This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
Those are two separate concepts.
A) You cannot dismiss a concept based on lack of empirical evidence.
There are plenty of generally held concepts that there is no visible or empirical evidence behind. Most people believe that there is something special or more valuable about a human life than an animals. While many people will dispute this in a way that they lean towards not killing animals either, not many people will claim that human life isn't inherently valuable, making murder inherently wrong. There is no proof of what makes it valuable, in an abstract sense- but most people believe that there is a right and wrong associated with killing people beyond practical concerns. Without empirical evidence. To claim that you can't call the idea that humans have a right to life valid, just because you can't measure what it is that gives them the right, or prove they have it, would make most people think you're either making arguments for the sake of debate you don't believe, or that you're a nut. It's a completely valid argument that you can believe something is right, or true, or important without any measurable evidence that it is. When it comes up in non-religious discussion, no one asks for proof for every single thing you believe, every moral you stick to, every idea you have.
I shouldn't have said concepts. I meant concepts in terms of the objective physical world, the problem with morality being that it is entirely subjective. Either God really does exist or he doesn't, in the real world, (assuming there is an objective physical universe... whoa meta). Nobody asks you to prove God is moral, unless they set up what defines a moral person first. That would be the equivalent of what you're saying here.
B) It rests on the shoulders of atheists to disprove God.
If someone has faith, then they do not require proof. For you to argue that they should not believe something that they have faith in, it stands to reason that you should have to provide some evidence to shake their faith. If I have faith that my husband isn't cheating on me, and you think I shouldn't, I would ask what evidence you had that he was. If you couldn't provide any, then I wouldn't have any reason to lose faith. If an atheist is telling someone they should not have faith in something, it stands to reason that the person would ask for a reason, some evidence that their faith is misplaced. I don't understand why that would be such an unreasonable question. I mean, it's unreasonable to expect someone to disprove something intangible, but it's not unreasonable to expect that someone should not demand you stop believing with no proof of why. The question isn't designed to get a solid answer from the atheist- it's designed to show the atheist how their reliance on evidence doesn't have a part in the conversation.
The Unicorn analogy makes a false assumption- that faith operates on the same principles as science- any concept that meets X standards of proof must be true, or is likely enough to be true that it will be considered a sound theory. Faith has no such standards. Just because I believe in one religion, doesn't mean I must then believe in all. Just because I believe my husband isn't cheating, doesn't mean I have the same faith in yours. Just because I believe human life is valuable, doesn't mean I consider meat murder. Faith doesn't happen because they settle on a lower standard of proof for what they believe- it happens because they have decided they feel strongly enough about certain ideas, people, etc. that proof doesn't need to enter into it. You don't have to agree, but the arguments you use to try and dissuade them, by their nature, show that you don't understand what the concept of faith is.
I know they are two separate concepts, the unicorn argument is applicable to both.
When you say if someone has faith, they shouldn't require proof, I agree. However, on the other hand, they cannot take issue with someone who does not have faith. My point wasn't you shouldn't believe in God because you have the burden of proof, but rather if you want to debate God's existence you must realize why "Prove he doesn't" doesn't work logically.
Actually, the analogy you just made works on exactly the same principle: You assume that something does not exist (your husband's infidelity) until someone can prove it does.
Now, first understanding I am not trying to tell anyone not to believe in God, the "proof" that faith is misplaced or rather the argument we would use to show it would be... The unicorn argument. Or basically that it's based on unfounded logical principles. Well, there's a whole lot more based on individual religions as well, but that's essentially it, that it doesn't make sense. I'm not saying it will cause religious people to abandon their faiths by the masses, but that is essentially it.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
A) God as he is described in most religions does not exist in the physical world, and as such asking for physical proof of his existence is irrelevant. Religion supposes the idea that there are things that are completely real, but not tangible in any physical or measurable sense. Something that is not purely an idea, but not a physical phenomenon either. Because of the nature of what they believe it is, it can't be treated as something physically provable, which is the point I am making. I don't think it's a concept that exists outside of supernatural or religious beliefs, and it doesn't correlate directly with either things that are just an idea or things that are real in a physical sense.
B) I just explained that they KNOW "Prove he doesn't exist," doesn't work logically. The say it because, based on everything I just described about the nature of faith and an intangible god, "Prove he does," doesn't work either. They are pointing out that in reverse you find the question absurd, because they found your initial question to be absurd. The significance of the question is going right over your head. The level of incredulity that you have that someone would require something so unanswerable to be answered in order to accept your argument, is the exact amount of disbelief that you would ask them for proof on a matter of faith before they should be allowed to believe it.
@Fenomas- I know most athesists don't think you can disprove God. Just like most religious people don't believe you can prove he exists.
C) You could just have easily have worded it that I believe my husband's love for me, or faithfulness DO exist until it is proven otherwise. The concept is that you believe something- either that it is or it isn't- without proof. If, as you say, it was a refusal to believe in his infidelity without proof, simply on the merit of there being no proof, you could then have the same "faith" in every human being you have no proof of infidelity of, which is not what my example was at all. Don't twist the words so it looks like I said something I didn't.
