Slashdot Mirror
Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief
Freshly Exhumed writes "A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers. The study, which will appear in tomorrow's issue of Science (abstract), finds that thinking analytically increases disbelief among believers and skeptics alike, shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief."
will burn in hell.
Well Duh.
Not analytic thinking, just thinking should work
Trolling is a art,
No one with any working braincells believes the world was created in 6 days , woman was created from a spare rib etc etc.
I guess it works on global warmers then.
See you back in 20 years :-)
I think more, and when I think more, I disbelieve more?
So, this research can be characterized as, "when I'm faced with the fact of my own poor eyesight, or I'm forced to look at art, I hate God". Yeah, that's good science...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
I guess it works on global warmers then.
Well, if it works as suggested then it will cause those who believe in global warming purely because someone told them it was happening to go and look at the evidence and decide for themselves, in which case they'll keep their opinion intact but will have come to it by a more scientific approach. Win-win.
A new study finds that intelligence can decrease stupidity! Maybe the two teams could join forces.
Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
I work with a staggering number of engineers who are very religious and it has always boggled my mind. How can anyone with an analytical mind possibly accept things like Noah's ark?
NOT! That said, it depends on the depth of your imagination. If the universe is essentially a simulation, the creators of the simulation would fit many of the parameters of a god, from our point of view. Even without that, there have to be plenty of other sentients in the universe that have been around a lot longer than us, perhaps even a few that survived the destruction and creation of the universe. These too, would fall pretty far in to god territory.
Of course, this is just the christian biased, deity-oriented "god" stuff. More abstract religious concepts like Atman, the ain sof, the tao and nirvana probably were never included in the study.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
"God Needs Booze"... bring on the Lordweiser.
Does it increase disbelief or decrease belief ?
Some of us are just Brain Washed into believing in things that don't make any sense. To me, it's more of a mental disorder.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
My personal epiphany was the observation that religion and place of birth are highly correlated. It seemed fairly arbitrary at the age of 10 and still does. It has not made me into an atheist though. People from many walks of life are on a righteous road.
Makes perfect sense.
You certainly see this with muslims; they've gone backwards culturally and economically. Quite possibly, the great Islamic revival is a symptom of economic and social collapse, and people fall back on superstition, religion and crazy and paranoid conspiracy theories.
Having dealt with many of these people, they are incredibly paranoid, superstitious people utterly prone to ridiculous conspiracy theories (especially if it involves Jews). They're so credulous, they'll believe anything -- like the lie that Jews were told to evacuate the Twin Towers before 9/11.
I have found that engineers tend to be less devout than the average population, which would support that post, since most engineers are trained to and routinely have to exercise analytical thinking every day.
This hints at the key problem, which is (or ought to be) as much a quandary for religion itself as for scientific studies of it. Almost all of the questions in Gervais and Norenzayan's study related to religion as a literalist folk tradition — an aspect of lifestyle. This is how it manifests in most cultures, but that barely touches on religion as articulated by its leading intellectuals: for Christianity, say, philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley. The idea that the beliefs of those individuals would have vanished had they been more analytical is, if nothing else, amusing. Gervais and Norenzayan’s findings should help to combat religion as an indolent obstacle to better explanations of the natural world. But it can’t really engage with the rich tradition of religious thought.
"The researchers’ general approach was to test volunteers — in some cases, Canadian undergraduates, in others, as the paper explains, a “nationwide (though nonrepresentative) sample of American adults recruited online”. Both sets of volunteers constitute only a limited sample, as Gervais and Norenzayan acknowledge." So, how many flaws in the study can you find in this one sentence?
you just described every teabagger and right wing nut-job out there.
Throw out all the junk science for a starters. Not much need for keeping a meticulous record of things that have long been proven wrong.
Presuambly what was included was one group of theories at the time but science has moved on, or, more accurately, science has been invented since the bible was written.
If we take the original meaning of religion, which was from a Latin root that means "binding" and could be taken as "things that bind society together"* then theologians and sociologists have actually been quite good at asking some very hard questions about this, challenging religious and non-religious hierarchies.
If we take notions of "God", again theologians have been pretty good at analysing out what is mere superstition, animism and so on, from the largely unanswerable question about why or how anything at all exists. Theologians like Hans Kung and Don Cupitt, along with any number of Episcopalians, Unitarians, Quakers, Reform Jews and other progressive groups, have tried to deal constructively with the apparent human need to believe in something and share cultural practices. This hasn't always been totally successful, but a quick fact check on whether you'd prefer to live in an area where the main religion is one of the groups I've mentioned versus one where it was, say, strongly pro-Pope Catholics, Islamists or the Bible Belt might provide a clue as to whether they're on the right track or not. The simple facts of Apple-worship, programming wars, and pseudo-religions like Libertarianism, Marxism and "Free market economics" show that atheists can show quite strong religious tendencies.
So the real question is what this study means by "decrease religious belief". After all, when Phlogiston was discredited, you could argue that this resulted in a decrease in belief in the reliability of chemists. Do they really mean "decrease acceptance of bullshit?" I'd go with that.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
An obvious point of clarification is needed in the way this has been reported. "Religious Belief", as has been posited, is belief with respect to the existence of supernatural entities. But isn't Religion about collective belief, rather than supernatural belief? I would have thought "Theistic Belief" would have been a more appropriate target for the authors to address.
Myu:
A "devout" believer - one who holds to and lives by their beliefs very strongly - can be very devout and yet not have a firm understanding of why the things they believe are true.
For example, I'm a Christian, and many Christian people I know (the vast majority, actually) have not spent significant time studying systematic theology (everything the Bible teaches on particular common topics) and analytically considering the evidence for and against what they believe. So when they are questioned, often I find that they reconsider things they once believed by "blind faith" - belief without a good reason or evidence to believe. Hopefully, their new conclusions are guided by sound analytical thinking and not the same blind faith.
This process is healthy for them, because it gets them to abandon bad ideas or false religious doctrines, and it helps them to back up with a firm foundation good ideas and those religious principles that are true. For example, "love your neighbor as yourself" is universally understood to be a true religious principle - in that it goes well with you if you consider other people and look out for their interests as much as you would your own. That's not one that's going to be disproven by analytical thought, but many questionable beliefs will.
These people who think they're wise and learned are actually pretty ignorant and close-minded. Even worse, they want others to be just like them, or to respect their position so they can keep enjoying the prestige. When Jesus came to challenge the Pharisees (who are the teachers and law-keepers among the Jews) about their inconsistent moral standard, the Pharisees hung Jesus on the cross through the hands of Pontius Pilate.
Never let a blind person lead another blind, lest both of them fall into a pit.
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
I once had a signature.
Some people are mature enough to recognize that beliefs that make them feel good about the world may not be an accurate description of reality. They can compartmentalize their religious and scientific views, not allowing one to interfere with the other. This is fine, as far as I am concerned -- as long as nobody is trying to inject religion into science (or worse, engineering), people can hold whatever beliefs they wish and practice whatever religion they want.
Palm trees and 8
Just a thought, but is it any less likely that the world was created in 6 days than an entire universe being created in just a few minutes (adding on a little bit of time for significant expansion)?
"likely" hasn't got anything to do with it. The proper question is, what do the facts support.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Isn't religion in essence a belief in something that relies on irrationality to exist, at least in people's minds? If that's so, than it would seem to be tautological that "analytic thinking can decrease religious belief."
I make hardware RNGs, which give 2.5849625 bits of entropy per use in theory (actual performance dependent on usage).
71 And then the Romans laid hands on Jesus to lead him away. 72 But Peter said unto them, "This is not the Jew you are looking for." 73 And then the centurion said unto them, "This is not the Jew we are looking for."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You might as well say that we should throw out the junk science from Harry Potter. Neither collection of stories represents a science textbook, the only difference is that large numbers of people think that the bible is an accurate record of the history of the world, whereas nobody above the age of five thinks that Harry Potter is real.
Palm trees and 8
Maybe we could all do with a little more analytical thinking, including the slashdot readership, but lets not go too far. Some of my favorite people in history have been lacking in that department, whether it be cocaine snorting musicians, diva movie stars or fearless sports stars.
In college, as part of the engineering degree program there has to be some credits in art/history/etc. I picked up a philosophy track which required an introduction to logic and rehtoric. I don't want to imply these classes ruined anything but it definitely opened my mind to multiple ideas. When you are asking fundemental questions of reality (Why aesthetics important? What defines good? Why is humanity valuable? etc) and find that although religion does have some answers but not all and are encouraged to keep looking and discussing it instead of being quiet and accept "the truth" then that erroded their fundementals.
People forget that you don't need a science to be encouraged about critical thinking.
Thinking and experimenting are two disjoint processes.
Analytical thinking reduces the experiential feedback, as you can see in schizophrenic personalities.
If you start meditating without object (that means concentrating your attention on the present and letting your thoughts pass), you'll increase your awareness of your surroundings and decrease the flow of thoughts. You'll experience and enjoy the reality more (even when the reality is tough) and spend less time thinking.
Analytical thinking is not correlated to intelligence, and believing is not correlated to dumbness.
Real belief is not taught, it's lived. If it cannot be experienced, it's useless.
Analytic Thinking Can Increase Religious Beliefs.
All depends on what you Believe in and what you Think.
