The presumption of rationalism
11 posts • Page 1 of 1
The presumption of rationalism
Post #1
by skeptic griggsy » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:43 am
We rationalists have the presumption that reason is our tool to find the truth and that faith does not. Reason can move the mountains of ignorance while faith rests on the argument from ignorance. Science,argues naturalist Sydney Hook is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith begs the question of its subject [Articulett], which it cannot instantiate. It is the we just say so of credullity.
We endorse W.K. Clifford's admonition to provide sufficient evidence. Now advanced theologian Keith Wardd takes us to task, arguing that our demand for evidence would impede us from ever doing much of anything. That is hyperbole! The amount of evidence depends on the subject matter. If your wife says she'll do something, you do not demand evidence as she always does what she says or you just presume so unless shown otherwise. We know that evidence comes not only from the microscope, the telescope or the Buntsen burner but also from other factors. My evidence of my parents' love for me comes from their actions.
What Ward evidently wants is to fool-proof his dogmas about God.
Faith, thus cannot complete reason but goes against it , so it is no false dilemma in opposing the two!
So, fideism and at root, even natural theology reston just say so.
Clifford Richard Dawkins rightlly notes that one does not have to study theology as it bases itself on false premisses, but I dare take on those advance theologians like haughty John Haught, Keith Ward, John Hick, Alvin Platinga, Alister McGrath , Willliam Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne.Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble
' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth
"Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman
" God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither."
" God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!"
carneades.aimoo.com
skeptic griggsy- rationalist igtheist
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:39 pm
- Location: Auguusta,Ga.
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #2
skeptic griggsy wrote:Clifford Richard Dawkins rightlly notes that one does not have to study theology as it bases itself on false premisses,
To me theology is first of all unnecessary and secondly self-contradictory..
It is unnecessary because religious faith does not rely on theology for it's existence but on unconditional belief. After all, such is the fundamental nature of a religious belief that it does not need rational arguments which theology attempts to find. In fact, rationality has nothing to do with true religious faith which relies on nothing but the inner certitude, intrinsic feeling and conviction in the existence of supernatural.Theology therefore, is like a building without foundations built on a swamp. It's floors above the swamp are logically designed only for show but what it rests on is this bottomless abyss of irrationality where all logic does no good. The logical and structural appearance of the building is designed to convince us that it's basement is also like that and that religion as a whole rests therefore on rational ideas as well. But there is no structure or a logical thought, so to speak, below the ground where logic and rationality disappear and what remains is the swamp of the frail human irrationality. Kierkegaard, a Christian himself, knew that and called it a "jump into abyss" the abyss of human unreason.
It's also for this reason that I would call theology dishonest. It demands from an atheist and with the help of it's logical arguments however frail and invalid a rational affirmation of it's basic demand for suspension of this rationality and a leap of faith into the intellectual chaotic free for all..
And the second point very much related to the first is that, theology is self-contradictory because it tries to assert through a rational argument what basically is wholly irrational and already exists through faith.
It's not loaded...See... (Famous last words)
Flash- Veteran Poster
- Posts: 2129
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:09 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #3
skeptic griggsy wrote:We rationalists have the presumption that reason is our tool to find the truth and that faith does not.....i xink yr ovrsimplufiing xu sicyqasn. most pepl i no hav u lot uv fax in siins, evn if xa klam tq be kriscinz. xa wont disbelev sum nyq siintifik diskuvure, evin if it semz for fect. xe onle tim xa go intq defens mod iz wen sumwun kumz up wix sumxing xat ufeks wut xav bin tot ubowt xer relijn. remembr xu 'jezusiz famle tqm' xing u fyq yirz ugo?
yq find xu sam xing her. enexing xat semz tq kast dowt on xu komun belefs uv xe supozidle rasunl skeptiks gets ignord or utakt.
iv sed it mene timz her: pepl dont lik tq canj wuts in xer hedz. xa or skeptikl uv enexing xat duznt fit wix wut xa xink xa no. skeptisizm iz yqzd az u defens raxr xan a tql for strengxining or restruksrring.
eNExING XaTS XU SUMxING UV SUMxING IZNT XE eNExING UV eNExING - LESU SIMSUN
http://www.nooalf.com
JO 753- rezident owtsidr
- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 3282
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:21 pm
- Location: BLaNDLaND
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #4
To be religious requires that you have "faith".To be skeptical requires that you have "rationality".
Obviously, you can fake both, and you can delude yourself into thinking you have either.
All Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers are given a free lifetime membership in N.A.M.B.L.A.
A rockin' Atheist recreation forum
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
A free click will help homeless animals. Do it every day!
Gawdzilla- Annoyer of landrew
- Perpetual Poster
- Posts: 4882
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:11 am
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #5
All scientists have some bias, but their unbiased work is what counts as science.All religious people have some objectivity, but their biases are what count as religion.
It's no surprise that science makes progress and religion tries to freeze it.
Where knowledge is weak, belief is strong.
landrew- Keeping it Balanced
- 5k Club
- Posts: 6728
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:51 am
- Location: The neutral ground of skepticism.
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #6
skeptic griggsy wrote:by skeptic griggsy » Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:43 am
We rationalists have the presumption that reason is our tool to find the truth and that faith does not. Reason can move the mountains of ignorance while faith rests on the argument from ignorance. Science,argues naturalist Sydney Hook is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith begs the question of its subject [Articulett], which it cannot instantiate. It is the we just say so of credullity.We endorse W.K. Clifford's admonition to provide sufficient evidence. Now advanced theologian Keith Wardd takes us to task, arguing that our demand for evidence would impede us from ever doing much of anything. That is hyperbole! The amount of evidence depends on the subject matter. If your wife says she'll do something, you do not demand evidence as she always does what she says or you just presume so unless shown otherwise. We know that evidence comes not only from the microscope, the telescope or the Buntsen burner but also from other factors. My evidence of my parents' love for me comes from their actions.
What Ward evidently wants is to fool-proof his dogmas about God.
Faith, thus cannot complete reason but goes against it , so it is no false dilemma in opposing the two!
So, fideism and at root, even natural theology rest on just say so.
Clifford Richard Dawkins rightlly notes that one does not have to study theology as it bases itself on false premisses, but I dare take on those advance theologians like haughty John Haught, Keith Ward, John Hick, Alvin Platinga, Alister McGrath , Willliam Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne.