D) Ok- so your point is it isn't founded in logical principles. They KNOW that. That is their entire point. It's NOT founded on logical principles, and so making arguments that it's illogical is a moot point. That's WHY they keep telling you in response to you asking for proof he exists that you have to give him proof he doesn't- because their belief has nothing to do with proof, and so it's a silly question in either direction. I have never heard a religious person try to tell someone that they logically should believe in god based on XYZ evidence. Maybe describing coincidences that have lead them to the belief, but not evidence. It's the atheist argument that evidence should be required before believing in things.
The entire point when you are asked, "Prove he doesn't," is that it's an unreasonable request. Rather than stepping back and seeing that they're trying to make the point that requesting proof of something that is unprovable is ridiculous (like you do when you request proof of God), you're concentrating on a question that is almost always asked ironically as though it were a serious request.
The Unicorn example is NOT just to show it's not based on logic. That's already been accepted by most people on both sides of the debate. Very few religions people base their belief on an examination of hard evidence. The unicorn example is to show that because it isn't based on evidence, it's ridiculous. Pointing out that a Unicorn doesn't exist doesn't do anything to show God doesn't exist, because there's no causation or correlation. Showing that there is the same amount of physical proof of God as Unicorns is designed to show that since most of us don't believe Unicorns exist, then it's silly to believe in anything which also has no physical proof. THAT is what the example is meant to show, and so it's not nearly so innocuous as you would like to make it sound(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##sas148##DELIM##The Unicorn reference has been, for lack of a better word, "banned" in this thread. Let's please keep away from that comparison. Thank you!
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
b4xx
Spagettie Monster?
I see you've not been touched by his noodly greatness.
Though I felt that I should just spectate this topic, I must make a comment to say that this comment was priceless, I haven't laughed so hard in ages!
Post by
MyTie
..the Bible is made up in large amount of analogies or parables along with confusing and difficult translations which different people will inevitably interpret differently.
We might add in its having been written and edited by multiple people over a long period of time, and that we have multiple conflicting versions of some passages with no definitive idea of which is correct. The professors of the two religion classes I took in college didn't even agree whether John meant to say that Jesus literally changed water into wine at Cana or whether the story was allegorical.
So there's nothing odd with having one's preferred interpretation of these things but it seems a little presumptuous for anyone to claim there is One True Meaning and anyone who disagrees is just redefining 1+1 to be 3.
This is really surprising to me. I understand a few words have been confused. For instance, it isn't clear if a kid was 8 or 18 when he rose to the throne of, Babylon I think it was. Other things aren't entirely crystal clear, like that. However, as far as word usage goes, the original texts are amazingly well kept and very clear and complimentary to each other.
I spend quite a bit of time examining the text in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Sometimes, I can spend up to an hour or two researching a single word, its context, its meaning, its usage in other places.
SINCE the texts were written, countless versions have been produced. KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASB, NASB, NRSV, RSV, are a few that come to mind, all of which I use on occasion, NASB is the one I prefer, as it maintains as much accuracy to the original texts as possible while still being readable.
To toss out the Bible as a mixed up jumbled mess of rewrites and translations is not an honest representation of the book.
Post by
Magician22773
There are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted, such as when we are called "sheep in the Lords flock". But:
(7) Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
(8) Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, (9) and the master of the banquet tasted the
water that had been turned into wine
.
...there isn't much there left to interpret.
He turned the water to wine
. It was Jesus performing the first of His many miracles on Earth.
In John 14:6, when Jesus says "
No one comes to the Father except through me
.", thats pretty clear.
As MyTie said, true, deep study of the Bible does include study of individual words, and those words in several languages. And there is a good chance that some passages and words have been translated and interpreted wrong. But in most cases, when the Lord needed His word to be clear, he made it very clear.
Post by
Atik
Unless it was a metaphor, like hundreds of other things in the bible.
Post by
Magician22773
Unless it was a metaphor, like hundreds of other things in the bible.
A metaphor for what? And why?
The story is an account of an event. It is very specific in nature. It doesn't make sense to believe it is metaphorical.
If you just don't believe the story, thats fine. But I don't see any indication that this passage was written with any parable or ambiguity in mind.
Post by
yukonjack
To toss out the Bible as a mixed up jumbled mess of rewrites and translations is not an honest representation of the book.
Frankly I think that is, simply put the most practical representation of the book. So long as we also remember the missing parts and no doubt numerous mistakes made when it was passed along orally long before it was ever written down. Those reason are most likely the single biggest reason we have so many groups with different interpretations at odds with each other all the while devoted to the same God.
Post by
Atik
A metaphor for what?
That the water itself was, for whatever reason, comparable to wine.
Perhaps a lesson in not taking things for granted, or not being greedy, or something of the sort.
The Bible itself likes slipping messages into itself; attempting to help people lead a good and moral life.
I like to think that if it was originally written as its own book, and then adopted to religion, it may have been a sort of satire; attempting to show people the way they should live.
