Spoken like a true philosopher! "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." ~Bertrand Russell
Logic, facts, and reason means nothing to the intolerant dogmatists. They are so indoctrinated into their belief system that they cannot consider anything beyond their own finite experience, nor their own very limited mental capacity. Oh, they will tell you how brilliant they are, but it is just an attempt to reassure their own lack. They are trying to convince themselves with propaganda, that their beliefs are 'science!' and everyone else are superstitious fools. They merely define themselves as 'smart!', when in reality they are dumb as rocks and couldn't reason themselves out of a wet paper bag. I have known, and read, many brilliant people in my life. Many have been impatient or lacked social skills. But you NEVER see dogmatism from truly intelligent people. They are introspective enough to realize the limits of their knowledge and even reason. Oh, they may be annoyed with stupidity, or fools, but they never bully or demean other people who are not their intellectual equal, and they never toot their own horn, about how smart they are. Most truly genius people i have known or read, used reason, not disdain, in any dispute over knowledge, and they were circumspective enough to realize their opinion about the many mysteries in this life were to be held loosely, not gripped with self confident dogmatism. Bigots are almost always dogmatic about their beliefs. And that is the difference between a self assured, self absorbed dogmatist, and a circumspective seeker of knowledge and Truth.
I have noticed Christianity itself is being infiltrated by people who claim to be Christians, but promote pseudo-christianity. For example 'christian universalists' insist they are Christians, but they promote universal salvation, which is clearly not what Jesus taught. In order to claim everyone will be automatically saved they have to deny any Biblical text which refer to God's judgment. They are very hostile towards those they consider Evangelical Christians who they refer to as "fundies".
That's because the Bible was written by many authors, it often contradicts itself, and so it is easy for there to be many interpretations. Some verses point to damnation (although, at least in the Greek, it isn't necessarily eternal damnation) while others support universal salvation. There is no shortage of Christian factions that promote one set of scripture as the truth and who use it as a way to interpret another set of scripture that, on the face of it, contradicts their favorite verses. In fact, that's pretty much how most of the denominations work.
Not really. The need for faith for salvation is repeated some 200 times, so there is no mistaking it for universal salvation.
I wasn't bringing you into it personally. This guy who tried burn down a Methodist church and Sikh temple in Edinburgh is an example; he doesn't have it in for a particular religious institution, just religion and God in general: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-45905249
And other verses lean otherwise, and universalists will point out that faith could always come after death. The only time hell is described as "eternal" is with the Greek word that literally means "lasting an aeon." Meanwhile there are several verses about God reconciling all things to himself.
Many authors but One Spirit. The entire text of the Bible bares witness to itself. Only humanists like to make it divisive. Take the witnesses to a fatal car accident. They were all present. Many versions but they agree on one fact....the drivers dead. What makes the scriptures so intriguing is not only many authors but many many years and many attempts to destroy them.....yet they survive.
Yes, they point out that there is a second chance after death, but the Bible points out there are no second chances: "people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment". The same word "everlasting" is used to describe everlasting life, everlasting separation and even God Himself, who is eternal. If everlasting life was not everlasting, then it would end in death, but that is not what Christ promises on John 3:16.
I concur with what the scripture says and you are correct. Universalists are no different than secularists in that they only accept what feels good to them. In my own opinion, the prospects of heaven far outweigh the depths of "hell" (or separation from God). I seldom even think about it.
Well, that's the thing right, an agnostic who attacks Christianity isn't adamantly insisting on 7734, they are simply insisting that the first person is unjustified in suggesting 7395. Of course, they might in their private time believe that 7734 is the right number (although at that point, they are no longer really the equivalent of agnostics which my argument was about). However, as long as they successfully argue that we are unjustified in believing 7935, then we can be convinced that we are justified in believing 7935. The fact that they hold some other potentially false belief is not an issue unless they suggest that belief. This strikes me as incorrect. I truly do not know what the lottery number is going to be, but I can still be justified in thinking that the guy suggesting 7935 is unjustified in his belief. That's not to say that it is impossible that 7935 is the correct number (or that it is less likely than any other number) but that it is not favoured in the way the person suggested. Or for instance, let's say that I know that there are only numbers 1-5000 in the lottery. I am now completely justified in saying that 7935 is incorrect, yet I don't know what the true number is. The idea that not knowing the truth means that you cannot attack other claims to truth is simply incorrect.