Griggsy,
I'm afraid if you need a means to instaniate then science will not do any more for you than faith. The word itself means to "to represent an abstraction by a concrete instance." (Merriman Webster Dictionary) Whatever degree of "concrete" science can give, reason or not, faith can also provide. But more importantly, to represent an abstraction is not the same as having it. Nor is it the same as knowing what it is. As I've argued in other forums on this board the scientific method cannot give us direct insight into what is abstract in nature. The best it can do is point somewhere, point to a model or symbol as you have just said here. Faith does the same thing although faith's object is not the same. This is what you fail to grasp concering the relationship between religion and science, between faith and reason.My question to you is why the presumption? And also why, if a person of faith must accept your presumption, why don't you do the same for them? We both have the same object... reality. We both want to arrive at the same destination... truth. We both have presumptions, namely that either reason or faith allow us to arrive at truth. In fact from my position as a "believer" I consider, as I have said many times before, that both are a means to truth. And I not only admit they both start with presumptions but I am willing to expose those presumptions to scrutiny. Both faith and reason lead to truth. Both provide us knowledge of their objects and while at times those objects are different there is also overlap. For instance, while reason alone cannot tell me about God's nature, it does provide me with the evidence of God's existence. Reason alone can tell me about man's nature to a point and after that another kind of insight is necessary. Faith provides me with the "matter" lacking in reason's apprehension of God's nature. Once received, reason can then look at that nature in order to understand. This you reject nevertheless it remains a reality. Likewise, man's nature can only be seen accidentally (from the Greek sense of the word), that is in it's changeable characteristics. Any further understanding requires philosophical insight. That is essence can only be reasoned upon once it is abstracted from it's object. Which brings me back around to what I started with in that once faith acquires it's object, reason can work to understand it's mutable characteristics while philosophy is again required to further reason to essences. Although faith to some degree must already provide the "matter" abstraction and reason work with.
From this understanding I consider comments like "Reason can move the mountains of ignorance while faith rests on the argument from ignorance" to be name calling. Likewise for "Science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge." It seems to me then that your insistence that faith "is the we just say so of credullity" is based on your belief that it is just say so!
TCB (alias Ratjaws)
It's not you against me against them... but us seeking truth!
Ratjaws- Realist
- Valued Poster
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:01 am
- Location: Alcoa, Tennessee
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #7
Gawdzilla wrote:To be religious requires that you have "faith".To be skeptical requires that you have "rationality".
Obviously, you can fake both, and you can delude yourself into thinking you have either.
Gawdzilla,
Love that song... love that name!I concur with you that in order to be religious there is the requirement of faith on the person's part. But I also see that even the scientist must make use of faith, granted of a different type, nevertheless an authentic faith to be sure. If you doubt this then you must ask yourself ...during the formation of a scientist in school what is going on? Surely a scientist does not immediately experience every idea they are taught in their formal training? In other words they don't exercise the scientific method on every concept they are taught to "prove" it true... rather they accept in faith the word of their teacher, the author of the text book, and the one who did the original experiment. Futhermore, once a scientist graduates and enters the work field they don't test every single concept they hold to be true. No, in fact they hold to the trustworthiness of what they believe on the basis of a natural faith, a type all men use even in day-to-day life. For instance, the majority of scientists may have dropped a pencil and picked it back up but they have never formally tested the law of gravity. A law I might add that affects much of what a scientist does and underpins how they think. Thus faith is as necessary for the scientific enterprise as it is for religious belief... albeit a different kind. Likewise for trust and belief. Unfortunately these three very human acts seem to have been relegated to the status of sin by those who consider rationalism a valid basis for obtaining knowledge.
Now in relation to rationalism, the idea that skepticism is a good basis for coming to the truth of a proposition is also troubling for me. Descartes was probably the greatest advocate of this radical idea that we must start with doubt of everything in order to arrive at truth. Simply put... I don't buy it! I base this on the simple fact that we must all start somewhere in our thought process and this means we all assume reality. If we start by doubting reality we by definition have nothing to work with. We cannot "prove" reality in any formal scientific manner so we are stuck in our skeptical abyss. We cannot escape from this abyss because once reality is lost, and it is lost if we doubt it's existence to begin with, because there is nothing real to hold on to in order to pull ourselves out of the doubt. On the other hand when reality is our starting point it is our standard. It is what we measure all other presumptions with. Reality is the final determinent and ends all doubt (or at least has the capacity to do so given a lot of mental work). Skepticism ends in a withholding of judgment while Realism, as the Thomists call it, enables us to use our mind to come to a conclusion. The key for me seems to be in properly discerning all the facets of reality as I believe has been done to varying degrees in the numerous threads of thought of the classical Greek thinkers. Properly discerned one can then order and categorize the multiple facets of reality and then work within each facet to come up with ideas that are coincident with that particular aspect of reality.
My point? Rationalism, which has it's basis in Skepticism (radical doubt that is), and vice versa, leads to principles such as "we cannot know anything for sure." And I come across this kind of thinking often in forums like this. To me it is unfortunate because nothing can be learned and nothing is solved if we can never come to a conclusion as to what is the truth of a subject and what is false. Unfortunately I see seeds of this thinking in quotes like your above from Darwin in that "you can delude yourself into thinking you have either." If I am wrong then please enlighten me as to how one gets out of the vicious circular reasoning of never coming to know what the truth is?
TCB (alias Ratjaws)
It's not you against me against them... but us seeking truth!
Ratjaws- Realist
- Valued Poster
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:01 am
- Location: Alcoa, Tennessee
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #8
To be skeptical requires doubt. Of course rationality can follow, but the essence of skepticism is to be uncertain of a conclusion. This is the definition of skepticism to which I subscribe.Where knowledge is weak, belief is strong.
landrew- Keeping it Balanced
- 5k Club
- Posts: 6728
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:51 am
- Location: The neutral ground of skepticism.
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #9
landrew wrote:To be skeptical requires doubt. Of course rationality can follow, but the essence of skepticism is to be uncertain of a conclusion. This is the definition of skepticism to which I subscribe.