If you take the respective universes to the same point in their development, you've got six days on one side and thirteen billion years on the other.
If you want to talk about a few minutes, we can create a roiling ball of energy in a lot less than a few minutes ourselves, albeit on a smaller scale.
Swimming can make people less likely to drown!
religion has nothing to do with analytical thinking
You got that much right.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually this is all many of us 'deniers' would ask. If the global warming believers would go over the data themselves and reach their own conclusions based on their own thinking without relying on 'experts' I would have a lot more respect for them. Unfortunately many people tend to treat science as if it were a religion and just believe whatever the 'experts' say without doing any thinking for themselves. As Francis Bacon cautioned, I prefer to stick close to the data itself and view any conclusions based on that data with the greatest degree of skepticism. Even the data itself should be questioned.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Albert Einstein, 1954
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Maybe you'll show us what you expect by working through examples with some of the religions that *you* reject.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"1. An article says that if people analyze written articles and books, they won't believe them."
Except, and here is the fracture, the article doesn't say that.
Yeah thats stupid to listen to the experts. Its much more convincing when convenience store clerk says global warming is a hoax.
Lets get this over with... Fuck Off
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"
It doesn't work.
Dawkins used to reason with them. After years of getting nowhere he gave up and now resorts to insults. And I don't blame him. There's little to be gained by having a discussion with someone who's brain has had its critical reasoning ability turned off.
I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Have you read The God Delusion?. It does a pretty good job of explaining why religion, in general, doesn't make any sense, and it does so via a clear logical thought process. When I read Dawkins' book, I suddenly understood this quote from 1984:
The best books... are those that tell you what you know already
If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Couldnt the same requirements be placed on you to show it isn't made up/corrupt?
I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned
Shouldn't the burden of proof be on you to use the Scientific Method to support your theory that the accounts of the Bible are true?
If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
The burden of proof is on you. Without any evidence that your book is not just another book of ancient mythology, why should we give it any more creedence than the works of Homer?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I see you continue to refuse to think for yourself, and decry any who do. What exactly are you so afraid they might find?
Who's facts are we using for this conversation? There are lots of theories based on perception of observations and even more conjecture based on rumors and innuendo but not much in the facts dept. Remember...it used to be considered a FACT that the Earth was flat based on expert's findings. The arrogance of armchair scientists is mind numbing sometimes.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has [...]" -Martin Luther
The more you think about things, the more you are going to find errors and omissions in any text or tract that claims to be "perfect", regardless of whether it's religion being discussed, science, medicine, or anything else. No one document or ideal is perfect and infallible; at best it's an approximation of "how things work". Even math texts have mistakes and "this exercise is left up to the reader" sections, so they're far from perfect.
I suspect that if there were widespread legions of followers of some older polytheistic religions, people's faith wouldn't be shaken so severely by the idea that their deity is wrong. Greek, Roman, and Norse religions are full of arguments, fighting, and other human failings of the gods, which implies that they are not perfect right from the outset.
Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology, on the other hand, is founded on the idea that God is perfect in every way. So when some argument of their religious text doesn't compute, a little bit of their foundation of faith is chipped away. There's just no avoiding the conclusion: the world is not perfect, so God itself is not perfect.
So how do "true believers" hang on to their faith? Simple. They blame all the ills and woes of the world on our own free will, and on Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge. In other words, they literally consider knowledge and thinking to be bad things which mankind should never have been granted access to.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Oranges are orange.
And again I say DUH!
Well, if you have to ask...
I'm an atheist, and am actually a big fan of word of Jesus. The ideas were revolutionary for morality and ethics in the ancient world. Whether or not Jesus was diving, or even really existed, is unimportant in this respect.
But, having said that, I'm afraid you can find all sorts of examples in the Bible that contradict each other, especially between the Old and New Testaments (e.g. stoning gays vs. loving one another). Not to mention the conflicting geneologies of Jesus in the gospels. (And I'm sure other posters will chime in soon with more examples.) Furthermore, biblical scholars worth their salt do not believe in the literal truth of the text, since it has been translated, edited, and redacted many times over. Much has been lost, forgotten, rejected (Gnostic gospels anyone?), or just plain ignored.
Finally, my biggest complaint with Christians in general is that more often than not they themselves pick and choose which portions of the Bible are true. Just look at the anti-abortion types in the States who also want to cut back on Social Security or Medicare -- a position that is clearly not "pro-life", nor follows through with Jesus' adminitions to take care of the least fortunate. If you wish to use Jesus' teachings as the basis of your ethics, fine -- but either be consistent, or be prepared to be exposed as a hypocrite.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
No one with any working braincells believes the world was created in 6 days , woman was created from a spare rib etc etc.
D'oh!
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
The burden of proof is not on me to prove your bible wrong, but for you to go through the "scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case".
Until you can do that, don't be surprised if the more scientifically minded do not accept your idea.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
This is because you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Cosmology and astronomy explain stellar phenomenon that exist on a very large scale in time and space. As a highly specialized discipline within another discipline, it is not precise enough to describe the process of evolution on the scale of generations, not philosophical enough to study the process of human thought, identity, and subjectivity, and not holistic enough to explore phenomenon outside its very narrow scope.
TL;DR: You're trying to use the wavelength of light to measure the weight of a thought. Good luck with that.
There is a lot we don't know about. Our knowledge of the "known" universe is minute compared to the size of it. We need two mathematical systems to study our physical world because of anomalies at scale. We cannot explain dark matter. What we do learn from distant galaxies and planets is already old news to the tune of some hundreds of millions of years.
Analytical thinking is a feedback loop because the more you know, the more questions you have. Much of what gets explained away by some religion is egregiously ignorant and we need to ask ourselves if we are doing the same to dismiss unknowns specifically as scientific anomalies. Even Einstein did not completely dismiss religion from his work (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html).
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Oops, "divine" not "diving". Curse you, submit button!
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
I was taught that the geneologies of Jesus trace one from Mary and one from Joseph... never looked into it though.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds
-Ralph Waldo Emerson (Used without permission)
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I wonder about the duration of the effect. Is it just immediately following analytical thinking you're less inclined to report belief, but if you wait a week the level pops back up to normal? If it's just a temporary effect then that's more obvious and not as interesting. The full paper is paywalled so I can't tell.
on top-level talmudic scholars, then see how it fairs.
could it be?
I lost my faith when my pastor told me that there were no dinosaurs, because they are not mentioned in Genesis. I am very thankful for that, because she ensured that I rejected this idiocy before I was even 10 years old. Dinosaurs are fucking awesome!
I'm aware that some people take their religion pretty seriously, but mailining it has to be at the fringes of even the most extreme fundamentalist practice.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Religion itself is just a primitive form of philosophy. The problem is with the believers themselves. They want to be told what to think so that they don't have to think for themselves. And they want to be emotionally comforted.
I think religious belief is 100% emotion based. Thinking simply has nothing to do with it. Believers believe because doing so makes them feel better. They feel both protected and part of a larger group. Without some kind of emotional payoff, a payload if you will, I don't think a religion would have any chance of becoming popular.
As a teenager I was the kind of militant atheist who would deliberately debate with believers for fun and I think I learned something from those exchanges about what motivates such people. The most common reason for believing in such nonsensical ideas which are entirely without evidence is 'intellectual hedonism', the penchant for believing something just because believing it makes you feel good. So you'll hear things about what a dry, inhospitable world it would be without their personal supernatural deity.
I must admit that I would prefer a world of werewolves and vampires and even of ghosts. Life would seem more interesting to me. But that doesn't lead me to believe in such things. I suppose that is one of the fundamental differences between rational skeptics and believers. Religionists believe in something because of how it makes them feel. They don't care whether it is factually true or not. Any arguments about logic or evidence completely miss the point. The only way to alter their beliefs is through their emotions. You would have to make an emotional impact. Not a logical one.
Another characteristic I have noticed is a fear or dislike of uncertainty. Religion grants certainty about all things. Science is not big on certainty. In fact science is all about uncertainty. A constant state of weighing the evidence. There is very little that science believes with 100% certainty. Well aside from global warming perhaps :). Scientists tend not to fear uncertainty. They might even embrace it. Not knowing something plants the seed of curiosity. Not fear. And something about which we cannot gather evidence might be something to wonder about, but that sense of not knowing does not motivate them to seek out a guru, someone who claims to know what they do not.
Many of the most interesting questions about our place in the world are simply not answerable. We may never know answers about what the edge of the universe is like or the larger perspective of worlds in a grain of sand. I would love to know whether our entire visible universe is just one grain of sand. I would love to know the grander structure that is behind all of the countless galaxies that seem to make up our world. I don't think we will ever have the answers to those sorts of questions. Some of us just accept that, but others cannot and seek certainty through blind belief.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
This is what Einstein had to say about those who call him religious:
And in particular about the rumor that a Jesuit priest had debated with Einstein and converted him from Atheism (also wrong as Einstein greatly disliked being called Atheist as well).
