Religion 101 Final Exam

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

AngusJS Im not quite sure what the argument is concerning the timeline of events at the tomb are but would be happy to discuss it with you.

My argument is that each gospel gives a contradictory account of the empty tomb story, and that this shows that the bible is not inerrant. Frame57 suggested this:

What is taught in regards to this and other similar comparisons of the text is that people do not account for time. Those that visited the tomb did not all arrive at the same time, hence they all could have indeed encountered different scenarios.

I tried to show that this doesn't work in this case, as three of the gospels have the women arriving at the scene at roughly the same time. And if you're still going to say that each account is accurate, then Mary Magdalene has to go to the tomb 4 times- once alone to see no one there, another time with the other Mary to see an angel, another time with the other Mary and Salome to see a young man, and then another time to be in the group of at least 5 and see two men.

You could say that in fact, all the people and events mentioned in the four different stories were there, and it's just that the gospel's authors decided to focus in on only certain elements. This makes sense for trivial details like if they were carrying spice or not, but I don't buy it for important details such as who first heard the "good news" and from whom did they hear it.

In any other context, anyone hearing stories with such contradictions would think that at least one was wrong. It's only when you absolutely must maintain the inerrancy of the stories despite evidence to the contrary that you would provide such strained interpretations to save them.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Aramike

What I should have said is that "good" cannot exist without that which is NOT "good". This principle of perception applies to pretty much everything.

Either way, the basis of my argument still stands.

Replacing "evil" with "not good" doesn't fix the problem, as it still seems that "not good" still must refer to "good" for meaning. Which I guess means that this level of abstraction is fruitless. Or at least that's how it appears to me now at two in the morning.

Until you have the answers and evidence to prove them your beliefs have no more intellectual validity than any others. So, why bother?

They're the ones making the claim, and it's impossible to prove a negative. All that you can do is point out problems with the claim based on evidence and reason, which some of those questions did, and in a humorous manner.

Why do it? Because this a forum, and it's enjoyable. Plus, constructive criticism can only help the claimant improve the claim he's making. I've certainly changed my mind on various subjects thanks to threads on other forums, thus "improving" (from my POV) my thinking.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Replacing "evil" with "not good" doesn't fix the problem, as it still seems that "not good" still must refer to "good" for meaning. Which I guess means that this level of abstraction is fruitless. Or at least that's how it appears to me now at two in the morning.

They're the ones making the claim, and it's impossible to prove a negative. All that you can do is point out problems with the claim based on evidence and reason, which some of those questions did, and in a humorous manner.

Why do it? Because this a forum, and it's enjoyable. Plus, constructive criticism can only help the claimant improve the claim he's making. I've certainly changed my mind on various subjects thanks to threads on other forums, thus "improving" (from my POV) my thinking.

I didn't realize that it was incumbent upon you (or any atheist) to challenge people's faiths in order to help them refine their belief systems.

As for them making the claims, it seems you started the thread...

I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, however. What I do disagree is your presentation of it, which is clearly an attempt to poke fun at the most treasured beliefs of others. They don't HAVE to prove anything to anyone.

What I find fascinating is this complete hatred some athiests have of religion. I look at it a tad differently. I believe it is a beautiful thing when one surrenders themself to an absolute moral authority, especially when said authority represents what is best our very nature.

Sure, I may not agree with their views 100%, but ridiculing them is clearly inciteful and meaningless.

You said it: you can't prove a negative. So why bother?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You said it: you can't prove a negative. So why bother?

"Negatives do not require proof"
is a little closer to the mark than "you can't prove a negative".

Rather than:
1) 'E' has not been proved
2) Thus 'E' is false

We should say:

1) 'E' should be considered true if (and only if) proved
2) 'E' has not been proved

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

"Negatives do not require proof"
is a little closer to the mark than "you can't prove a negative".

Rather than:
1) 'E' has not been proved
2) Thus 'E' is false

We should say:

1) 'E' should be considered true if (and only if) proved
2) 'E' has not been proved

I was actually echoing what AngusJS said regarding negatives.

In any case, "you can't prove a negative" is an accurate statement in that it applies to those who make a claim then say "prove it doesn't exist", although it really only applies to the metaphysical. For instance, one could lie and say that they have 200 bars of gold buried in their yard. A simple excavation would prove this inaccurate.

Perhaps it is best said that one cannot prove a negative if it is not of a physical nature.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I didn't realize that it was incumbent upon you (or any atheist) to challenge people's faiths in order to help them refine their belief systems.

Please show me where I said I or anyone else have to challenge someone else's beliefs.

As for them making the claims, it seems you started the thread...

Obviously I was referring to the theism/atheism debate in general.