OK...but how much evidence do you need to make a fairly certain conclusion? We are fairly certain of the process of evolution like we are gravity...the only uncertainties lie within the tiny details....and many times there are things we can not see directly like atoms--electrons, protons, quarks, etc. However, we have molded and shaped theories and models that are consistent with our observations that are quantifiable. Thus, we must rest on the model as evidence until we find phenomena that indicate otherwise.
I don't understand how ratjaws can say this line of reasoning is the same as faith. We observe and then have a hypothesis or have a hypothesis then observe...with the necessary self correction. Faith does not work like that...come on...
decreptitate777- The Dumbest Genius
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:43 pm
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #10
decreptitate777 wrote:landrew wrote:To be skeptical requires doubt. Of course rationality can follow, but the essence of skepticism is to be uncertain of a conclusion. This is the definition of skepticism to which I subscribe.
OK...but how much evidence do you need to make a fairly certain conclusion? We are fairly certain of the process of evolution like we are gravity...the only uncertainties lie within the tiny details....and many times there are things we can not see directly like atoms--electrons, protons, quarks, etc. However, we have molded and shaped theories and models that are consistent with our observations that are quantifiable. Thus, we must rest on the model as evidence until we find phenomena that indicate otherwise.
I don't understand how ratjaws can say this line of reasoning is the same as faith. We observe and then have a hypothesis or have a hypothesis then observe...with the necessary self correction. Faith does not work like that...come on...
Where did I say that I am skeptical and uncertain of everything? I do however, believe that you can't learn much when you think you already know everything. That's why I say the quality or your conclusions is directly affected by the amount of time you have spent being skeptical before you reached them.Where knowledge is weak, belief is strong.
landrew- Keeping it Balanced
- 5k Club
- Posts: 6728
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:51 am
- Location: The neutral ground of skepticism.
Re: The presumption of rationalism
Post #11
landrew wrote:decreptitate777 wrote:landrew wrote:To be skeptical requires doubt. Of course rationality can follow, but the essence of skepticism is to be uncertain of a conclusion. This is the definition of skepticism to which I subscribe.
OK...but how much evidence do you need to make a fairly certain conclusion? We are fairly certain of the process of evolution like we are gravity...the only uncertainties lie within the tiny details....and many times there are things we can not see directly like atoms--electrons, protons, quarks, etc. However, we have molded and shaped theories and models that are consistent with our observations that are quantifiable. Thus, we must rest on the model as evidence until we find phenomena that indicate otherwise.
I don't understand how ratjaws can say this line of reasoning is the same as faith. We observe and then have a hypothesis or have a hypothesis then observe...with the necessary self correction. Faith does not work like that...come on...
Where did I say that I am skeptical and uncertain of everything? I do however, believe that you can't learn much when you think you already know everything. That's why I say the quality or your conclusions is directly affected by the amount of time you have spent being skeptical before you reached them.
Fair enough...but I don't think anyone on here or with a brain for that matter thinks that they know everything...perhaps the smarter you are, the more you realize there is much you do not know...they may come across this way for the sake of argument however in a rigid counterattack to your arguments...
decreptitate777- The Dumbest Genius
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:43 pm
11 posts • Page 1 of 1Return to Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
mardi 14 juin 2011
The Skeptics Society Forum • View topic - The presumption of rationalism
The Skeptics Society Forum • View topic - original sin and salvation
original sin and salvation
126 posts • Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
original sin and salvation
Post #1
by skeptic griggsy » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:42 am
What irrationalist thought of the notion of original sin ?No Adam or Eve ever sinned and we do not pass our bad actions on to our posterity. How can liberal Christians support the notion ? Listen to all those foolish preachers talk about sin - affronts to a god. Sin means nothing to us rationalists. We recognize right and wrong [ see inverted theistic argument on morality] in relation to a rational morality, not to a god . Morality would impinge on a god and the one of the Tanakh and the Testament one judges immoral . No rational being would require salvation ,but would reqire rehabilitatiion. Oh, that is the notion of purgaotry. Another imaginary place . Why would this so-called sin require a hell to enforce its punishment [ see thread on hell].Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble
' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth
"Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman
" God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither."
" God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!"
carneades.aimoo.com
skeptic griggsy- rationalist igtheist
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:39 pm
- Location: Auguusta,Ga.
Post #2
Well, when you think about it, if you wanted to control a population, and scare other people into your thinking, how are you going to do it? I know... lets create a place where if they do not follow your teachings, that they will exist in torment forever! Lets think of the worse pain that most agree on... lets see, yeah, fire! And another fear that many have, yeah drowning. Thus... drowning in a Lake of Fire! What else, hmm, sulfur smells really bad so why not include it?Actually, it is easy to see how someone could come up with this idea. "Scare them until they come to you shivering in fear," the Christian motto for 2,000 years.
Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.
snooziums- Frequent Poster
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:16 pm
- Location: Olympia, WA
Post #3
No. Wrong.The Christian faith does not control by fear, but by guilt.
You are born into the world a sinner. You are guilty, at birth. Guilt is a much stronger emotion, with farther reaching impact.
With Guilt instilled from your earliest teachings, religion can control you throughout your entire life. Hell being such a horrid place only enforces the guilt....you deserve it, you're guilty. You do NOT deserve Heaven..but you can get there....thus proving God's 'love'.
Guilt is the key. Without guilt, there can be no sin.When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.
- clarsct
- Valued Poster
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: The Cultural Desert
Post #4
Ahh... good point.However, guilt leads to a fear of the self, since guilt leads to self-doubt, and self-doubt leads to fearing what one might do, when leads to fear over what might have done.
And so the vicious circle continues, all the while religious leaders earn more money from their followers.
Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.
snooziums- Frequent Poster
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:16 pm
- Location: Olympia, WA
Post #5
And meanwhile the fleeced (oops, I mean, the flock), keep jumping through hoops drawn ever deeper into the delusion.Guilt is a powerful form of control. I know all about guilt and how insidious it can be.
Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin
sciwoman- Regular Poster
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 pm
- Location: Lost in Missouri
Post #6
That didn't stop Empedocles from (allegedly) hopping into the active mouth of Mount Etna to become one with nature. Such an enthusiastic suicide seems ideal really.snooziums wrote: Thus... drowning in a Lake of Fire! What else, hmm, sulfur smells really bad so why not include it?I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy.