And this is what he has to say about the word God itself
And, to round it out
His beliefs had God not as willful force beyond the universe, but as the universe itself. He sees the laws of physics not as something that God has created, but something that God is, something beyond us that we can but hope to catch a glimpse of. Something without an anthropomorphic will or mind, something that does not care for us at all. (He viewed this as important as we therefore must care for each other instead of relying on God and ignoring each other) I think you will find that while many leading scientists may, as Einstein, reject organized religion, most of them will nevertheless regard the Universe with reverence, many (including Einstein) referring to such reverence in spiritual terms. Essentially, a small and petty God preoccupied with murdering those who use their free will wrong by eating the wrong kinds of food, wearing the wrong kinds of clothes, planting crops in the wrong way, was and is inconsistent with those scientists views of the absolute majesty of creation.
At any rate, Einstein was perhaps even more displeased at those who would call him an Athiest as part of their OWN Argument from Authority. What he had to say about (loud) atheism was
He repeated such sentiment many times. Though he dislikes the Dogma of religion he does not wish to challenge believers lest he replace a (perhaps childish) belief with emptiness, saying "such a belief seems to me preferable to th
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein.
So that's what it is. I've always wondered...
Anyway, go ahead and believe in your god and bible all you want. As long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care.
Having considered the matter carefully, I've come to the conclusion that a person who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the study of climate effects knows more about the subject than I do. In fact, on further reflection, I may have to admit that I am no longer an expert on everything in the way that I was during my teenage years.
- a (former) convenience store clerk
idk... maybe that greenhouses don't work?
Imagine that: if your brain starts working, you stop worrying about the the fictional man in the sky.
Color me amazed.
Everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.
The Digital Sorceress
Sure a study done by the "science" guys would say this. Now I want to see one done by the church.
You just better hope those with moderator power use all their point before they scroll this far or you will be marked as flamebait.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Why did Jesus slap the fig tree?
Why was Jesus wrong about the end times prophecy? Clearly stated to happen in the apostles life time.
Why is Paul such a raving misogynist?
"Jesus had some good ideas, none of them new." - Al Franken
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Thinking can decrease religious belief...
Funny, my belief in God is based on an analytical journey.
They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?
E.g. Sort the following words alphabetically: Reason, Ponder, Analyze, Rationalize. Question: Do you believe in global warming?
What makes the study sweeter is that it primes the volunteers with some questions that show that their initial intuitive response is wrong! This casts doubt on what they would initially believe to be true, and then they follow up with questions regarding the convictions of their beliefs. Perhaps this study may also show that people don't really analyze or give deep philosophical thought to their beliefs?
Often, you shouldn't believe in something until you've had a chance to analyze it. A blind disbelief is as bad as a blind belief. However, on amoral topics, I'm sure we just trust someone else's popularized work and accept it to be true because it has no moral consequence on our lives (e.g. belief that up/down/charm/strange particles exist).
This is so obvious I must be missing something. Once a person begins to look at the world around himself critically, he realizes that there isn't an old Jewish man in the sky who will send him to eternal damnation for premarital sex? WOW, who would have thought that thinking would allow someone to see through the churches crazy rhetoric. I guess those of us who saw through the old man in the sky hoax a long time ago don't find this the big news that others do.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Remember...it used to be considered a FACT that the Earth was flat based on expert's findings.
No. It used to be ASSUMED that the Earth was flat, until people actually started thinking about it and made some observations. It's likely that this happened many thousands of years ago.
c++;
believe in Christ are doing it in vein.
I didn't know Christians and heroin addicts had so much in common!
On a more serious note, I don't give a rats ass about christianity, it's teachings or any of that. I don't consider it unique among religions and see no reason to go through it all and give it the logic wrangling you desire. If I did, then in the name of equality, I'd have to do it for every possible belief system. It's just easier and less time consuming to deal with religion as a whole rather than isolate a specific belief system.
I am not a religious person because no religious belief system I've encountered has any similarities to reality, at least as I've observed it. There is no more reason for me to take Christianity seriously than their is for me to take Voodoo seriously.
Science is based on observation. It doesn't matter who is doing the observing. Science is not infallible any more than observations themselves are. Initial observation seemed inconsistent with a spherical world. It was only when you looked a bit more carefully and thought about the larger picture that the world started to seem clearly spherical. At first the observational evidence in astronomy seemed to favor Ptolemy's epicycle model over Copernicus's elliptical one. Science is not some kind of infallible direct path to The Truth. It is just the only method we have for learning about the world around us and for predicting the results of an interaction with that world. Faith is not some alternative means of learning about the world. It is not a means of gaining knowledge. Faith is just another term for obedience. For stick-your-head-in-the-sand ignorance.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Given technology progression and another billion years (or trillion?), I easily believe in a creator. I would say that analyzing where we are today strengthens belief in God. I could see the big bang kicked off by a Creator, accelerated ( outside of time ), then manipulated in what we call a day. I disagree with Evolution however. Dinos could possibly be from a previous run at earth where God cleaned the slate with a celestial collision, etc. Analytical thinking has strengthened my belief. I mean, come on... we can clone already and it's only been a few thousand years for us. Granted, we were only made in His image and may not have what it takes biologically to circumvent time, etc. but I easily believe it could happen by a better Being.
"those come down to moral issues, informed by my faith" - does that include stoning people death for various reasons, genocide, homophobia etc? If not, why not?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
would decrease belief in the methodology used in this study. Did anybody *read* the linked press release from UBC?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
During the days of the Puritans in the US, they used to worry about people becoming too logical, because such people might begin to doubt the existance of god.
All other religions fail to build a compounding, historically impactive, evidence for their truth. And I'm bold enough to say that that is why Christianity is the de facto true belief. I challenge you to explore the validity of all other religions on this planet with reason and skepticism, and I guarantee you will concede Christianity as the one and only truth.
Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Have gnu, will travel.
This should be of no surprise to the followers of dharmic religions, when the buddhi (intellect) is active the paramatman (God within) is inactive. This is nicely illustrated by the iconography of Kali on the body of Shiva. Here Kali (representing Language and intellect) awakes and Shiva (the God-sense) sleeps.
Quickly: We can show scientifically the causes of diseases like schizophrenia (voices that are God talking to people), so to reply to someone else: the scientific community says he didn't hear from god just that he had a miswired brain/chemistry. His brain made up those voices, it didn't make it into some sort extra-planar antenna.
People need to feel good. They'll turn to nearly anything to help them feel good in times of stress. It's not a matter of intelligence (IQ is a woefully broken system for measuring intelligence, why do seemingly smart people use it? That's right! It still makes them feel good to quote a "high" number for themselves and a low one for "the masses), we're conflating the issue here. Someone who is not smart can also be analytical, it's merely a way of thinking about things. One way tends to bring healthier, more productive, proven ways of bettering our existence with knowledge and tools. The other brings good feelings and can bring a community together. Both are important, but I think the problem many have with religion is that it is often used for evil. It's been twisted since the beginning by power-mongers for their own ends and caused some of the worst disasters in human history.
1) Maybe a question is: where do you feel best?
Analysis of the world around you and application of that knowledge, or taking things for granted from an old book (if it's old it MUST be wise, right?) and a group of people who will accept you if you adhere to their beliefs? After all, humans need to feel good in order to live life reasonably well.
I've met very intelligent people who are Christians, however the one thing that sets them apart is that they seem to just need something to hang onto emotionally. Usually they've lost something: Their freedom, lifelong career, spouse, kids, etc. and suddenly they find this great thing called religion. Or they're indoctrinated when young. It makes them feel good. and gives them a social connection. Why do you think small towns and rural areas have more religion? I'll bet I know why: There's nothing else to do worth doing which brings a sense of useful social engagement.
Analysis also makes us feel good. We find repeatable patterns in the world and since humans are designed to find patterns, it helps us survive.
We also need good feelings and some social interaction.
If we don't get both we are probably not living an ideal life. I don't think religious people are insane, but they often seem to do things which might be contrary to their actual well-being just to feel good/accepted (that one is a scarily powerful idea, look at history). I think they're just using their instincts/brain tools to get the most from the world around them, just like analytics are (who happen to have the tools/knowledge/upbringing to employ analysis as their weapon of choice in life).
-
When the rational side of our brains, the Mind, starts to take over the thought and existence process, then will the Creative Side of our brains stop operating. The mind always tries to explain things, but things into little boxes and try to make sense of them. Religious Experience does not make sense in the way we are being thought currently, this is why it will not let the experience Come Into Reality.
When meditating, one tries to let go of the rational minds ever gabbering sound. This is why. Because it will always keep trying "This is not real. You are not experiencing this." And then the vision and experience will vanish instantly.
Empty your mind and the Truth Will Come Out. And it has nothing to do with the Wrathful God of modern day Main Stream Christianity just to clarify.
GeoKone.NET
There have been a lot of Christian analytical thinkers who rationally think about their faith. Another survey states
So people with more education are more likely to attend church than those with less education. I don't think one would want to argue that getting more education makes you less rational and analytical.
I _have_ looked into it and you're right. A little analytical thinking can shed a lot of light on this so-called conflict. First, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Luke was written for a Gentile audience. The Jews would know that the Messiah needed to be a "son of David." (descendant) The genealogy in Matthew, therefore, traces Jesus' "legal" right to sit on the throne. That is, it traces the male line from David. The Gentiles would recognize, though, that if the story of a virgin conception is true, Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus. So, the line is traced through Jesus' mother instead. In addition to that, in Jeremiah 22:30, we learn that "no seed" of Jehoakim (Jechonias in Greek) will sit on the throne of David. So, the virgin birth is actually a clever end-run around this curse. And, if you think about it, John 1:1 provides yet another "Genealogy" of Jesus, in a way. The more I've analyzed scripture, the more I've discovered that, at the very least, it is very carefully and cleverly written.
