When will religion be overteken by logic?

A Capitalist system is by far the best when it comes to allowing people to freely move up and down in terms of financial/economical/social status, but I digress.

Religion should indeed guide, and guide only. Whether one subscribe to that religion however ought to entirely be up to the individual. I've found some moral values from various religions I find interesting, some I've even incorporated in my own life.

I find religion ought not affect, be it directly or indirectly, decision making, critical thinking or analysis.

 

Explain to us how you're taking care of your fellow man, so you can be an example to us all.

 

This is nothing more than a personal assault.

Let's not go there, OK?

 

On your part, yes it is, so too late for you not go there.

 

People often read the bible literally when they should be reading it figuratively. For example, the account of Abraham and Isaac is not of a father being told to kill his son, (he wasn't actually killed, was he?), but instead a figurative portrait, (a prophecy), of a coming Messiah; a Son of God who would give his life for our salvation.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. - John 3:16.

 

People use the Bible to mean whatever they feel like it should mean, it does not read the same to any two people. Some believe it is entirely factual, others only figurative accounts to guide us, others believe it is made up junk.

This is 100% the reason why it should not be codified into law or teachings.

 

How do you know what is fact and what is allegory?

Was Adam made from spit and dust? Was Eve made from Adam's rib? Was there a real "tree of life" (that since died) and a real "tree of knowledge of good and evil"?

Obviously there are Christians who take this stuff literally.

But, is it impossible that Genesis has some allegory going on?

How does religion make decisions on what is allegory and what is actual fact?

 

So if I change my name to Bill Gates do I get Access to his bank account? They both revolve about a huge flood other than that similarities are just about nil.

 

When there is a logical and proven reason not to believe in a higher power.

 

Religion is a pretty broad topic. I try to see the cohesion, others look for the disparity. It's helpful to be familiar with both the Old Testament and New Testament.

Old Testament: “The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” - Genesis 22:7-8.

New Testament: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." John - 1:29.

 

So your proof of my denial is my admission. Is that your final answer?

lol

If you think religion done right doesn't deal with reality, your grasp of either can't be anything to rave about.

 

I know that. I've read it several times.

I'm interested in the answer to my question.

And, I'm not just looking for disparity. My primary issue is that we need to understand when to use the tools of religion and when to use the tools of science.

I do NOT believe there will be an end to religion (such as some talk about). That's just not going to happen.

When we use the tools of religion to explore the domain of science we run into serious problems. We here that the heart is the house for the soul. We hear that the earth is the center of the cosmos. We hear that god made man from dust and spit. We hear that ideas counter to these are attacks on God himself.

We need to know how to use the tools of religion on religious questions, such as why we are here and how to use science on questions of how things work in this universe.

Until we figure that out we're going to have really stupid conversations about proving god doesn't exist or insisting that what we see in front of our faces is heresy.

 

This post/video is mostly irrelevant to the thread, but as I watched it a couple of nights ago, it reminded me of how cool it was when I first saw it, many years ago.

 

nope, I already told you I do not believe in the myths of Buddhism either... you only don't like these revelations as they cast doubt on the bible

I have no issues with believing some parts of myths are false, even my own

the problem is some Christians believe there bible is the words of God himself and can't accept that some writers may have added stories that were not God's word to it over the years as they thought it sounded good and bolstered the religion

I woudl not believe someone that told a new different 9-11 version a thousand years from now, would you?

 

see this is like Trump logic, if Trump told someone to kill someone and they almost did but stopped at the last minute, Trump supporters woudl say.. yeah but he didn't kill him did he, so that makes it ok

Jesus was not God's son though, Jesus was God... right? Jesus was not killed, so it never happened right....

 

nope, because your a fake copy.... your making my point for me

 

My word you have issues. You posted that you opened a bible prior to 18. Then later on you denied that you had ever opened a bible prior to 18. I merely pointed out your confusion. I think what is going on is you are having trouble keeping your lies straight.

 

Then providing a verbatim quote and link won't be a problem, so get the hell on with it already.

I'll just bet you do.

 

I already did. Seriously what is wrong with you? How many times do I need to show you? But since you asked....here you go heh heh heh

Here’s you admitting you opened a bible before 18

Here’s you denying you were exposed to the Bible before 18

 

You did no such thing, obviously.

You would do better to focus your diagnostic efforts elsewhere.

Once.

Speaking of failure to keep a story straight, here is the claim I challenged you to prove:

My point was that you denied ever having opened a bible before you were 18​

And here is the claim you've proven:

Here’s you denying you were exposed to the Bible before 18​

So the claim I challenged you to prove, you failed to prove. This being the case, there are two avenues by which you might save face in the eyes of any following this conversation who are not lovers of lies:

• Find a quote of mine which does prove your claim.
• Answer the question you ran away from earlier:

So the way you figure it, had I not opened it, I'd have experienced no exposure to the Bible. Have I got that right?​

Enjoy.

 

What's your point?

 

You atheist?

 

The metric should be the opposite.
You should not worship something in the hopes it exist, people once believed they were not executing enough people or executing them in the correct way and thus it didn’t rain or they had poor crops.

Everything once believed to have been controlled by gods has been proven as false and zero evidence of the supernatural has ever been found.

Belief in religion is no different now than it was in Ancient Greece, modern followers have just converted the twelve gods into one that can not pass a basic logic test and “the problem of evil”.

1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
― Epicurus

 

a) You are putting words in my mouth
b) I don't have anything against religion, but I am telling you how things are
c) I recommend you stop doing a) lest you want to make yourself look like an even bigger fool than what you already are
d) I was raised Protestant(Ended up Atheist as a 13 year old due to Christianity not having any answers) and have read various religious texts and the scriptures related to those religions. That crap ain't gonna work with me

Religion in general does indeed have nothing to do with reality. Religion is a faith-based mechanic. They don't mix very well as religion kind of require you to take on an aspect that require you to follow it blindly without asking proper questions.

Religion takes on the spiritual needs for the people who follow that religion. It's nothing new as it's been done for, what, 10,000+ years? This will not change for the foreseeable future.

Quite frankly I don't see the point in mixing religion and reality as they operate in a completely different manner anyway.

 

should be obvious... if the montra of christianity is to feed the hungry, nurish the thirsty, clothe the poor, house the needy, as suggested here, there wouldn't be any homeless, hungry peeps in this country... the fact that there is (and just a fraction compared to the number of christians here) proves otherwise