St. Jimmy- ghostbuster
- Frequent Poster
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:50 pm
- Location: His Noodly Embrace
Post #7
Well I've never heard of a really original sin. Coveted your neighbours wifes ass??? Seen it.Now if you told me you had been poking badgers with a salad spoon - now thats original
Scott the surfing biker!
- Brevabloke
- Guzzidude
- Valued Poster
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:58 pm
- Location: London UK
Post #9
And preachers tell their flocks of sheep that they have a yearning for his god. That keeps them in line, I would think. I do covet women! Yet , those preachers aver that they are happy in Christ - [see the thread on Christ, the jerk] . Look at all the happy religious in asylums! The original "sin" is faith- the I just say so, the circular argument.[Articulett]. Let's discuss how the churches sin. Errantists know that there was no Adam and Eve who sinned ,yet say the Garden of Even episosde is a metaphor for us sinners. We err, but do not sin as that is just religious nonsense. If that god were omniscient , it knew what would happen . It would not have that tree in the first place and in the second ,it would not have seen the eating of the fruit as wrong .Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble
' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth
"Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman
" God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither."
" God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!"
carneades.aimoo.com
skeptic griggsy- rationalist igtheist
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:39 pm
- Location: Auguusta,Ga.
Post #10
Hey Griggs: the biggest compassion story in the Bible - the lost sheep.
the shepherd risks all to save it.
what happens to a sheep after that?
a stick up the butt and onto the fire.
I'd rather be lost than cooked and eaten.bltthhhhh
- brainfart
- Account Locked
- Posts: 2032
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:44 pm
Post #11
clarsct wrote:No. Wrong.The Christian faith does not control by fear, but by guilt.
You are born into the world a sinner. You are guilty, at birth. Guilt is a much stronger emotion, with farther reaching impact.
With Guilt instilled from your earliest teachings, religion can control you throughout your entire life. Hell being such a horrid place only enforces the guilt....you deserve it, you're guilty. You do NOT deserve Heaven..but you can get there....thus proving God's 'love'.
Guilt is the key. Without guilt, there can be no sin.If guilt is the key, then fear is the lock.
In my experience, guilt and fear work hand-in-hand to maintain control. Lately, however, fear seems to be more of a motivator (i.e. use of religiously based fear as a political tactic).
"Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing can get you there faster than reading the damn Bible." - Penn Jillette
Mordread- Regular Poster
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:28 am
- Location: Somewhere just outside the buckle.
Post #12
Brain, how true. So much talk of sin is about sex. Why? The real origianl'sin' is the refusal to reason. If people think they are sinners, do they live worse lives? Does giving testimony about their sins or talking to a priest help them overcome wrong doings? Does talk of sin make them worse? I suppose it varies with the person. We have original sin talk to overcome. Our experts and writers need to discuss original sin and show it to be nothing at all.Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble
' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth
"Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman
" God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither."
" God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!"
carneades.aimoo.com
skeptic griggsy- rationalist igtheist
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:39 pm
- Location: Auguusta,Ga.
Post #13
So much talk about sin is about sex....
Of course.
Sex is the one thing that can rival religious ecstacy. It is how religious ecstacy is produced. YOu repress the sex drive and subvert it to another outlet. Religous orgasms.
This is difficult. Sex is easy. Therefore sex is sinful. It is competition.
Fear vs. guilt. With fear ytou can only motivate people enough to avoid the unpleasantness. Also, if you use fear constantly, it loses its punch. See the terror alerts for an example.Guilt, though....guilt is always fresh and always ready to be manipulated. Once you have someone in self-loathing, you own them forever.
I assure you, fear might get people through the door, but guilt keeps them there.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.
- clarsct
- Valued Poster
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: The Cultural Desert
Post #14
clarsct wrote:Fear vs. guilt. With fear ytou can only motivate people enough to avoid the unpleasantness. Also, if you use fear constantly, it loses its punch. See the terror alerts for an example.Guilt, though....guilt is always fresh and always ready to be manipulated. Once you have someone in self-loathing, you own them forever.
I assure you, fear might get people through the door, but guilt keeps them there.
Guilt is the best way to keep someone in thrall. It's cousin shame works very well also. But guilt is the king. Got experience with both.
Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin
sciwoman- Regular Poster
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 pm
- Location: Lost in Missouri
Post #15
it might help to dsistinguish amongst the several meanings for original sin.
One person responsible for bringing forward a few ideas about it is Augustine. The ideas might be older than him, but he is a main figure in the "original sin" business.His ideas on it span a range - from sex being a bodily state where concentration on God is lost and therefore sin is present by definition - lack of God-consciousness, to another idea, to something like a viral model of sin where it was passed through sex from Adam and Eve to their progeny.
another weird idea of his was that souls were predestined to be redeemed or not.bltthhhhh
- brainfart
- Account Locked
- Posts: 2032
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:44 pm
Post #16
So much talk about sin is about sex....One must wonder what the conservative Christians are going to do when sex becomes obsolete? Oops... I almost revealed a "secret" plan. Forget you ever heard that.
Back on topic... Original sin is a way to keep the entire Earth under control. Think about it, if everyone is descended from Adam and Eve (or so the Bible claims), then the way to claim that everyone is evil is to have some sin passed down from the "first two humans," thus, no one is exempt.
Then, once you have declared everyone as sinful because of this, you offer the only method to relieve this sin, thus you have total control.
Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.
snooziums- Frequent Poster
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:16 pm
- Location: Olympia, WA
Post #17
snooziums wrote:Back on topic... Original sin is a way to keep the entire Earth under control. Think about it, if everyone is descended from Adam and Eve (or so the Bible claims), then the way to claim that everyone is evil is to have some sin passed down from the "first two humans," thus, no one is exempt.Then, once you have declared everyone as sinful because of this, you offer the only method to relieve this sin, thus you have total control.
It is amazing, they define the disease (sin), and then they claim to offer the only cure (salvation). All the control religion has stems from this.
You label someone a "sinner" and induce guilt and shame and then tell them you have a remedy for it. Then once they have "bought" the cure, you tell them that they have to keep watch for any further "sin" and reapply the remedy (confession). To not do so hurts the feelings of the daddy in the sky-more guilt and shame. It sets up a horrible cycle that is hard to escape.
Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin
sciwoman- Regular Poster
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 pm
- Location: Lost in Missouri
Post #18
The funny thing is, most Catholic priests (that I've met anyway) will say that the story of Original Sin is just a parable.It's only the Fundie protestants that believe this crock of {!#%@} actually happened as written.
"Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing can get you there faster than reading the damn Bible." - Penn Jillette
Mordread- Regular Poster
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:28 am
- Location: Somewhere just outside the buckle.
Post #19
Mordread wrote:The funny thing is, most Catholic priests (that I've met anyway) will say that the story of Original Sin is just a parable.It's only the Fundie protestants that believe this crock of {!#%@} actually happened as written.
No, there are a growing number of catholic fundies who take a more literal approach to the bible. They watch EWTN and very nearly worship John Paul II. They send their children to Ava Marie University and read First Things magazine. The numbers are small, but growing.
Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin
sciwoman- Regular Poster
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 pm
- Location: Lost in Missouri
Post #20
Not sure if I posted this before, but it seems appropriate here...
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the discussion of Original Sin begins with the following statement:“God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seemed to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.” {1994, Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶385}
There are two sources of suffering, according to the Church: “the limitations proper to creatures”; and “moral evil” by which is meant Original Sin. These two sources are not evenly distributed. The statement appears to give more weight to the latter cause than it does to the former. Therefore we must assume that the position of the Catholic Church is that “as creatures we are fated to suffer, though we suffer much more as a result of Original Sin”.But aside from Original Sin, what exactly are the “limitations proper to creatures”? That phrase sounds suspiciously like the prelude to a circular argument such as the following: If all God’s works are good, any limitations or sufferings are also good and therefore “proper to creatures”. That is, suffering and pain was always part of God’s plan for his creatures. As one of his creatures, man was no different, and was doomed to participate in this “limitation” as well.
In other words, God created us to suffer.
Suffer? Yes. Created to die? No. According to the Genesis story, God created Adam with the capacity for eternal life:
The LORD God gave man this order: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”
Genesis 2:16-17
One of Catholicism’s great apologists, St. Augustine is emphatic on this point, that Adam would not have experienced death had he not committed Original Sin. {Augustine, On the Merits of Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chpt2}The Catholic Church still today agrees with this point:
“Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.” {1994, Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶391}
Death is a direct result of Original Sin. Were we not stained with the indelible mark of that first bad choice, we would not experience the ultimate suffering of death. In other words, humanity dies because, and only because of it’s sinful nature. Aside from the obvious guilt-laden overtones of such a belief, there is a more fundamental question that, if answered will, I suspect, tell us more about the true nature of this “God” than some believers would wish to know:If man was created to live forever but fell, why do other things die?
If man is burdened with death as a result of his actions, what did the fish do to deserve death? (Original Fin?) What about dogs, cats, lions and tigers and bears (Oh, my!)? Why do trees die? Grass? Flowers? Why do insects die?
If one is to persist in the belief of Original Sin, one must believe either:
A. God created all creation to suffer and die, except for Man, who chose it for himself.
B. God created all creation to live forever, but Man ruined it for everyone.
The first choice is implausible. Simply put, Man is a part of nature, built from the same material, sharing a huge percentage of DNA and exhibiting similar survival needs (food, water, shelter, sex). What change would have had to occur to transform a man and woman from immortal to mortal while still maintaining such an extraordinary similarity to the world in which they live? What kind of God would create a world in which predators feed off the young and helpless? What kind of God would create viruses to kill millions of species? Even more, what kind of God would create a world in which all the life-forms die except for one? That sounds way too bizarre, even for God.
The second choice is even worse because it makes God into a vindictive son-of-a-bitch. This God is even worse than a terrorist who kills all his hostages, their relatives, shoots their pets, then pisses on their lawn. If this were the correct scenario, God essentially said to Adam “Look, I told you not to do that; but you did it anyway. Now not only am I going to kill you and Eve. I’m also gonna kill every living thing on the planet. And not just once. No. I’m gonna make death permanent. Now, don’t you wish you listened to me, Buddy?” (Pack your bags, we’re going on a guilt trip...)
I know that for many people, believers and nonbelievers alike, Genesis is “just a story.” But for centuries believers thought it was the literal truth, and many still do today. The fact that the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world) still holds fast to the “death by Original Sin” concept is enough to show that the “story” is still taken seriously, if not literally. Certainly the Catholics are not alone in that regard. The concept of Original Sin is one of the foundations of Christianity, but when looked at logically, it is fundamentally nuts.
Or is it just me?
What makes me tick and what ticks me off: Almost Daily
Post #21
That sounds way too bizarre, even for God.And that is where your logic fails. God loved us JUST that much. Didn't you know that?
`Tis better to focus on the idea that we've suffered through countless generations for the sin of one man.
Way out of bounds for a 'just and benevolent' diety of any stripe. Even the Greek gods weren't that bad.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.
- clarsct
- Valued Poster
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: The Cultural Desert
Post #22
I never said that it wasn't still the official position of the Catholic church - hell, it's only been within the last 60 years or so that they changed their official position on whether the Earth was flat or not.However, individual priests (again, that I've met) seem to hold views of the story that are independant of the church's official position.
"Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing can get you there faster than reading the damn Bible." - Penn Jillette
Mordread- Regular Poster
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:28 am
- Location: Somewhere just outside the buckle.
Post #23
sciwoman wrote:snooziums wrote:Back on topic... Original sin is a way to keep the entire Earth under control. Think about it, if everyone is descended from Adam and Eve (or so the Bible claims), then the way to claim that everyone is evil is to have some sin passed down from the "first two humans," thus, no one is exempt.Then, once you have declared everyone as sinful because of this, you offer the only method to relieve this sin, thus you have total control.
It is amazing, they define the disease (sin), and then they claim to offer the only cure (salvation). All the control religion has stems from this.
You label someone a "sinner" and induce guilt and shame and then tell them you have a remedy for it. Then once they have "bought" the cure, you tell them that they have to keep watch for any further "sin" and reapply the remedy (confession). To not do so hurts the feelings of the daddy in the sky-more guilt and shame. It sets up a horrible cycle that is hard to escape.