Yes It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between people with a religious outlook and those whose outlook is agnosticism. People with a religious outlook are fundamentally uncomfortable with not knowing. Religion is a construct that provides us an assurance that fills the uncomfortable void of ignorance. Agnosticism acknowledges the fact of ignorance: there is lots of stuff that we simply do not know. Our ignorance can spur us on to look for answers in a way that is not possible when we deny ignorance. For example, the certainty of the “young earth” religious view forecloses huge areas of scientific exploration. Just as was the case when the church demanded adherence to the view that the earth is the center of the universe.
That is just a smear and phony narrative. There is no biological or mental difference between 'religious!' people, and atheists/agnostics. They have a religious belief about the nature of the universe and are just as human as theists. Your propaganda meme here is just a reflection of bias, religious bigotry, and phony caricatures, to demean those who believe differently than you.
But what if the written word was written by man; And what if that writing expresses “the decrees and whims of man” rather than the law of some supernatural being? Is there any evidence that the ruling elite have ever willingly abandoned their power? It seems to me that the history of religion and ruling elites shows just the opposite: kings co-opt the so called religious law to cement their own divine right to rule. Rulers have claimed divine authority for millennia... and did not stop doing so subsequent the arrival of Jesus What happens when my free conscience and god will do not coincide? My conscience tells me witches should not be burned, my conscience tells me that programs, religious wars, and slavery are wrong... despite the confident assurances of religious leaders who quote scriptures Yes, but that is the problem... you have cited the evidence of how religious authority conspired with civil authority... and continued to do even under non papist regimes like Henry the eighth. Kings did not cease claiming divine right just because of the reformation. And priests did not cease conspiring to empower civil authority just because they were not catholic priest. It seems indisputable that even today religious leaders present an extremely diverse range of meanings attributed to the so called scriptures. Essentially the only thing religious leaders agree upon is the general authority of the scriptures ... along with their own personal authority to provide idiosyncratic interpretations of those scriptures
Pot-kettle-black I did not claim a biological difference.... it is astonishing that you do not recognize any mental difference when so many theists go to such lengths to assert the mental deficiencies of non theists Theists claim to have scriptures that authoritatively answer questions regarding the nature of the universe. As such there is no need to search for answers about the nature of the universe. There are no questions to answer on this topic because scripture answers all such questions. As such they deny ignorance on this topic Non theists do not acknowledge the authority of scripture to answer questions about the nature of the universe. As such they acknowledge ignorance, as well as the need to search for answers to inform their ignorance Really? It seems to me that you are the one who is demeaning those who think differently than you. For example... there are those who believe opinion string theory, or multiverses. There are those who believe the universe will crash back together in another Big Bang.... and others who believe the universe will continue to expand until all energy is disapated. I do not demean any of these beliefs. Instead I am interested in the evidence that may support those beliefs. Just as I am interested in the evidence that supports a plethora of theistic beliefs. However, I see no particular evidence that would support one version of theism over another version of of theism. And certainly I have seen no evidence that indicates that the “scriptures” contain any special insights into the nature of the world I have to say... if there is a god, and if that god cause the scriptures to be written... and if god intended to convey the nature of the world to us through those scriptures....if all that were true, I would have expected much much more.
1st off....in my own experience, I have NEVER been taught the earth is the center of the universe. However, from an earthly perspective, one might think it is. No big deal. Some agnostics believe THEY are the center of the universe. Secular humanism definitely holds that view. Agnostics are apparently uncomfortable with "not knowing" because they look to science for the answers. Ask a scientist "why is there hate in the world?". Don't think you'll get an answer there.
But clearly we know that WAS religious doctrine at one time exactly. You have illustrated how people take human misconceptions And present then as gods own truth You see that is not unexoected.... since they are only human and not expected to be perfect It is more surprising when agents of god display similar weaknesses and defend those weaknesses as gods will who is the authority on secular humanism? You?
No, the Supreme Court ruled it a religion and by definition, they do feel the universe revolves around self. In the Hindu religion they tattoo a dot on their forehead because that represents the center of the universe for every individual. You want to talk about religious doctrine. Well I have heard of all kinds of doctrine that is false. Let's do a scripture study from the Bible and you can show me where it says the Earth is the center of the universe. Show me. Of course our focus has always been the earth because that is where we live. You just want to argue semantics....you don't care about rightfully dividing the Written Word.