I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, however. What I do disagree is your presentation of it, which is clearly an attempt to poke fun at the most treasured beliefs of others. They don't HAVE to prove anything to anyone.

I don't think beliefs should be given a pass just because they're treasured. Are you saying that if it was the cherished belief of a Republican on this board that Obama is a communist, I or anyone else can't take issue with that? What's the point of having a discussion board at all?

What I find fascinating is this complete hatred some athiests have of religion. I look at it a tad differently.

I love many examples of religious art, architecture and music, and I find some religious rituals interesting to observe. The only aspects of religion that I really can't stand are the indoctrination of children and the promotion of faith.

I believe it is a beautiful thing when one surrenders themself to an absolute moral authority, especially when said authority represents what is best our very nature.

The problem arises when the absolute moral authority promotes some of the very worst of our nature. It's a shame those treasured beliefs shouldn't be challenged.

Sure, I may not agree with their views 100%, but ridiculing them is clearly inciteful and meaningless.

Satire can never be meaningful?

You said it: you can't prove a negative. So why bother?

Because it's a DISCUSSION FORUM, you know, where people come to DISCUSS things.

My thread title and the bit I quoted indicated what the link was. If you don't want to read it, then don't.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

For instance, one could lie and say that they have 200 bars of gold buried in their yard. A simple excavation would prove this inaccurate.

I'm not so sure that is a different case.
You have not proved there is no gold in the garden, you just haven't found any despite
your excavation.


You have not found evidence for no gold; you have found no evidence for gold.
In the same way we can not find evidence for no god, only no evidence for god.

[Aramike]

Please show me where I said I or anyone else have to challenge someone else's beliefs.

Please show me where I said otherwise.

Obviously I was referring to the theism/atheism debate in general.

Clearly.

But you chose the engagement.

I don't think beliefs should be given a pass just because they're treasured.

"Given a pass"? You can't be serious!

What "pass" are these beliefs seeking from people like you?

Are you saying that if it was the cherished belief of a Republican on this board that Obama is a communist, I or anyone else can't take issue with that? What's the point of having a discussion board at all?

"Taking issue" is one thing. Glibly making fun is quite another.

Especially when you START the conversation with the rebuttal.

I love many examples of religious art, architecture and music, and I find some religious rituals interesting to observe. The only aspects of religion that I really can't stand are the indoctrination of children and the promotion of faith.

So, your position of not being able to "stand" something is somehow more justifiable than a faith itself?

I can't stand people of intolerence, seemingly such as yourself.

As for the "indoctrination" of children, here's something else I can't stand: people who bitch about things but offer no solution. What, you think you can somehow stop parents from passing along their beliefs? Riiiight...

The problem arises when the absolute moral authority promotes some of the very worst of our nature. It's a shame those treasured beliefs shouldn't be challenged.

I actually agree with this, and have been consistant with my posts on specific instances on this very board.

However, I do not feel the need to generalize it all as "bad", as you obviously do.

Satire can never be meaningful?

I didn't say that. I don't know how your particular choice of satire reflects all of satire, though.

Because it's a DISCUSSION FORUM, you know, where people come to DISCUSS things.

So it's okay to discuss things, except the discussion itself?

My thread title and the bit I quoted indicated what the link was. If you don't want to read it, then don't.

Ah, typical lefty. Freedom of speech applies whenever an inciteful statement or discussion occurs. But, freedom of speech does NOT apply when someone calls them out on that discussion.

HAH!

[Aramike]

I'm not so sure that is a different case.
You have not proved there is no gold in the garden, you just haven't found any despite
your excavation.


You have not found evidence for no gold; you have found no evidence for gold.
In the same way we can not find evidence for no god, only no evidence for god.

You're kind of stretching now...

Okay, let's make it simpler. Let's say there is a box. Within that box someone claims that there are diamonds. Upon opening the box, the entire volume of said box is filled with nothing but air. That is, indeed, proof that there are no diamonds in the box.

[geetrue]

Faith is faith ... you either believe or you don't believe.

Starting my car in sub zero weather takes a lot of faith lol

All analytical people seem to have the same problem ...

They are either right or wrong

[Stealth Hunter]

[A Very Super Market]

He-heh-heh

I love it!

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually Aramike - you could take that "empty" box and open it and say HA - no diamonds - to which a person of faith could point out that the air inside said box contains portions of carbon - the same substance of which diamonds are made. While it may not be VISIBLE to you, diamonds do exist in the box. They are simply not in a form you RECOGNIZE as diamonds.