Counting the number of "analytic" people ascribing to a particular worldview doesn't mean anything.
Average people code in VB. The majority of analytical people code in C#. -Really- analytical people, the minority, code in C++.
Demographic breakdown purely for example, but what has been demonstrated by this line of reasoning? Nothing.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Challenge accepted
Christianity as a belief system is not scientifically testable because its assertions are not falsifiable. The fundamentals of the belief system:
We can quibble about wording, but I think that's the general idea. It's fine with me if you want to believe all those things, but let's not go mixing science in there. By definition, these religious beliefs cannot be scientifically validated because the hypothesis cannot be proven false. For example, how do you set up an experiment to prove or disprove that Jesus was the son of God? You either believe it or you don't, but that's not science. You must be able to design a test that clearly demonstrates your hypothesis is true or false.
In other news, exercising common sense reduces acts of pure stupidity.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
'Little thought' accurately describes your post. It's a clever little turn of phrase that is actually quite shallow and reflects a lack of understanding about what you mock.
For there to be no 'tools' ( laws of the universe) that God used, our entire existence would be magical, and constantly upheld by miracles from God.
This would be proof that God exists, and as such, one would not be free to choose whether or not to follow the word of God, as you would know without a doubt that He is real, He is there, and you will in fact burn in hell if you disobey Him.
Free agency is therefor gone in this scenario, and our existence- the test of what we do with the free will that God gave us- would have no point.
Now, I'm not much of a Christian. I have come to see how much good certain religions have done for humanity, and I see how little atheists have to offer that would do the same.
They offer mockery, derision, and emptiness to counter belief. Judeo-Christian belief (and the nations based thereon) offers charity, fellowship, self-restraint, functional guidance and, oh yeah, centuries of world dominance in all fields.
Humans are not purely rational, and it is fantasy to think the optimal society could be based on non-existent people. Pretending it's even possible requires a certain level of magical thinking.
I would caution you against feeling smug about imagining you're more rational than your fellow humans, as the emotional, irrational side of humanity is what makes everything possible.
There's a certain part of the brain responsible for emotions. If this is damaged, it leaves the rational part of the brain in charge. The result? Such patients are paralyzed by the array of options we face each moment, and are unable to properly analyze their choices- and hence do little at all. (Citation not handy. You're smart enough to find it on your own if you're actually curious.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
And the converse may even be true. Religious belief tends to be the enemy of all rational thought. The more you are prone to faith the less you may be prone to reason.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
unfortunately, /. doesn't accept TSIA.
-Styopa
All other religions fail to build a compounding, historically impactive, evidence for their truth.
Good grief, what does that even mean?
Hopefully the challenger will come up with something better than that. (Or did you just reply from the wrong account?)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Thinking reduces your reliance on unproven, untested, unverified, based purely on argument-from-authority, internally and externally contradictory belief systems.
Really?
Who'd have thought... ...oh, wait...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
http://aquaviews.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Christ-of-the-Abyss.jpg
You must therefore understand everything about every currently accepted theory
You don't need to understand an accepted theory, but you can if you want.
You're free to ask questions, you're free to retry experiments just to prove that a given model work, and so one.
We all have beliefs; some are just a little (or a lot) less plausible than others.
No there's a huge difference in believe in science (having confidence in scientist) and believe in religion (faith).
With science, if you have doubts, you can go ask question around, you can do experiments to test models in given conditions, you can try to replicate other people's result to test if everything is working according to the model, etc.
You choose to trust scientist and believe accepted theories, because it's convenient from a time and resource point of view. But it's something you choose. And anyway, in school during physics and chemistry lessons, there are a lot of experiments done for demonstration or for training, so there's a lot of theory that an individual has personally tested by the time he/she finishes studying.
On the other hand, religion is about faith, about believing what is written in some book *NO MATTER WHAT*.
You cannot question religion, you cannot try to prove or disprove anything if you're motivated, you cannot try to replicate a miracle, you cannot run an experiment on an angel, etc.
We all have beliefs, the question is not how much some are less plausible than others, but which we are forced to believe no matter what, and which we could verify if we could managed to get enough time and resources.
*That's* the difference between religion and science.
And one requires blind trust into the pack's leader.
The other requires a little bit of thinking.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Giants, people living 200 years, zombies, magic, women-bashing, all the Gospels being written by people who never met Jesus, virgin birth, God being all powerful but unable to do things like forgive humanity without killing himself, God effectively killing himself but disagreeing with suicide, 6000 year old earth if you take it as literal, absolutely content-free rubbish if you do not, God supporting genocide, God killing babies, God telling a guy to burn his son alive but then saying "jk! you got punkd!", Jesus saying basically the same things most homeless guys say, Jesus calling himself God and saying that he is the holy humbleist of them all in the same sentence, the fact that the whole idea of Jesus was ripped off from other cultures like the Egyptians, 4 gospels that often contradict one another, Jesus tacitly supporting slavery by telling slaves to be good and obey their masters, God sending people to hell for their poor choices which he predestined them to make, God letting Satan use Job as a punching bag because of some weird bet, God being the perfect creator but having never created anything perfect, crazy laws like not being able to eat shrimp on pain of death, saying all men need to cut off part of their penis, God being jealous of imaginary gods, if the flood killed everyone except Noah and his family then Noah had to have thousands of children to reach known historical population levels fast enough, Noah built a boat by himself that could carry two of every land-dwelling species at once, the fact that if half these things happened in a fantasy novel you would think they were plot holes. Also, you are the one making the claim; you have the burden of proof! Please, this is pretty much Thinking 101. "For all of you that do not believe in unicorns, why don't you just prove it to me?"
ok. The bible is not internally consistent. It contradicts itself in the exact same chapter sometimes. For example:
Exodus 33:11 the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Exodus 33:20 And [the LORD] said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
I once started making a list of Bible contradictions, but this is the one that entertains me the most.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is going to be a very long thread; I hope slashdot counters uses long long int type.
One of the linked-to articles sums up issues with the study very well:
"[Consider] philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley. The idea that the beliefs of those individuals would have vanished had they been more analytical is, if nothing else, amusing. Gervais and Norenzayan’s findings should help to combat religion as an indolent obstacle to better explanations of the natural world. But it can’t really engage with the rich tradition of religious thought."
It was ASSUMED based on OBSERVATIONS using the tools available at the time. Just as it is ASSUMED the universe is X number of years old based on the tools we now have. That number could and probably will change as our tools/understanding improve provided we survive the zombie apocalypse..
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
It is really easy to convince yourself of self-serving concepts like "I'm not hurting anyone" or something similar to begin the downward spiral towards depravity. Given this, it is equally easy to engage in mental masturbation which leads to self-centred attitudes. Delusions of grander soon follow ultimately leading to an increase in anti-social behaviour and a lack of value placed on other human beings.
Humans are social animals and if you start spending too much time alone "thinking" instead of living then you are going to hurt yourself psychologically. Don't cut yourself off and start thinking that you have things figure out because that is a danger sign that you are most lost than ever.
Many of the "greats" that some of you look up to are anti-social pricks because they have replace god with their ego.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Alright Sir, Please. Step away from your confirmation bias.
Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
The idea that the Earth was flat was never accepted by any people who could do basic geometry. This was LONG before formalization of a scientific method. The classical Greeks understood it first because of course they invented geometry which enabled them to make the observations needed.
Anyone who proposes this as a counterargument is completely ignorant of the history of philosophy.
The idea is actually listed as one of 20 most common historical error in a pamphlet published by the British Historical Society in 1945.
...especially between the Old and New Testaments (e.g. stoning gays vs. loving one another).
Firstly, there is nothing regarding "stoning gays" in the bible. There is such a response to promiscuous gay sex, much as there is for forms of heterosexual sex seen as damaging to the culture. There is nothing at all said about gay -orientation- per se... you're avoiding the actual issue through selective scoping of the term.
I think the overall ethical model you are looking for here is Utilitarianism--"the greatest good for the greatest many". It is not necessarily the action furthering "love" of a particular individual that best serves "love" per se, if they are in direct conflict in a given social context--much like we'd have no issue with censuring intentional propagation of a deadly disease for the sole justification of personal pleasure, if there wasn't the common "reasoning" of "religion says X, so focus on the opposite being actually what's good, because it's not religion, even if my behavior is objectively damaging to society in purely secular terms as well".
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Could you do the same with the FSM and its holy book, please? Because it would save us a lot of work, pretty much every anti-FSM argument can be made into an anti-christianity argument by switching around one or two words.
The bible is much like "Mein Kampf" (since we had this topic today) - once we're done with christianity, our ancestors will read it with disgust and wonder how anyone sane could ever belief such drivel.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The Jews would know that the Messiah needed to be a "son of David." (descendant) The genealogy in Matthew, therefore, traces Jesus' "legal" right to sit on the throne. That is, it traces the male line from David. The Gentiles would recognize, though, that if the story of a virgin conception is true, Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus.
