion?

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Climate change, evolution and the holocaust are provable...

(Sometimes I wonder if I'm engaging with adults)

I've no doubt homophobic bullying happens in schools in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland every day. Not quite sure what it has to do with this discussion?

using the scientific method they are indeed provable and thus coming to your position - your hypotheses is that God exists , your next step should be to formulate predictions to be verified by experiment that your original statement is correct.

Your argument consists in saying God exists , prove me wrong- is a meaningless statement and carries the same weight as Climate sceptics ,holocaust deniers etc

Shrap

Can we switch on the oldrnwisr panic beams now? Calling oldrnwisr! Come in oldrnwisr - Jesuit alert! :eek::eek:

swampgas

First off, let me congratulate you on your persistence in this thread

katydid wrote: »

Well, I can't know whether my beliefs are correct or not, can I, so it's not something I can answer one way or the other. No point in wishing for something you can't have. :-)

This sounds like the old "but what is truth?" argument.

Although we talk about things being true or untrue, in reality we assign probabilities to things. If you get an email from Nigeria promising that there are millions of dollars waiting to be transferred to your bank account, you have no way of telling (for certain) whether this is true or not. But your knowledge of the world would lead you to suspect that the probability of this being true is extremely small - so small you would simply call this claim "untrue", to save time.

If I were to claim to be typing this from my underground lair buried under a mountain, you would be correct to suspect that this is in fact highly unlikely, and might as well be considered "untrue".

You say you can't know whether your beliefs are true or not - okay - but surely you have decided that your beliefs are likely to be true?

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

First off, let me congratulate you on your persistence in this thread



This sounds like the old "but what is truth?" argument.

Although we talk about things being true or untrue, in reality we assign probabilities to things. If you get an email from Nigeria promising that there are millions of dollars waiting to be transferred to your bank account, you have no way of telling (for certain) whether this is true or not. But your knowledge of the world would lead you to suspect that the probability of this being true is extremely small - so small you would simply call this claim "untrue", to save time.

If I were to claim to be typing this from my underground lair buried under a mountain, you would be correct to suspect that this is in fact highly unlikely, and might as well be considered "untrue".

You say you can't know whether your beliefs are true or not - okay - but surely you have decided that your beliefs are likely to be true?

It IS an old "but what it truth" argument....with the goalposts moved. Only one side is expected to provide proof.

I can't say whether or not my beliefs are likely to be true. I don't need to or want to.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

using the scientific method they are indeed provable and thus coming to your position - your hypotheses is that God exists , your next step should be to formulate predictions to be verified by experiment that your original statement is correct.

Your argument consists in saying God exists , prove me wrong- is a meaningless statement and carries the same weight as Climate sceptics ,holocaust deniers etc

Nope, I'm not asking for proof. I've said that several times now, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. I'm beginning to wonder as to the reading ability of so many people here.

Maybe you need to start again and rethink your premise.

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

I can't say whether or not my beliefs are likely to be true. I don't need to or want to.

Which is what I suspected. However, I would put it to you that you cannot think logically about something when the likely logical conclusion is something you simply don't want to accept.

You might as well accept that your religious beliefs are only "true" to you because you so badly want them to be. But then this is probably another truth that you find uncomfortable.