It's like when a psychic tells you you are cursed and that it will take some large sum of money to get rid of the curse. Except, the psychic can be prosecuted for fraud. Preachers seldom are. I did just read of 2 priests in Fort Lauderdale Florida who were convicted and/or defrocked of using church funds for Vegas gambling sprees, prostititutes, trips, luxury items, etc. I know Catholics (the religion I was raised in) will say "a few bad apples..."--But if the basic premise of Catholicism isn't true, then they are all guilty of spreading ignorance, lies, and fear, in the name of "good". All preachers and priests are guilty of defrauding their flock as far as I'm concerned.
Articulett- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 3245
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:55 am
Post #25
mater deum wrote:Original Sin.That sh*t cracks me up. People actually believing in a magic apple and talking snake.
Come on! Everyone knows it was Pandora and her special magic box that brought plague, sorrow, poverty, crime, despair, greed, vice, old age, sickness, insanity, spite, passion, famine...
Oh you blasphemer--come now--you don't really believe god would kill his kid (who was really him) because some chick opened a box?--God can't be that capricious--you have to be a defiant woman AND consume from the "tree of knowledge" to piss god off so he can damn humankind for all eternity, you silly!
Articulett- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 3245
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:55 am
Post #26
Articulett wrote:mater deum wrote:Original Sin.Oh you blasphemer--come now--you don't really believe god would kill his kid (who was really him) because some chick opened a box?--God can't be that capricious--you have to be a defiant woman AND consume from the "tree of knowledge" to piss god off so he can damn humankind for all eternity, you silly!
Why are women always blamed for bringing sorrow into the world? I think it is a conspiracy by religious fundamentalists-they've always had a thing against women anyway.
Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin
sciwoman- Regular Poster
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 pm
- Location: Lost in Missouri
Post #27
sciwoman wrote:Why are women always blamed for bringing sorrow into the world? I think it is a conspiracy by religious fundamentalists-they've always had a thing against women anyway.Who knows. Maybe Dan Brown was on to something in The Da Vinci Code - in that women and sex were much of the driving force behind pre-Christian cults.
Blaming women for all of the ills of the world would help anyone trying to stamp out competing "pagan" religions.
"Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing can get you there faster than reading the damn Bible." - Penn Jillette
Mordread- Regular Poster
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:28 am
- Location: Somewhere just outside the buckle.
Post #28
Part of it, anyway.The other part is that so much of what we believe we learn 'at our mother's knee'. Especially back in the day when child rearing was 'women's work'. Today's world is breaking away from those conventions, but back then those who controlled the women, controlled society.
The other part is, of course, sexual. Of course we, as men, would like to have control over how and when we have sex. Christian law used to blame the WOMAN when she got raped! Can you imagine what kind of messages that sends to young women?
These Fundies aren't pro-life, they're anti-woman.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.
- clarsct
- Valued Poster
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: The Cultural Desert
Post #29
clarsct wrote:These Fundies aren't pro-life, they're anti-woman.Having been a fundie, I can tell you that you are absolutely correct. Hell, fundamentalism can even turn a woman into a misogynist. It can twist your mind that much.
Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin
sciwoman- Regular Poster
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 pm
- Location: Lost in Missouri
Post #30
Because we are tribal, mater. Deep within our psyche, we wish to belong. We wish to have a group to identify with, a group that shares our values, that we have a common experience with.In the end, God is a result of Evolution.
Those with strong tribal instincts made it in the world because they learned to work together to solve problems. It is those same instincts that drive us to seek out other skeptics...Mormons, Methodists...et cetera ad nauseum. It is the same drive that teens have to get piercings, or all wear the same brand of shoes. It is when we all respond to the same cues that we get a sense of belonging.
The very instincts that drove us together to form civilizations and kingdoms and nations are the same forces that divide us. Which is why I worry not about which version of blue mud in in vogue to rub into one's belly button. It is transitory. Civilization is not.
We have had very little time to try to get beyond our tribal inhibitions. Evolution takes time, and as those tribal instincts take a backseat as a selectiing factor, we will see less of it, with any luck.
One must take the long view.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.
- clarsct
- Valued Poster
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: The Cultural Desert
Post #31
mater deum wrote:I don't get how religion can be so poisonous and yet still survive. Can we ever shake free of it? Some of us have , I know. But what would a 100% secular humanist society look like? To me- That's heaven. No invisible force making you be good, or else. How about a society that can teach real ethics? A society that could really pursue science? A society with freedom for all ?(No double standards for men and women or straight or gay people) I just don't understand why people waste one day per week on a fantasy that can't possibly be mentally healthy for them. I agree with Dawkins- It's a virus.Part of the reason religion survives despite being so poisionous is that it goes out of the way to make itself look benign. Religion promises that you will become a better, more fulfilled person by following its tenets. Unless you take an objective look at it before you become part of it (and how many people do that?), it is easy to be totally fooled.
Once you are part of it, it is difficult to take an objective look. Factor in the inevitable brainwashing, and most people are hooked for life on religion/god/church. It is a difficult meme to free yourself of.
And it is not just the belief system. There are also social factors. You have the opportunity to become involved in service and social activities. You make friends with other religious folk, and start spending less time with friends who are not so religious. After a while, it is easy to forget that not everyone believes as you do, because you are surrounded by people to do.
The people who mostly make christianty a Sunday thing are not the ones you have to worry about so much. Yes, their beliefs are irrational. But belief is just part of the background of their lives. They claim christianty because it makes them feel good or they grew up with it or it gives them standing in the community. They need to belong to something and have picked church.
The ones you have to worry about are those who do not just pay lip service to serving god with all their heart, soul and mind. These are the ones who go out of their way to try to press their agenda on the rest of society. These are the people who make sure they attend school board meetings, protest outside of abortion clinics, rally against gay rights, etc.... Their numbers may be small, but they are very vocal and they are the ones that people pay attention too.
But there is always hope. Even the most hard-core of true believers can shake off the shakles of religion and walk in the true light of rationality. Exhibit A-me.
Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin
sciwoman- Regular Poster
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 pm
- Location: Lost in Missouri
Post #32
I did just read of 2 priests in Fort Lauderdale Florida who were convicted and/or defrocked of using church funds for Vegas gambling sprees, prostititutes, trips, luxury items, etc. I know Catholics (the religion I was raised in) will say "a few bad apples..."--But if the basic premise of Catholicism isn't true, then they are all guilty of spreading ignorance, lies, and fear, in the name of "good". All preachers and priests are guilty of defrauding their flock as far as I'm concerned.Articulett's statements are mostly a bunch of " I don't like that, so it's not true" type of reasoning. and then we have the twisted memories from childhood to deal with, such as her repeated offering that the Bible says Jesus can appear as a beggar to us, despite that this is not found in the Bible.