Going with that interpretation for the moment—you still have the problem that the genealogy showing Jesus to be a "son of David" depends on Joseph being his real father. You can't have it both ways. Assuming the virgin birth to be true, the only (human) genealogy that matters is the maternal one, and with no immediate male ancestor he cannot be in anyone's male line, much less David's.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I. Do. Not. Rule. Out. The. Possibility. Of. A. God. I said, quite clearly, right there, that I don't know what caused everything to exist. All I am saying is there is no reason to believe a god exists. That is still an Atheist. Agnostic means you are unsure whether to believe or not, and I am not unsure of that. I am sure I do not believe in a god, hence, an Atheist.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
So its not just that religion doesn't work if you think about it. Religion doesn't work if you think about anything.
Look up Moses' ruling to the daughters of Zelophehad. If Mary had no brothers, it would allow her father's birthright to pass to her son.
water decrease thirst
And this just in... light decrease darkness
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Um, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to the Lord what is the Lord's?". I remember that one. You lose.
And to equate belief in "government", whatever that means, with "religion" is simply farcical. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Jesus was neither a Republican or a Democrat, IIRC. And actually, I do know Catholic monks who are fed up with this "state = evil" attitude. They would and do insist that politics (and politicians) that both restrict/eliminate abortion, while also avoiding the use the power of the people to take care of the disadvantaged, cannot justifiably be called "pro-life". (Oddly enough, abortion rhetoric aside, the current pope would be to the left of Nancy Pelosi on America's socio-political scale.)
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Or:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Reason and science are usually only tolerated as long as they do not threaten to undermine religious beliefs. The moment they do, then you see the irrational roots of religion shine through. The Catholic church, for example, is ok with evolution, until you point out that there was never a time where there was only two human beings. There are a few Eastern religions which I understand do not take this stance(Buddhism, if I am not mistaken), but it is the prevalent view in Western and Middle Eastern religions.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Yes it's a two hour video, complicated issues take time to discuss.
So maybe you'll summarize one or two of the most salient points for us.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Then there's Bahá’u’lláh, founder of the Bahai faith, who declared that "True science is never in conflict with true religion." That kept a lot of nonsense out of the Bahai faith.
Just read:
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins"
ISBN-10: 0618918248
ISBN-13: 978-0618918249
When you finish that one we will find a few more for you.
Well, duh.
My Pastafarian deity (pesto be upon him) is much tastier than those little Jesus-flesh communion crackers. -and his balls are way bigger. RAmen.
Spoken like a true republican.
I find it particularly disturbing that you would equate homosexuality with propagating a deadly disease via your analogy. I think that speaks to your true bias.
"slap the fig tree"?
Christ did die in the apostles life time. He won the victory over Satan and ushered in the kingdom of God. If you are referring to the Olivet prophecy, don't get confused about Bible expressions of the end times. Luke 21 refers in bulk to the time after the rapture of the church when tribulation is occurring on the earth. He is speaking of what will be happening in those days to the Jewish people before he returns to set up his millennial reign on Earth. That prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.
Paul gave advice as to how Christians, and in particular Christian women, should act in the cultures that he was addressing to keep the peace in the church and allow the Gospel message to be spread. His advice, were he to be writing a "Letter to the Church of America" today, would likely be somewhat different, but wouldn't change the basic black and white issues that God will judge on. The issues that the church in America has today would likely require more than just one or two epistles for him to correct. Our bad - not his.
That depends on how much "success" the majority would like to achieve. To be successful as a species, they only need to stay alive long enough to reproduce and have their offspring survive long enough to reproduce. If that's full extent of success that the majority wants, then yes, it could still be achieved in a horrid hellscape of murder and mayhem.
On the other hand, if the majority wants to live in a world of cooperation and mutual benefits then that takes a lot more than just surviving. The majority will eventually realize that giving in to the dark side of human nature, the theft, fraud, violence, murder, etc., holds back society. No need for a god or religion for a society to come to that realization. It's just logical.
Exactly! Every soldier knows that you shoot the babies and kids first. If any pussy gets all "That's a war crime! You're a monster!" on you, just remind them that their parents *were* given a chance to surrender, after all. That's makes the kids guilty by association.
Killing kids. It's God's plan.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The scripture could be false AND there could be a hell, you know the greek were actually right with Hades.
The problem is that most people think about religion as a binary thing because they consider MOSTLY only the majority religion of their own culture, and mostly ignore all others, including past religion not practiced anymore. CHristianity is not the only one with a hell, and there is NO evidence whatsoever that christianity is more right than any other religion.
So basically it could very well be that the grek were correct, or the roman, or the chinese, or the buddhist, or the aztec, the mayan, the viking, etc.... It is not a "there is a god , there is no god" binary BS, it is "there is no god, or it could be any of the 1000 religions on earth, with 1000 concept of afterlife , heaven, valhalla, nirvana etc...".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy hand offend thee, cut it off. If thy brain offend thee, turn Catholic."
The definition of faith straight out of the Bible (Hebrews 11:1, emphasis mine):
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Many people who claim to believe the Bible also say "Well, you've just got to have faith." What they are describing is blind faith, which goes against the very teaching of the Bible. According to the very book they claim to believe, faith defined as something based on tangible evidence. However, much of what they believe has absolutely no tangible evidence.
Having considered the matter carefully, I've come to the conclusion that a person who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the study of climate effects knows more about the subject than I do.
I'd add a "according to scientific principals" in there somewhere, otherwise it can be easily twisted around:
"Having considered the matter carefully, I've come to the conclusion that a person who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the study of the word of God knows more about the subject than I do."
I have to say I'm less a fan of those ethics. No through for the morrow is no way for a person to live that isn't sure of an afterlife. Heaping the sins of one upon another is not moral, and forgiveness without accountability isn't a sustainable model for behavior. I think CS Lewis summed it up pretty well in Mere Christianity:
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
I can't speak for any other church or church-like organization, but my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometime called the mormon church), strongly encourages learning and analysis. Over all my years as a member, my deep-thought and study has only fortified my faith. Additionally, I have learned for myself that this is the one true church of God on earth. That is a key point. We teach that everyone can find for themselves personally, from revelation given by God, that this is the true church. We absolutely do not abide by the principle of blind-obedience, but we are encouraged to find out for ourselves if some principle or precept is from God (intelligent obedience). I am here to testify that we do have a living God that loves each of us. Aside from the many personal witnesses given to me from God, through the Holy Ghost, I have also been privileged to witness miracles of the caliber expressed in God's holy writ. There is far more sound reason and logic in the true principles given by God, which I know and personally testify of, than the worldly and sectarian views that are so strongly peddled by those who think that they know more than our all-knowing Creator. Additionally, in reply to some of the denunciations expressed toward christian philosophy in comments posted here, I must say, we have a far more loving understanding of God. We do not believe that those who never had an opportunity to learn the truth are implicitly condemned to some endless pit of fire and brimstone. We believe that God, to be entirely just, will give everyone an equal opportunity. We also believe that the way has been provided that all those who transgress the laws of God and truly repent are made clean and are partakers of the fullest of His blessings. The Atonement brings great hope to all who will heed its incessant call to be perfected by it. Now, I can't adequately portray all the truth I have come to know as truth from God here in these comments, but I do invite any who desire to gain this same knowledge from God to seek it out by study (via authoritative sources like http://www.mormon.org/) and honest prayer. If you do so with sincerity and real intent to follow whatever answer you are given from God, I know and promise you will find the same answer I have found from Him.
http://faazshift.blogspot.com/
It is Critical Thinking, not Analytical Thinking which should decrease religious belief.
I disagree with Lewis completely, if only because the teachings of Jesus have become mores in Western civilization and elsewhere, followed by Christians and non-Christians alike.
Ancient Rome was a horrific place, you know: the teachings of the prevalent state-sanctioned deities aligned themselves with the goals of the state exclusively, and dispensed morality for the benefit of the strong (think Neitzsche here..brrr). Murder of certain citizens was frowned upon, for example, but killing slaves and combatants in the gladiator's arena was morally neutral at worst. The very idea that morality must accommodate the weak - the weakest of us, in fact, was revolutionary.
Very few modern societies have since sanctioned the Roman practice of dressing up barbarism as moral rectitude, and the influence of Christianity in this respect is beyond doubt. Whether that particular brand of morality or ethics was followed, or just copied wholesale into other cultures, is incidental.
Besides, Lewis props up a straw man by saying that anyone who would believe those teachings by themselves must be a madman - without providing any evidence for such a goofy claim.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
I agree that religion is defined by faith, in a certain specific sense: taking something as epistemically obligatory, i.e. that you ought to think it, without any good reasons to back that. (It's fine to hold something to be epistemically permissible without reason, so long as there are no reasons to the contrary; if I can show no reason why you shouldn't believe something, it would be fideistic of me to say you shouldn't, though not simply to say that I don't have to too).
Almost any kind of fallacious appeal fleshes out to faith in this sense, including appeals to authority, popularity, and tradition: presenting an opinion as thought it is epistemically obliged by something, but that something is empty. So GPP was also on about "collective belief": if you believe something because it's part of your group identity to believe it, that's faith, and therefore religion.