Post by
Gone
If you look hard enough you could make any story a metaphor. Theres a name for that, its called overanalyzation.
Post by
Magician22773
I think the reason we have so many different religions that are devoted to the same God, is misinterpretation of the Bible, and "cherrypicking" passages.
Look at James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
This passage is a cornerstone in one religion. It is why they must fast on this day, and pray on that day......they believe that their "faith" requires "works", or it is dead.
But look at John 27-29
(27)Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
(28) Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
(29) Jesus answered, “
The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent
.”
It seems so clear to me, but yet entire religions will overlook, or outright ignore things like this. As a general rule, when in doubt, I will look to the Gospels. These books are the living Word of Christ. If there is anything in the Bible that trumps something else in the Bible, its the red text. (If you don't know, in many Bibles, Jesus' actual words are printed in red).
Post by
Atik
But what about changes to the bible? Like the transition from Old to New testament, or the additions and removals of certain books and sections?
How do you determine between such alterations?
Post by
Magician22773
A metaphor for what?
That the water itself was, for whatever reason, comparable to wine.
Perhaps a lesson in not taking things for granted, or not being greedy, or something of the sort.
I get it that you do not believe in the book, but here is the full passage.
On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”
“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
Now, what would you say that this "story" would be a metaphor for.....that makes sense. Your last response...well...didn't make sense. The story has nothing to do with not being greedy, or not taking things for granted. This story has nothing to do with about how to live a moral life, or anything of the sort.
Like I said....if you don't believe it, that is your choice. But I don't get the argument that, this story, has any hidden meaning, metaphor, or interpretation. It is an account of the first of many miracles that Christ performed in order to revel himself to the people while he was on Earth.
Do you also consider his resurection of Lazarus, the healing of the cripple at the well, and all the other miracles in the Bible to be metaphors? Or do you just not believe they were real?
But what about changes to the bible? Like the transition from Old to New testament, or the additions and removals of certain books and sections?
The differences between Old and New Testament, and the contradictions between them is an easy one. Old Testament was written about the time before Christ, and the New Testament is about the time of, and after Christ was here on Earth. The rules changed when he sacrificed Himself on the cross. You cannot, however, toss the entire Old Testament out because Jesus did say:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I won't quote the entire chapter here, but if you really would like to better understand some things that changed, and some that didn't, Matthew 5 is a good place to start.
As for "removed books", I will admit, I have not studied them enough to make an educated statement. I know of their existance, (the Apocrypha), and a little about their history. From what little I have learned, many Biblical Scholars believe that they were books that were added much later to the original "Bible", and were subsequently removed because they had came at such a later date. Again, this is not my area of study, so maybe someone else here could better answer this question for you.
Post by
gamerunknown
Why not talk about why you disagree with their interpretation, rather than ask the original question again as though they never gave you an answer?
It's one of many such passages. I think it's one of the less ambiguous ones. From what I recall in different threads, you think the commandment not to get divorced is pretty unambiguous. Catholics believe that “this is my body” is the literal truth, as is the command to partake in Christ's flesh for perpetuity. MyTie thinks the instruction for priests to be married is clear.
As has been mentioned, the vast majority of atheists don't even think that's disprovable.
Some people go one step further, professing "igtheism", in that they have never heard a satisfactory description of God.
They are pointing out that in reverse you find the question absurd, because they found your initial question to be absurd.
Well, this is a bit of an obfuscation of the matter. I've used the analogy before, but evidence is like currency. If one wants to convince another of the truth of a proposition, one better have the means to persuade them. If one doesn't have the evidence, one relies on coercion or faith. When it comes to intangible ideas (and I'll try to select an appropriate analogy), there's no need for something to be subject to disproof. Such things aren't within an empirical epistemology. Christopher Hitchens said he treats people's beliefs in a deity like their belief that their children are the most beautiful or intelligent on the planet: it'd be rude to disabuse them of that notion, unless they set about seriously trying to demonstrate the truth of those claims. That's the case with abstinence only education and creationism: empirical claims based on an undisprovable premise. To the extent religion encroaches on science, science will seek to evaluate the claims of religion.
I have never heard a religious person try to tell someone that they logically should believe in god based on XYZ evidence.
;)
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
But what about changes to the bible? Like the transition from Old to New testament, or the additions and removals of certain books and sections?
How do you determine between such alterations?
The transition from Old to New? Are you aware of what that entailed? Are you aware it didn't change anything about the Old testament? I think this shows that you really aren't familiar with these so called "changes" that you are talking about.To toss out the Bible as a mixed up jumbled mess of rewrites and translations is not an honest representation of the book.
You're doing it again. I simply said that it's overly simplistic to claim there is very little room for disagreement about interpretation. There is a lot of space between that and tossing out the entire thing as beyond interpretation.
Oh, I'm sorry. The point is that it is pretty untenable to claim the bible is so well-understood that there's only one reasonable interpretation, and any religion that departs from it therefore "deviates from Christianity" like MyTie says.You're doing it again. I simply said that the Bible makes some very clear instructions, and to deviate massively from those obvious instructions is not in line with Christianity.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.