Basically, we have an untruth factory running off here, and under the umbrella of "a skeptic", likely it gives a poor impression for any doubters visiting this site. They find identifiable untruths about the Bible and hate mongering. This is surely not what we desire doubters to find here.And yet, I often wished there was someone that would have prodded my thinking in that direction a lot earlier in life; I hope I can be that provacative support for someone else trying to make sense of the nonsenseif it has hatemail from true believers, then I'm sure I'll eat it up. I just finished Sam Harris' letters to a Christian Nation which echos much of the discomfort I have with religion and the holier than thou. I find true heroes in Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett for having the guts to say what I'm to afraid to say in person
Exactly my point; when Articulett spews untruth about the Bible, young or old doubters may easily get the impressiuon that atheists and skeptics do not care about facts or truth - just that they hate Christians.She will never help anyone like this, but could very well drive beginnning doubters away from futher investigation.
It is more effective when speaking about things that concern religion if we actually spend the time to find out facts. Articulett gives incorrect Biblical information as a routine part of the rant, and ususally a good helping of anti-male propaganda.
It tends to give the appearance of Atheists and skeptics being ignorant and unfair, as she posts mucho trash and nobody seems to notice the errors in fact and logic.would it not be more productive and less misleading to examine evidence? such as examining this:
It is said that Jewish law does not subscribe to the idea of the guilt of sin being transferred to progeny. Punishment may be felt by the progeny, as when the father loses his property, family rights, or his own life. But the progeny are not held guilty.
end of story.
Last edited by brainfart on Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:02 pm, edited 5 times in total.bltthhhhh
- brainfart
- Account Locked
- Posts: 2032
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:44 pm
Post #33
I find reason to be savific and I should use it more than yell at my computer! We all have shown the nonsense of salvation and such. Just look at those cannibal Christians,vampires! They eat wafers and drink wine that are the flesh and blood of Yeshua , yet would deny that they are cannibal vampires , as it were. I find it good that I started this thread. I wish others who have not participated would do so. There are many who view these threads but few who post. Please respond to my other threads to better my comments and those of others there. It takes emotions to get theists to change; philosophy and science hardly do get them to give up their superstition. [ Articulett, if some man has so hurt you , I' m so sorry. I value your contributions and wish we could meet in person!] Sin is a religious notion that we can do without.Sin is what one does that a god does not like and Yahweh is a psychopath who has no right to demand anything of us if there really were one . Wrongdoing is our term.Michael Shermer's 'The Science of Good and Evil" shows a rational, objective morality, not the subjective one of those ignorant bigots of the Buy-bull. Do see my thread on inverse morality! Look at all those who declare themselves such sinners! Do testimonies in church or penitence before a priest do anygood? Does the notion of sin keep others in bondage? We need to look at these two questions . I wish Shermer would!
Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble
' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth
"Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman
" God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither."
" God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!"
carneades.aimoo.com
skeptic griggsy- rationalist igtheist
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:39 pm
- Location: Auguusta,Ga.
Post #34
skeptic griggsy wrote:I find reason to be savific and I should use it more than yell at my computer! We all have shown the nonsense of salvation and such. Just look at those cannibal Christians,vampires! They eat wafers and drink wine that are the flesh and blood of Yeshua , yet would deny that they are cannibal vampires , as it were. I find it good that I started this thread. I wish others who have not participated would do so. There are many who view these threads but few who post. Please respond to my other threads to better my comments and those of others there. It takes emotions to get theists to change; philosophy and science hardly do get them to give up their superstition. [ Articulett, if some man has so hurt you , I' m so sorry. I value your contributions and wish we could meet in person!] Sin is a religious notion that we can do without.Sin is what one does that a god does not like and Yahweh is a psychopath who has no right to demand anything of us if there really were one . Wrongdoing is our term.Michael Shermer's 'The Science of Good and Evil" shows a rational, objective morality, not the subjective one of those ignorant bigots of the Buy-bull. Do see my thread on inverse morality! Look at all those who declare themselves such sinners! Do testimonies in church or penitence before a priest do anygood? Does the notion of sin keep others in bondage? We need to look at these two questions . I wish Shermer would!No man has hurt me...I'm assuming you have read some extrapolation of Brainfart. I have him on ignore. The bible is misogynistic, to be sure...but the men in my life have not been (or rather, those that show such tendencies, are not men I have in my life might be more accurate.) Why, some of my best friends have been men--and all my lovers have been men too--imagine that!
Alll religions are harder on the ladies than the guys. What muslim woman is hoping to be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven? What Mormon woman is looking forward to polygamy and being with her earthbound husband amidst multiple wives for ETERNITY? And the standards and punishments regarding women who speak against the status quo tend to be a bit harsher on planet earth too--but no-one has been able to shut me up (yet) --ha!
Regarding sin, to me it seemed that Catholic girls growing up were always afraid they might not be good enough--might be sinning too much--afraid of hell--(or getting a calling to be a nun!)--The boys seemed not to worry...I guess they figured that they were a shoe in for heaven. And I often wonder if that is the case in adulthood. I often wonder if religious men are more confident of their place in heaven than religious women. I would find this ironic given that most of the horrific acts I can think of are perpetuated by men more than women--warmongering, torture, killing, rape, pedophilia, threats of damnation, abuse of power/resources--
I think brainfart thinks I think most men do this. I don't think most men are violent nor do most men do cruel and horrible things. On the other hand, of those who commit really horrible crimes against humanity--the perpetrators are predominantly men...and the victims are often women and children. On the flip side, it is men who are our greatest leaders, and scientists...I hope that women will help close those ranks with time. I think religions often keep women in a subservient role.