Any kind of (obliged) belief in the supernatural is also necessarily based on faith and therefore religious, as by definition the supernatural is beyond observation and evidence and so no reasons can possibly be given to oblige belief in it. (Note that I am not saying all "obliging" of belief is religious: if you have evidence and reason to back your assertion, it is perfectly rational to make it).
There are many things commonly characteristic of "religion" - God, a supernatural authority; the supernatural in general; authority in general - but what they all have in common is unjustified assertions.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Old Testament is based largely on oral history, like the Iliad and the Odyssey. And like them, it is flawed with omissions, distortions, and additions to make a better story. There is archaeological evidence that provides support for parts of each. The I&O covers only a couple of decades, and claims only to be a history of the Trojan War, its causes and aftermath. The Old Testament claims to be the history of the universe and the ultimate explanation of everything, complete with a dictatorial moral code.
The New Testament, with its internal contradictions, is evidence of the fabrication of Christianity and the campaign to establish it as a widely accepted system.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?
So if you ask a theist some questions that require analytical thinking, and then ask them to renounce their religion, they'll do it? Interesting. Someone has to try that in an interview with the Pope.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'd be curious to know (of course I'll go look it up, but I want to make a point first) which religions were used in this study. To me the headline suggests that some religions are less compatible with rational thinking. But I don't think the statement generalizes well. Personally, the religion I follow is such that rational thinking (i.e. inspection of belief, hypothesis driven study and observation, cross correlation of tenets, compatibility of belief with observable world, etc) has INCREASED by faith and belief.
/.) that discussed the prevalence of magical thinking, both throughout religions as well as nonreligious communities. Perhaps the study should have announced that "analytic thinking decreases magical thinking?"
It seems that not too long ago there was a post (I believe on
The Bible does have Jesus claiming that his ideas were new and better than pre-existing ideas, but much of what he claimed to be new was a restatement of existing Jewish religion.
The (religion-based) argument for reducing or eliminating SS and Medicare is that charity must be private and (especially) voluntary, otherwise it does not go to a person's moral credit. Remember, once you exit the realm of the voluntary, you also exit the realm of morality. SS and Medicare depend entirely upon stealing (taxation) to achieve their goals, and stealing is condemned by Christianity.
Focusing too narrowly on the alleged goals of socialist government programs and the content of religious beliefs fails to recognize both the small values and great villainy in each.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The Bible does not address the history between Gen. 1:1 when the "Big Bang" happened and God started everything in motion, and the time when the earth was restored to a second habitable state as recorded in much of the rest of Gen. 1. That history is occasionally alluded to though. Isaiah records that Satan once ruled the earth and led a rebellion against God. The world he ruled is described as civilized and not stone age. He was already in a rebellious state in the first chapters of Genesis, so this would push this back into this large unrecorded time frame.
2 Pet 3 identifies a time when the earth was wiped out by water - the greek "kosmos" or social system. This doesn't refer to Noah's flood as the social system then in place survived. So it must refer to this earlier destruction due to Lucifer's rebellion.
Finally, in Jer. 4, he has a vision of the earth in this destroyed state. It is described using the same phrase "tohu va bohu" as used in Gen. 1. It likewise doesn't match up with Noah's flood.
The conclusions I draw from these is that there is a time gap that is simply unrecorded between the original creation of earth and the time man is re-established on it. The Bible is largely silent about this interval other than acknowledging in the few verses above and some in Psalms if you dig, that it did exist. All dinosaurs existed during this time period - and the early part of this time period as well.
Your pastor was mistaken. That it led you away from God is unfortunate. I hope you will get a good study Bible and do some research on these scriptures I've mentioned. There isn't any conflict between the Bible and science. The only apparent conflicts we have are where we don't understand or don't study what the Bible really says. Unfortunately, there will be many who stand before God at the white throne judgment claiming that the Bible said this or the Bible said that and since it didn't line up with science, I rejected it. Many pastors will be uncomfortable on that day - or at least I hope they will be - for defending their misunderstood faith and causing many to go to hell because of it. God didn't create a tricky geologic past as a test or a trap. He just didn't bother having the scribes write down several billion years of history to no purpose. The Bible is designed to describe God to man and to provide a map for how to reconcile yourself to God. It does have a lot of history in it, but the main purpose is to show God and His requirements for man.
Don't get bogged down by one subject and miss out on the important precepts it has.
Repeat the study, reproduce the results many times in many different populations and cultures. I am inclined to call these findings are bullshit.
.... your argument never even existed by definition. ..., etc. etc.
Just fx. Liebniz and Newton were obsessively religious, and both had minds that were among the most analytical in human history. Scores of systematic theologians (whose very occupation is an exercise in analytical thinking) are all the more zealous for it. Cosmologists often have bizarre religious beliefs, the more they look at the stars, the stronger their conviction in their peculiar faiths. Count them in your population, and you'd only find them brazened in their faith by analytical thinking.
It's just a fodder cannon designed to mark an unfounded distinction the general atheist populace can appeal to in order to mock the religious. Religious? Well, science proved to us the other day that you're not analytical so
But since you disagree with me, I'm sure you'll claim I'm not analytical and probably religious. Or call me a troll. *shrugs*
Leaving your incorrect restatement of what I said aside, what issue to you have with my analogy, given it is also simple fact? Homosexual promiscuity has propagated AIDS.
We can get into other more-nuanced distinctions between then and now, such as available methods of birth control, but that's aside my point here. That point was that the characterization of "stoning gays" is incorrect.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Most people interoperate this to mean that God knew which people where going to hell, before he made them.
Third.. all this not withstanding, there is a prevalent belief among Christians that all men have been given a free will. Given these (and more) scriptures on the subject. It would seem that a person has as much free will as to where they will spend eternity as if I pushed you off a building and let you choose whether or not you hit the ground.
This is what in science is called a "logical fallacy ". If god created people knowing they would go to hell. Then there is no way you can believe that they have free will. You can have it one way or the other, not both.
This is only a logical fallacy if God has to operate within the confines of time, which, in theory, he invented, and so therefore does not have to operate within that confine. It is certainly possible for Him to create people with free will, but also to know which ones are going to choose to worship Him and which aren't.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Aren't 'brilliant' mathematicians and scientists supposed to be analytical thinkers? Two examples are Newton and Maxwell. Yet both men were also very religious. Of course, they were also rather...eccentric, so I don't know if their religious convictions were all that standard.
I sometimes wonder if adopting an extreme conviction about some of the things that trouble us in our human condition, and locking it away as a solved problem, frees up the mind to focus more narrowly on something else, like recondite mathematical and physical science problems.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
Maybe it was a typo because the e and a are close together, but I cringed at your "in vein". It's "in vain" as in "vanity", as in "everything you do is in vain" (all is vanity).
Free Martian Whores!
Some of the revolutionary ethics are laudable, I'll concede. Trying to separate out the moral teachings from all of the future predicting, miracles, and lofty pontificating is a futile exercise, so I'd defend Lewis in that regard. If one did separate out only those teachings, there isn't much novel he put forward, and of those some were downright sinister: thought crime- Matthew 5:27-28, non-resistance to evil, vicarious redemption/scapegoating.
I think the golden rule, which per-dates Jesus significantly, easily provides the moral justification for accommodation of the weak. If Christianity pursued this idea vigorously certainly they deserve credit, but I don't think they earned moral preeminence for it.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Lewis Black is all over this:
The Devil's Handiwork
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
This should do the trick: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ .
The scientific method demands reproducible test results, not that you accurately and completely recreate and simulate the entirety of a single theory. Please understand the scientific method before you start invoking it.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Look up Moses' ruling to the daughters of Zelophehad. If Mary had no brothers, it would allow her father's birthright to pass to her son.
So why is the other genealogy needed? Wouldn't the Jews just accept this argument?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That begs the question, what is Caesar's and what is the Lord's? For me all is the Lord's and Caesar has no legitimate title to anything because everything he has was acquired through theft with the exception of voluntary 'donations' or profits earned through voluntary transactions.
Uh, it's pretty clear that Jesus thought taxes belonged to Caesar.
Using Jesus as the figurehead of a Gospel of Tax Avoidance is beyond perverse.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Joseph married Mary and, presumably, would have adopted Jesus as his son. To the Jews that should be enough to establish his legal right to the throne. Gentiles wouldn't buy that argument, so another way is also established.
Why do we "need" two accounts? For that matter, why do we need four gospels? Each one records different events, has a different audience, and more generally, supports a different aspect of Jesus.
Matthew is written to the Jews. It makes a pile of "Old Testament" references without really explaining them. The Jews would have understood. Matthew establishes Jesus as the Messiah, which is also a Jewish thing. (The Gentiles may not understand, and probably wouldn't care.) Matthew, as a government official, may have been skilled in shorthand, explaining why his gospel contains the most direct quotations of Jesus. To re-iterate the genealogy point above, Matthew includes a genealogy that makes the most sense to a Jew, to establish the Messiahship of Jesus.
Mark contains at least 7 instances where a translation is given for an Aramaic term. His readership was probably not Jews. (Aramaic being the day-to-day language of the Jews at that time.) Also, he includes a number of Latinisms... Latin transliterations, and idioms. His audience is probably the Romans. Mark is short and fast paced. It's purpose is probably to document the ministry and passion of Jesus. (the crucifixion story, that is.) This gospel begins with John the Baptist baptizing Jesus (a genealogy, of sorts?) and ends abruptly with the resurrection.