To some extent, I'm with usfan here. Your stance seems like a comfortable view of the religious which justifies not having to fully understand their positions. Of course, there may be some truth to it, at least for some fraction of religious people, but I don't think I would assume that that difference is "fundamental".
This assertion is apparently based on the following It has occasionally been argued that in Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court "found" secular humanism to be a religion. This assertion is based on a reference, by Justice Black in footnote number 11 of the Court's finding, to court cases where organized groups of self-identified humanists, or ethicists, meeting on a regular basis to share and celebrate their beliefs, have been granted religious-based tax exemptions.[4][citation needed If this is the basis for your assertion, you should research whether comments of a single justice constitute a legal finding of the us supreme court [ QUOTE] and by definition, they do feel the universe revolves around self. In the Hindu religion they tattoo a dot on their forehead because that represents the center of the universe for every individual. You want to talk about religious doctrine. Well I have heard of all kinds of doctrine that is false. Let's do a scripture study from the Bible and you can show me where it says the Earth is the center of the universe. Show me. Of course our focus has always been the earth because that is where we live. You just want to argue semantics....you don't care about rightfully dividing the Written Word.[/QUOTE]
Actually, geocentrism was SCIENTIFIC dogma of the time. But you correctly observe the tendency of dogmatists to blur the line between empiricism and belief. That continues to this day.
Yes. This is also evidence of the transition between the majority view of biblical Christian based ideals slowly shifting over to progressive, or secular humanist based ideals. Core beliefs in Christianity that were once mainstream, have become a minority view for outliers. Biblical authority and/or inerrancy, Creation, the divinity of Christ, gender identity, moral absolutes, equality, salvation, and many other tenets of the historical Christian faith have been diluted, disparaged, and distorted, to promote a caricature of biblical Christian beliefs. Followers of the cultural pop religion have a hybridized blend of beliefs, to keep the nostalgic remembrance of Christianity, but remove the offending points that upset the incoming ideology. Of course, this new hybrid bears no resemblance to historical Christianity, and is nothing but a departure.. an embrace of historical heresies. But the labels are kept, to promote revisionism and to destroy the original.. something that has been going on for millennia. It is easy to spot in 'liberal' denominations, where the pop views are embraced, and the historical, scholarly views are revised, distorted, and ridiculed.
Correct. They are identified by their anger and resentment toward those who believe the Bible is the word of God. They never tire of painting Evangelicals as the bad guys. It is very unfortunate, but it is becoming a fact of life, especially at on-line religious discussion boards. Thankfully I have met very few people in real life who have displayed such hostility toward my views.
Christians often do not believe Christians to be Christians which makes me wonder if there actually are any Christians to Christians.
If that were the case, sure. But that is not the case. Most agnostics i have 'debated' with in forums are NOT simply claiming neutral ignorance, but defending and promoting their own beliefs. And by attacking or disparaging others beliefs, usually Christianity, they expose themselves as ideologues, not neutral skeptics. 1. Ideological beliefs are all opinions. There is no empirical evidence to compel a belief in one over another. The evidence one has for their beliefs is subjective, based on experience, Indoctrination, peer influence, etc. 2. A pure agnostic merely admits ignorance, and declares they have no evidence, subjective or otherwise, for a conclusion. 3. By adding the qualifier, "and nobody else does either!', or, 'but it is not Christianity!', the pure agnostic has moved to a dogmatic claim about knowledge that they cannot possibly know. 4. To use the lottery number analogy: Christian: 'i believe the number to be 7395.' Atheist: 'I believe the number is 7734.' Pure agnostic: 'I don't have a clue what the number is.' Fake agnostic: I'm not sure what the number is, but it is not 7395!' But without empirical evidence to completely invalidate a claim of knowledge, all one has is bias. If you change the number range to be only 0-5000, then you exclude 7395. But if that is done arbitrarily, or to promote a particular subset of numbers, it only exposes bias and an underlying belief about the numbers. By what standard do you exclude a higher number range? Arbitrary definitions? ..certainly not by empirical evidence, because there is none. So all that is left is promotion of a bias.. advancing a particular religious opinion over another, a most human trait. AKA, religious bigotry.