Articulett- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 3245
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:55 am
Post #35
Articulett posts information that is readily identifiable as her own machinations against men. Regularly. Much like her nonsense diatribe bout non-existent Bible verses.she thinks that her own twisted experience/imaginings of religious theory are Bible. The Bible has plenty of offerings to pick on. Why use invented ones ?
this hate filled and usually false message can only drive people who are looking here for facts away and back to the comfort zone.
bltthhhhh
- brainfart
- Account Locked
- Posts: 2032
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:44 pm
Post #36
sigmadog wrote:If man is burdened with death as a result of his actions, what did the fish do to deserve death? (Original Fin?)Ha! Alcholics die from "original gin"? Inbreeders (like Adam and Eve) from "original kin".
What about dogs, cats, lions and tigers and bears (Oh, my!)? Why do trees die? Grass? Flowers? Why do insects die?Yeah...and why does god partake in all this death given his commandment not to kill (though he never specifies what you can't kill...and one wonders if an immortal soul makes actual killing impossible...)
I
f one is to persist in the belief of Original Sin, one must believe either:A. God created all creation to suffer and die, except for Man, who chose it for himself.
B. God created all creation to live forever, but Man ruined it for everyone.
The first choice is implausible. Simply put, Man is a part of nature, built from the same material, sharing a huge percentage of DNA and exhibiting similar survival needs (food, water, shelter, sex). What change would have had to occur to transform a man and woman from immortal to mortal while still maintaining such an extraordinary similarity to the world in which they live? What kind of God would create a world in which predators feed off the young and helpless? What kind of God would create viruses to kill millions of species? Even more, what kind of God would create a world in which all the life-forms die except for one? That sounds way too bizarre, even for God.
The second choice is even worse because it makes God into a vindictive son-of-a-bitch. This God is even worse than a terrorist who kills all his hostages, their relatives, shoots their pets, then pisses on their lawn. If this were the correct scenario, God essentially said to Adam “Look, I told you not to do that; but you did it anyway. Now not only am I going to kill you and Eve. I’m also gonna kill every living thing on the planet. And not just once. No. I’m gonna make death permanent. Now, don’t you wish you listened to me, Buddy?” (Pack your bags, we’re going on a guilt trip...)
This was always weird to me. I wouldn't create a life if I felt it could suffer forever. And I feel guilty when I punish my dog because she got into something she shouldn't have--And I am not "all loving"--am I supposed to believe an "all loving guy would do this stuff? It's kind of sick to worship and make yourself devoted to such an insane invisible entity--and yet, given the consequences of not doing so, I tried my damndest.
I know that for many people, believers and nonbelievers alike, Genesis is “just a story.” But for centuries believers thought it was the literal truth, and many still do today. The fact that the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world) still holds fast to the “death by Original Sin” concept is enough to show that the “story” is still taken seriously, if not literally. Certainly the Catholics are not alone in that regard. The concept of Original Sin is one of the foundations of Christianity, but when looked at logically, it is fundamentally nuts.Or is it just me?
Nope, it's me too. I tried to get it to make sense. But original sin is supposed to be THE REASON god killed Jesus, right? And a christian is supposed to believe god killed his kid so they could be "saved"...that's the number one credo of the faith, right? But evolution shows that humans could not have been made fully formed by an invisible guy who speaks in their head and tells them not to do things. They evolved...and all the invisible voices they heard were from themselves just as they have been for all humans--a byproduct of language...and sometimes mental illness.
I cannot believe how hard I tried to understand this crap, and I'm appalled that so many people that I consider smart in most regards, still buy into this crap. I want to know WHY? Is it because they are looking forward to "salvation" or are they just afraid to ask the questions. Whenever I probe, they get defensive...so I shut up. But how do grown adults believe this stuff with utter sincerity?
Articulett- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 3245
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:55 am
Post #37
And, being raised Catholic, I had learned that original sin was a parable (after the church was forced to conced that evolution looked pretty damn factual)--but what is it a parable for? Sex? Questioning God? Defying god's orders? Was god just a voice in their heads? How are they to know it was god when they hadn't even invented language and writing and bibles yet? And why does god care what you eat or what you know--he could have just whipped up non hungry people happy to be ignorant, right? He could have been people obedient... and worshipful. Why would any all loving diety reward blind faith? silly belief? ignorance? fear? An unquestioning nature? These aren't traits I'd want to see in someone I was responsible for creating.If you can't understand; maybe it's you: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Articulett- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 3245
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:55 am
Post #38
clarsct wrote:Because we are tribal, mater. Deep within our psyche, we wish to belong. We wish to have a group to identify with, a group that shares our values, that we have a common experience with.Definately part of it.
mater deum wrote:I don't get how religion can be so poisonous and yet still survive. Can we ever shake free of it? Some of us have , I know. But what would a 100% secular humanist society look like? To me- That's heaven. No invisible force making you be good, or else. How about a society that can teach real ethics? A society that could really pursue science? A society with freedom for all ?(No double standards for men and women or straight or gay people) I just don't understand why people waste one day per week on a fantasy that can't possibly be mentally healthy for them. I agree with Dawkins- It's a virus.And they make sure it sticks around with guilt and fear.
"Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing can get you there faster than reading the damn Bible." - Penn Jillette
Mordread- Regular Poster
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:28 am
- Location: Somewhere just outside the buckle.
Post #39
Articulett wrote:And, being raised Catholic, I had learned that original sin was a parable (after the church was forced to conced that evolution looked pretty damn factual)Actually, the official Church teaching is that Original Sin, while expressed in figurative language in the Bible, conveys the essentials of an actual event in human history.
Catholicism (and most Christianity) consider that Jesus' death, as a real event (to them at least), was meant to atone for the sin of Adam. In order to be consistent, then, the sin of Adam had to have been a real event.
Anyway, I would have liked to have been around to hear the conversation between God and Jesus regarding this...
God: "Well, son, I'm gonna have to put you to death..."
Son: "But why, Pops?"
God: "Because stupid Adam went and ate an apple, and someone's gonna pay..."
Son: "Jesus Christ!"
God: "Exactly."What makes me tick and what ticks me off: Almost Daily
Post #40
we do have confusion over what is church teaching and what is scripture.
this ignorance does not enhance argument to help persuade others.
we also have ignorance about scripture and about teachings.
so it's just a mess being presented here by Articulett and.
it's a "bizzarro world" Christian forum.bltthhhhh
- brainfart
- Account Locked
- Posts: 2032
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:44 pm
126 posts • Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4Return to Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
What have you to say about all this?