Luke is a very carefully researched document written for a Gentile audience. It establishes the humanity of Jesus. The genealogy follows his bloodline and also goes back to Adam rather than stopping at Abraham as in Matthew. Some have suggested that Luke together with Acts was written as a defense document for Paul's trial in Rome. Romans are cast in a more positive light in Luke than in the other gospels.
John is easy because near the end he states the purpose of the book -- "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God..." John focuses on the deity of Jesus. This is also reflected in the "genealogy" in the first verse: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (If you have trouble with "the Word" being Jesus skip down to verse 14: "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us")
So, why four accounts? Each one provides a different viewpoint that can give us a more complete understanding of Jesus. It's basically the same as why a police officer would ask multiple witnesses for their accounts of a traffic accident... each one may have seen something different, and when you put them all together you get a better picture.
Ah. The rarest of things. A theist who claims to respect logic and reason and independent thought. I highly doubt that you are a Christian due to direct observational evidence and even if you truly are I would bet that that evidence would dry up very quickly if you started taking anti-psychotic medication. Genuine observational evidence does not disappear when you start taking Seroquel.
I might ask you what evidence you can offer for the existence of an omnipotent supernatural entity that created the entire universe, but the Christian god is self-contradictory by most descriptions. So evidence wouldn't really help you until you changed your definition at least enough for the creature to be able to exist at least in theory. Of course a pretty good argument can be made that any supernatural creature does not exist by definition. The existence of something outside of nature doesn't really fit within the definition of the verb "exist".
If you were merely positing the existence of some kind of super-alien from another star system with powers that seem like magic to us then all you would need is observational evidence to support your claim. Supporting the existence of a supernatural creature is not so easy.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Joseph married Mary and, presumably, would have adopted Jesus as his son. To the Jews that should be enough to establish his legal right to the throne. Gentiles wouldn't buy that argument, so another way is also established.
Now you're just making stuff up.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Atheists rule out the possibility of a god. Agnostics don't. Agnostics are sure they do not believe in god while leaving the possibility open. Atheists deny the possibility of god. You are an agnostic.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV...
I'll go out on a limb and say that the obverse is also true- a decrease in analytic thinking increases religious thinking.
OK, so it's an unusually thick and short limb.
Except that it tends to be in the "first world" where we don't have to spend all our time worrying about where our next meal will come from, or if there will be water to drink, that we have the time to actually think analytically, and where religion is the weakest. In third world countries, where they often are too busy merely surviving, often don't have the luxury of spending time contemplating things, and religion and superstition are at their strongest.
People in general are lazy and seem to avoid analytical thought, but if you want to compare "first world" to "third world" countries, I think you will find more analytical thought in the former than the later.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Don't get bogged down by one subject and miss out on the important precepts it has.
still waiting for even one of those "important precepts"...
This will apply to all intuitive beliefs where no underlying proof exists. Anyone who has a belief in anything non-natural or non-fact-based is less likely to believe in it if they think about it analytically. This will affect many things however religion is the most wide spread of those sorts of beliefs. Other beliefs at risk include (but are not limited to) Homeopathy, Astrology, Feng Shui, Psychic powers, Conspiracy theories, Chiropractors (for anything other than back pain), Acupuncture, Organic farming, Flying saucers, Superstition, Political speeches, and many others.
There are way too many responses for me to address individually, but since this is the highest modded post, I'll respond to this, hoping the others will find it.
I'm actually not asking you to believe in the Bible, and I have absolutely no interest in defending it. The whole point of the challenge is this: when you are presented a statement, you are making a decision to admit or reject the statement. The Bible is a collection of statements that you have to decide upon. However, when you make your decision, there is no way you have perfect knowledge about the truthfulness or falseness of the statements in the Bible. If you do, we would not be calling on who has the burden of proof here. Therefore, whatever decision you end up making is logically unsound. This is true for both believers and non-believers, and we are both equal.
This is the case for the bible, the stuff you read on the news, the stuff you read in science textbooks, and the stuff you read published as journal or conference papers. Mathematical papers are easier to ensure soundness in that regard since the problem definition is a closed logical system for which you have perfect knowledge. None of the other disciplines have that luxury. Whenever you read a paper in a prestigious journal, you're putting great faith into the authors, the peer reviewers, the editor, and the publisher. Unless you are an expert, it is not possible for you to find error. Even those who can spot errors do it assuming that the axioms introduced by the author are not deliberately false.
In conclusion, those people who call upon me for the burden of proof don't actually understand what a proof is, and have no reason to believe they're more intellectual than religious people.
I once had a signature.
I find it funny that arguments against religion are always taken to mean an argument against Christian religion. As if Christians have a monopoly.
Rare are the attacks against say, the Hindu gods, or say... antisemitic arguments.
Antisemites or Hindu heretics please respond here.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Since it appears that you are not going to reply, I'll explain to any lurkers what it is that I was thinking when I wrote that.
You claim that the Gentiles would not buy adoption as a legal right to the throne, but you offer no supporting evidence. On the contrary, the two Roman emperors who ruled during the years traditionally ascribed to Jesus' lifetime were *both* "Caesar" only by right of adoption.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No. He said that the end times were at hand. Not that he would die.
The rapture is extra biblical. It's not in the bible. At all. It's a modern invention.
Actually a lot of our problems are due to the epistles. It is his problem. Plus he's all powerful. Why does he allow evil? Why do I have to pay for someone else's sin? Where is the justice in that?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Also. Mark 11:12-14. Jesus cursed the fig tree to die because it bore no fruit out of season.
Err. What?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Please provide the scripture you are referring to if I guessed the wrong one about the end time reference. We are, in fact, in the church age, which is the end times - pre tribulation - pre millennium, but the end times.
You are correct that the word rapture does not appear in the Bible. It is what the Christians have decided to call the process described by Paul where those who are alive and remain will go to meet Christ in the air at his first coming which ushers in the seven years of tribulation. That process is certainly described in the Bible, but the word rapture is not used. Nonetheless, the word has come to be well known as a descriptive word for the process the Bible does describe in 1 Th. 4.
As far as the sin question is concerned, you don't. God paid the price for you sin when Christ died on the cross. All you have to do is accept that sacrifice.
Why does He allow evil? Ultimately, He does not. In the mean time, He has given Christians the power to fight and win over evil. The same power that Christ had when He was on the earth is available to every Christian. Christ won every battle He chose to fight against evil. That isn't to say that there was no evil in the world at that time - certainly there was. But Christ fought against it and was victorious over it in all instances - whether it was in the world or in the church - he fought against it in both places. Even at the end, He could have elected to forgo the cross. He chose obedience instead.
The fact that evil seems so prevalent today can be laid at the feet of us for not standing up to it and fighting it. There is no reason from God's point of view that it should be flourishing. But there are more people who want evil in the world than people that want good. Oh - maybe not really, really bad evil - just their own particular flavor of evil - and footholds are all Satan needs. The slashdot community would be up in arms if Christians tried to combat evil if this thread is any indication - or the pro-porn posts in so many other threads. I don't happen to be against the censorship of ideas anywhere, but a lot of that industry is really, really bad in the way they run their business. So - should we fight evil, or try to spread good. I personally vote for trying to spread good, because light banishes darkness. But many try to fight evil instead and are flamed for their efforts.
But, as I said, eventually evil will not be allowed. Sadly, even with a millennium of God between the post tribulation period and that final elimination of evil where good reigns, people will still long for evil and rise up again against God. It's a sad commentary on mankind.
The reference is short, and any explanation is speculation. Perhaps the fig tree belonged to some of the people doing corrupt business in the temple that he dealt with in the next verses. There are evidently two varieties of fig tree that vary with the time they bear fruit. Maybe this particular one was an early variety mixed in with others that bore later and the disciples that were with Him didn't notice?
Or, perhaps, knowing what was going to happen to Him in a bit over a week's time, He wanted to give the disciples something concrete to look at and see a demonstration of His power. He certainly turned the event into a teaching moment later in the chapter. The fig tree that was dried up would have certainly been still standing for a long time after His crucifixion. A reminder that He was the Christ, perhaps, for a bunch of disciples who were going to be scared? Or a reminder that the church needed to get busy bearing figs?
All speculation...
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Matthew 24. It's clear he's speaking form the context of *this* generation.
I don't understand why Paul is a reputable source. His work has been entirely dissonant with the rest of the gospels.
Note,I didn't ask about sin. I asked about evil.
Why is it when faced with slavery, oppression, bigotry and human suffering Christians do no better than non Christians? Christians seem unable to detect evil. Much less fight or preach about it. How does god handle benevolence when evil is carried out in his name driving people from the church?
According to your own scripture, Genesis 1:27, we are made in God's image. What does our evil tendencies say about god?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Right, but the passage cites specifically that it wasn't the time for the tree to bear fruit.
So what we have here is Jesus acting like the Old Testament deity being capricious and cruel for largely no reason.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Various translations word this in various ways. In the one you are citing, it is translated as the particular fault of the tree. In other versions, it is more general. I'm not a scholar who can read the original text, so I have to depend on translations. Perhaps you are.