Spiritually/metaphysically/whatever other term you want to use - the facts are no matter how much you may see - the building blocks are ENERGY. The positive proton, the neutral neutron, and the negative electron. Each atom working in concert with each other - and we still don't understand how or why exactly. But the fact is that if you took an atom with one p/e pair, added another p/e pair - you changed what that atom "is" - and all you really did was modify its mass and electrical charge. *Don't even get me started on Ions and such*

If you see everything as simply energy - the rock is the same as water - just in a different form - or electrical state. Sure this is a VERY basic explanation, but when you get down to the low levels of substance structure - they are made up of the same stuff. Its all energy in motion - just different "charges" or speeds.

So many try to say "Well you can't prove God exists" - or "Well you can't prove He/She/It doesnt", that they lose the beauty of this realm with wasted arguments. I don't have to prove God exists, not to Angus or anyone else. I have enough proof for ME personally, and thats all I need. I see that proof in the things that science can not only NOT explain, but those things that defy every known law of science observed since humanity has been able to record scientific findings. Look at the power of splitting a mere atom - look at the fact that by rights, atoms themselves defy scientific explanation under currently understood physics (since a positive and negative charge would attract and thus cancel each other out - instead of one continually orbiting the other....), etc etc. I need look no further than science to see the wonderful DESIGN of this universe and realize that its complexity is well beyond the human mind to be fully understood. Science is a quest for knowledge - and religion is often the same. They need not be mutually exclusive - though many Athiests feel they should.

The reason Athiests so want to deny a Deity, is because that would make them less than the penultimate being. Pride is a stumbling block for many, but for those that would deny Deity, I would simply point to this world and say, my - how we have so created a paradise by being the "highest being". It is a hard and bitter pill, but if nothing else - humanities failures and we still exist is also a wonderful example of a "higher" hand.

Edit - for those that want to quote science - allow me to remind you of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy - no matter or energy can be created or destroyed - it simply changes form. This law is an amazing statement on the spiritual soul and its relationship to your "living" consciousness - you WILL exist after your physical body dies - so science itself has claimed. One can argue whether or not "you" (being the consciousness in some form) will exist - but there is no way science can prove or disprove that. It simply states that some form of you will exist for all time. People of faith simply expect that form to be one that has a level of awareness in some way. Before you ridicule that, you may want to realize that even things that were deemed "not conscious" years ago (like plants) - have been found to communicate and even reactions that denote intellegence without a known scientific explanation.
See http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/1160/ for an example. Just because science has a theory on something yesterday, or today, or tommorow - does not mean that understanding cannot mature. Do not ridicule just because you cannot fathom it. Your mind is finite. Seek knowledge - and you will find. Be it science, or theology. The wise man seeks to learn, and not merely mock.

[antikristuseke]

CaptainHaplo, your knowlege of particle physics is out of date by a few decades.

As for your last point, you are wrong. I as an atheist, and all atheists I have spoken to, are not disbelievers because we want to belive to be the highest form in existance but because there simply is no evidence for any diety. That is all there is to it, I am not saying that there can be no god, I am saying there is no reason to belive that there is a god, though should evidence come to light I will change my position. This is the position of any self respecting atheist.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Aramike

But you chose the engagement.

So?

"Given a pass"? You can't be serious!

What "pass" are these beliefs seeking from people like you?

I think all beliefs, including atheism, are open to criticism, no matter how strongly they are held. Is that clear enough?

"Taking issue" is one thing. Glibly making fun is quite another.

Especially when you START the conversation with the rebuttal.

How can making the case for atheism take any other form but a rebuttal? And it seems like any criticism of conspiracy theories, UFOlogy, etc. would also be verboten in your world.

I can't stand people of intolerence, seemingly such as yourself.

So you're intolerant as well?

Or do you in fact tolerate everything, including genocide, racism, etc... Everyone's intolerant of something.

As for the "indoctrination" of children, here's something else I can't stand: people who bitch about things but offer no solution. What, you think you can somehow stop parents from passing along their beliefs? Riiiight...

What can stop this from happening? Oh, I don't know, maybe discussing the issue? Maybe some parents change their minds, maybe some don't.

However, I do not feel the need to generalize it all as "bad", as you obviously do.

What did I just say:

I love many examples of religious art, architecture and music, and I find some religious rituals interesting to observe.

Yup, sounds like I think it's all bad.

I didn't say that. I don't know how your particular choice of satire reflects all of satire, though.

Sorry. Is satire aimed at religion always meaningless?

So it's okay to discuss things, except the discussion itself?

Show me where I said you can't discuss the discussion.

Ah, typical lefty. Freedom of speech applies whenever an inciteful statement or discussion occurs. But, freedom of speech does NOT apply when someone calls them out on that discussion.

HAH!

That's an infringement of free speech? If you're going to interpret "free speech" so expansively for no reason, how can you not see that your argument is guilty of the same thing?