Any of the possibilities I noted - none of which may be anywhere near correct - could have been the reason. That the reason may seem unimportant to us 2,000 years later, is not a reason to fault Christ after the fact. Perhaps He simply did this to indicate that His time of fruit on earth was about to end. Perhaps He did it to give Judas something to think about - that Judas was about to be cut off before he could bear any fruit or that Judas was fruitless when he should have been bearing fruit. The tree curse may have had far more significance to the disciples or a disciple than it does to us today - especially occurring right before Christ's death, and the actual reasons may have not been recorded, just so we could speculate about it 2,000 years later.
The literal translation of that particular verse doesn't help you. The passages before and after make it completely out of the blue.
Yes, it is a reason to fault God. God is all perfect. Why would he leave something so vague and ambiguous in the passage?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
This is simply one area where we disagree on interpretation. From my understanding, the first two verses of Mt. 24 deal strictly with the apostle's present day. They are speaking of the temple buildings and Jesus tells them the temple will be destroyed. The Romans did this, so that part of the prophecy has been fulfilled.
The remainder of chapter 24 deals with the nation of Israel post rapture in my view. Verses 14 and 15, in particular, will not occur in the time of the church. The word has been spread far and wide today, that is true, but the final spread of the word is done by an angel at God's direction as prophesied in Rev. At that time, everyone left will hear in their native language both the gospel and the warnings of the Antichrist.
There was debate on this in another thread, long ago, and I'll agree that the Jews suffered much under the Romans - and other peoples after that - but as I see it this passage is primarily future prophecy.
As far as Gen. 1:27 is concerned, it simply means we have the same basic form and likeness. Image says nothing to imply evil tendencies on God's part.
For the bigger question of evil, you'll have to ask God Himself about that. I reject the premise that Christians do no better than non-Christians in the areas you mentioned in general. You can always pick edge cases on either side who are better or worse than the general case, but I don't think it is fair to say all people are better than Christians due to a few good people among them nor to say all Christians are bad because of a few bad people among them. What I can say for sure is that God desires that there be a clear difference, and it is our own selves that get in the way more often than not. We could all do better and fall far short of His expectations for us. The thing is - you don't hear about most of the good things that Christians do - they don't make the news - either locally or worldwide. Whenever someone fails to live up to Christ's standards, you'll hear about it.
All of the major Christian denominations run relief agencies that are among the first to provide help in disasters. Many support orphanages. Most do building programs - whether schools or water infrastructure or other in poor countries. This has gone on throughout time. None of these things make the news. This isn't to say that other non-Christian religious organizations don't exist. Certainly the Red Crescent is also active in disaster relief, just to give one example.
It's easy to dwell on the evil, but it is better to dwell on the good.
Well of course the Romans were going to trash the temple. Jesus wasn't the only upstart Judean in those times. Hell Judea wasn't even notable for it's anti-Roman rebellion. Saying that the largest center of Jewish worship would be destroyed would be like predicting that at some point in the future, there will be an earthquake 2 weeks on either side of a full moon.
Besides, the fall of the temple was supposed to occur near the end times. Well, temple's gone, no end times. Hrmmmm. Suspect much?
Christians aren't any less susceptible to bad ideas than non-Christians. Scripture was used to justify the Inquisition, Holocaust, the African Slave Trade, modern day Palestinian diaspora(not saying that Israel is bad, just saying, not perfect, not even close). As a failed Catholic child, trust me. You will not win this one. Not just Catholic denominations, but Lutherans, Mennonites, Anglicans... even the Gnostics aren't free of evil from their scripture.
Whether or not Christians run relief agencies isn't important. That just means that many Christians, like most humans, are kind, caring and empathic to the suffering of others. I'm just saying that there's nothing special about Christianity that leads people to empathy and all the wonderful things in this world. it's not special.
Actually the first part of Genesis is a big fucking question mark. God creates Man, gives man no sense of right or wrong, no moral compass, THEN gets upset when, from having no moral compass, disobeys God's order not knowing that disobedience is bad.
Err WHAT. That sounds like an awfully abusive relationship. I'd tally a mark of Evil in favor of God in that instance.
Like i said before, Christianity has some good ideas, none of them new or novel(and a lot of it heavily borrowed from cynicism!).
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Replace "plumber" with "used car salesman" and the problem with trusting authority becomes clear. If the used car salesman wants to keep his job, he is going to have to exaggerate the value of his goods. If a climate scientist wants to keep their grant funding, then...
Maybe you'll show us what you expect by working through examples with some of the religions that *you* reject.
An excellent idea! I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody has taken you up on this.
I won't claim that any of this is scientific, or even particularly logical, but let's start with a few easy ones.
If we begin with the premise that human beings are flawed, imperfect, easily corruptible, and greedy, then it should be pretty obvious that any religion that's founded by one guy is pretty likely to be a load of crap.
Also, one would expect a true religion to be timeless, in the sense that once its tenants have been established, you wouldn't expect to see any significant doctrinal changes. If the church can change its position on an issue, who's to say their current position is the correct one and it won't be superseded by tomorrow's divine revelation? Forks, however, don't necessarily count as doctrinal changes. And I'd be pretty lenient when it comes to misinterpretations, when the core teachings of the religion are silent on a particular issue but a group of believers chooses to adopt some boneheaded stance - that shouldn't invalidate the whole thing.
Finally, any religion that actually encourages people to turn off their brains and stop thinking for themselves isn't for me - but a bunch of Slashdotters claiming that you'd have to do that in order to accept the religion doesn't make this so.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Yep. :-)
Context is important - not just textual context, but historical and cultural context. You have to look beyond the words on the page, and consider how they were meant to be understood. That doesn't mean not taking it literally - you just have to be careful about what you mean by "literally."
Unfortunately this is rather difficult for most of us in the 21st century. How is the casual reader to know and understand the cultural differences between the audiences of these two Gospels? You've obviously studied this, but those who haven't might dismiss the whole thing just because of a misunderstanding.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
In other words, intelligence cures us of religion
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Oh, have no fear, I am totally not an Atheist because of only dinosaurs. I mean, there are a few thousand religions to choose from, and christianity is really kinda lame, and at the same time quite obscene. Apparently, I would have to kill my gay friends, and I must confess I did have sex before marriage, and I am using condoms too. I am also _not_ a misogynist, and I think Paul would really hate on me for that. Lastly, your god seems to be a bit of a douche-bag, killing children and civilians, just because they are from Egypt, and commanding his most devout follower to kill his own son (but hey, that was just a trick, haha! No harm done! Nobody was scarred for life there!). If I was forced to choose between the around three thousand gods listed on Wikipedia, I'd much rather go with Thor, at least he's a properly awesome imaginary friend, and there's beer and many fighting. Or Banjo the clown, I hear you get a free espresso machine.
... could a purely analytical thinker possibly belief in, besides him or her self? What if that's not the real God? Analytical thinking is helpful for some truth and knowledge, but not all. Those who think it's all sufficient have made their own religion out of it.
A big problem I have with religion in general, is that religious people seem to think they are supposed to indoctrinate their children with the same beliefs, from a very early age. So the kids get brainwashed by their parents, before their brains have fully developed and before they even have any analytical or higher reasoning capability.
This is a handicap that most of them never recover from; they live out their entire lives believing superstitious nonsense because their parents drilled it into them repeatedly when they were kids. By the time they were capable of thinking critically about religion, it was a near-permanent part of their belief system.
Finally, my biggest complaint with Christians in general is that more often than not they themselves pick and choose which portions of the Bible are true. Just look at the anti-abortion types in the States who also want to cut back on Social Security or Medicare -- a position that is clearly not "pro-life", nor follows through with Jesus' adminitions to take care of the least fortunate. If you wish to use Jesus' teachings as the basis of your ethics, fine -- but either be consistent, or be prepared to be exposed as a hypocrite.
As I'm related to many of these Christians and conversed with them about this:
It's not that 'social security' and 'medicare' are bad concepts in and of themselves. They just think it's "the Church's" rather than "the Government's" place to provide these services.
Granted, "the Church" has existed longer than "the Government" on the American continent. So if you're ever in this conversation, press for information on efficacy of "the Church" vs "the Government" historically.
Build a computer on faith alone. You'll notice you're reading this on one made entirely by science.
Need Mercedes parts ?
All Analytic thinking does for me is help my distrust of Politicians grow larger anytime I hear one of them speak! The more I wander round this old Earth the more I hope intelligent life exists some where out there in the universe because there is precious little of it down here on Earth! It may also be worth remembering that some of the most abhorrent acts of cruelty and depravity have been perpetuated by people who did not believe in a God or religion. Prime candidates for this are Stalin (Brutal Paranoid crackpot)who killed 20 million of his own people to build the Russian empire during world war 2,Adolph Hitler (Genocidal mad man/racist-used Darwin as an excuse to slaughter millions of Jews along with his brutal cold cohort Reinhardt Heydrich who had no belief in anything but cold hard logic that the Jews must die! Then there is mass murderer Pol Pot lord of the killing fields in Cambodia from 1975-1979, killer of millions with hammers and other handy implements . A Maoist fruit loop who forced people to the country side and conducted a 4 year brutal failed experiment! No God here just megalomania dressed up in political nonsense and brutality! All Analytical in their beliefs that what they were doing was right and logical and necessary!
Got it! Stephen King right?
... well you know what they still do in the woods.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating