Let me paint it this way: what role this supposed questioning plays in emergence, continuing existence or daily life of religions?
To ensure your faith is real.
Ignored byvast majority of the faithfull?
Nope. Again, I've never met a Christian who has not undergone such an examination.
(which, again, represents what the religions is about)
The religion is about... questioning? Not-questioning? I don't get what you are trying to say.
At best I might grant you it is actually questioned if you agree that "masses" and those who, as you claim, question dogmas...actually follow quite different religions.
I don't care what you will grant me. I care what is true. Yes, some people don't question, but I don't know any such people.
There are people who won't -- due in part to fear and so on -- question as far as others will, but this is usually because they are simply not equipped to do so. And good for them: it's stupid to try to evaluate arguments against your beliefs if you are not prepared to evaluate them.
For example (not looking for an argument here in this, just using as an example of how people process knowledge and arguments), I could talk about our physical laws and what they say about the First Cause, the spark that set off the Big Bang. I can argue -- and understand! -- the case that to follow the laws of physics as we know them, the First Cause must have been one that was from a sentience, because a decision had to be made to set off the Big Bang, and before the Big Bang, there were no events, therefore no time, therefore no state changes to cause the Big Bang in the first place.
Now, to someone who is an atheist, but doesn't understand the scientific and philosophical reasons why I make all these claims, they might be convinced that I am right. But why SHOULD they be convinced, if they don't understand it? That's hardly fair.
In the same way, I don't expect all Christians to open themselves up to examination of every minute aspect of Christianity... the point is honest examination, and you can't honestly examine something on grounds that you don't understand.
So there are some people who will examine anything. There are others who will know their limitations and limit their examinations to grounds they can comprehend. There are others who won't examine at all.
That's how people work.
(that also stems from what I was claryfying, that religions are not about what their PR claims but about actions and opinions of worshippers en masse)
What you think is "en masse" most likely is not.
There's far more Billy Grahams than Fred Phelps in Christianity. The Fred Phelpses just get more press.
You're not making any sense. The act of trying to convert Jews to Christianity is not, in itself, a stunt at all.
No one is talking about this because the atheists are trying to convert people; it's the fact that they are doing a silly stunt that is at issue. Almost every group -- religious and otherwise -- proselytizes. Simply noting that a group proselytizes doesn't have a bearing on whether or not they engage in stunts to any degree.
the [atheist bigots] up here don't get any government funding or tax subsidies like the religious bigots do.
There, I fixed it for you.
And again, in the U.S., they get no subsidies or funding either, not for proselytizing. They can get tax-exempt status if they agree to not do certain things, but so can an atheist group. Far from being a subsidy, it's an expression of the First Amendment: it's difficult to reconcile that a church should be free from government involvement while taxing it. Now, you could, of course, tax the churches just as you would tax anyone else... but if you do THAT, then you have no justification for giving government money to a non-religious charity, but NOT giving it to a religious one.
Long ago it was decided it's easier just to keep them separate.
The thing is that religious EVANGELISM IS BIGOTRY.
False.
It is people saying that you are not "saved" or good because of your beliefs or lack of beliefs.
So when Martin Luther King Jr. tried to convince people to NOT be bigots, he was being a bigot?
Sorry, you're not making sense. Bigotry is more than just saying "you're wrong."
Atheism is highly rational in the sense that it rejects this religious bigotry.
No, it doesn't. By your own definition: atheists OFTEN tell people they are not good because of their beliefs.
People like me get pretty god-damned pissed off at hypocrites and zealots telling us how immoral we are.
While I agree this sort of evangelism is wrong, frankly, this is more YOUR problem than theirs. You live in a pluralistic society, where people are free to express their opinions, and you just need to get over it.
just about the one thing most religious people have in common is their (outward) disdain for sex and sexuality
Nonsense. There is a disdain for extramarital sex, and for graphic public displays of sex, but that's not the same thing. As to the public displays of sex, just like you think I should keep my religion in your home or church, I think you should keep your sexuality in your home or... club or whatever. As to the extramarital sex, well, ask any spouse of any famous person who's got in trouble for having an affair, and ask them if they are just expressing a sense of "sexual oppression."
Ironic, since that's the thing that usually gets these religious nuts in (legal) trouble. The people who protest too much are usually the ones to watch out for.
If "serious" preachers at your place must rely on evidence for people to follow, their faith is quite shallow, superficial.
Nonsense.
What it means, on the contrary, is that we have significant scholarship, including for the layperson, to dig deep into the Bible, to uncover the evidence.
There's a popular book series by Lee Strobel, for example, called The Case for Christ. It goes through (at a high, lay, level) the evidence for the existence of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the historical reliability of the Bible we have today, and so on.
At universities we have departments devoted to apologetics, the philosophical examination of Christian and religious belief.
I learned Koine Greek, myself, so I can actually go in and examine the text.
Far from being shallow, it engages us to engage in a lifelong intellectual pursuit of the facts, wherever they may lead.
That's a different thing than actually questioning.
Fine, I'll bite: what evidence would you accept that it is actually questioned?
It seems to me you ONLY believe it is not actually questioned because you falsely believe that if it WERE actually questioned, then there would be more atheists.
ultimatelly, what a very large portion of worshippers think (or, say, actions consistantly seen together with certain faith) is ultimatelly also what that religion represents; not only what it claims to represent.
What you said was, "And you really argue that what vast majority of Christians stand for is NOT what Christanity ultimatelly represents?" I am still confused as to what you mean by this.
You and I know know perfectly well that you will accept no example of lack of evidence.
What I know perfectly well is that you have not provided one, and, given this comment, apparently you believe, as I do, that you are incapable of providing one.
Sad, really
What's sad is that you are feigning disappointment in me for being better at this than you are.
it is not the case that Protestantism welcomes a full, unreserved examination of faith, when such examination leads to its rejection
False.
That, were the questioner to reject the faith, his ex-brothers/sisters would rejoice for him and affirm his choice.
Obviously, we'd disagree with it. That is not the same as not fully welcoming the process that led to it. Those are two obviously separate things.
As you said, they would "pray for him". To me, that says they disagree with his choice.
You're not arguing against anything I've said. Of course, as I said, we would disagree with the choice. But it IS a choice, and MUST be a choice, and without a full and honest examination, there cannot be a choice. Therefore, we do promote such examinations.
the (approved) goal of the questioning is to come to a stronger faith (as you said "with open arms"), not to embrace its rejection
No, the goal is to make sure you really believe it. If you reject it, then you were never really convinced in the first place, and it's better to explicitly reject it now than to go on living a lie. Yes, the result on the other side is stronger faith, but the goal is to verify that faith (or lack of it).
yet the impression I have of the various Baptist, Episcopalian, Born-Again, etc.. variations is that they don't exactly welcome the "exit strategy".
The church I go to (Baptist) certainly does not want anyone to reject Christianity, but it absolutely welcomes people to honestly examine their faith, and if they at the end reject it, then they reject it.
Granted, some churches don't work that way. I couldn't even guess at the numbers. But in my experience, which is vast (but limited, of course), most churches do. But even if it is a small number, it still refutes the blanket claims made by you and others to the contrary.
And to be clear, the "welcomed back into the fold" referred specifically to someone who had rejected the faith, not re-found it.
Then I don't understand how you could be using the phrase. "The fold," to me, refers to the Body of Christ. If you're not a member, then you're not in the fold, so... it makes no sense to welcome someone back into it.
If you mean welcome back to visit and have some coffee at a prayer meeting, then yes, that happens too. It's uncomfortable, but it goes both ways: can you see an ex-atheist being welcomed like that to an atheist meeting?
Hell, if an atheist were honestly thinking "maybe there really is a God who sent his Son Jesus... I am not convinced, but I want to learn more," he'd be excoriated by a majority of the atheists I run into in discussions like this.
you can see the Old Testament "prophet" wandering around, pointing a finger, his eyes standing out, and screaming "you're all filthy sinners! repent!"
He wrote the book, you know, later, in retrospect. Your implication implied otherwise.
wouldn't you know it - this "discovered" volume just happened to reaffirm what the good king's reforms were all about. Ain't that just convenient.
You're committing the question-begging fallacy. You know that, right? At the WORST CASE, you assume that God couldn't (or wouldn't) have made it happen just like that, intentionally.
I mean, I am not saying you're wrong. You could be right. We don't know. I am saying you're wrong to assert it as fact.
Genesis. Cosmogeny, theogeny and The Fall. If modern copyright/IP law existed back in the heady days of Moses, the Bible would've been sued into oblivion by the RTAME (Religious Text Association of the Middle East) for blatantly plagiarizing such elements as light from darkness/great flood/garden of eden/fall of man/angels/the 7 fat/7 lean cow story, etc.
You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above.
No, I did not. You're very confused. Your quote only shows me saying that there's both good and bad in religion, not trying to -- as you falsely claimed -- attribute everything good to religion. Nor did I even state or imply that anyone should be thanked, as you, again, falsely claimed.
I did the first, part, yes: I said, "ahh, but that's just human nature." But I never said that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."
You denied something which you wrote just moments ago.
You clearly saw something in what I wrote that literally was not there, in any form.
similarly brainwashed to you
Again -- you don't seem to understand this -- making things up doesn't help you. Really, it doesn't.
I can choose.
I did choose. And I can choose again if I am convinced that I am wrong. And I am open to convincing. None of you appears to be up to the task.
Don't feel bad: it's not that you are bad at this (although you are), it's that you don't have good arguments on your side.
They question the doctrine except for questioning the notion that Protestantism / Christanity is ultimatelly correct
False. This is questioned all the time.
And you really argue that what vast majority of Christians stand for is NOT what Christanity ultimatelly represents?
I cannot answer that unless you describe what YOU think Christianity "ultimately represents." If you mean that what it "ultimately represents" is that it is "ultimately correct," then... of course Christians stand for that. But how does standing for something mean you don't ever question it? That makes no sense.
See, you're doing it. Twisting points, "this is just stupid", "that's false", "few examples I saw/didn't saw settle the matter", "Bible itself is correct, some/most just lack understanding"
Sigh. Let's go through this one at a time.
First, I twisted no points, that I can see. If I did, point it out and we can discuss it. But either way, twisting points is not related to dogma. People on all sides of EVERY issue twist points; that doesn't make their argument dogma.
And if something is false or stupid, it's not dogma to say so... it's true. Perhaps you're implying that I think that merely saying so makes it true, but that is incorrect.
As to the "examples" thing... you made a blanket statement. I pointed out that it doesn't always hold true... therefore, loigically, it is not true. This is basic logic, and not in any way related to dogma.
As to the latter claim about the Bible being true and people lacking understanding... I never made such a claim. I pointed out the fact that you were wrong in your characterization of the Bible, but far from being dogmatic about it, I explicitly gave you the opportunity to back it up.
It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute:)
Incorrect. That document falsely asserted that religion necessarily ignores contradictory evidence. That is a straw man fallacy. That document invented a false claim against the adversary, then attacked that claim in order to attack the adversary.
You clearly don't know what a strawman is.
That's my line to you.
I'll grant that there may be some dictionaries that do not list religious doctrine as one of the definitions of dogma.
I don't care if they ALL do. Dictionaries are often wrong, obviously. The point is what dogma means, and how it relates to actual religious doctrine in real life. Dogma means a lack of evidence, or ignoring evidence; you said that all religious doctrine is dogma; that's obviously false.
So, in a absolute sense, yes, not 'every' dictionary, but that is simply deliberate obtuseness on your part about a rhetorical device.
Incorrect, since my point was not whether a dictionary claimed a relationship, but whether that claim of relationship makes sense. It does not.
Stop being disingenuous.
Learn what "dogma" means.
And now the ethnocentrism comes out. Where previously we were talking about religion, suddenly we're talking about Christianity.
Ummmm. That is the topic of this discussion. You do realize they were talking about the Christian Bible in the story, right?
Further, your assertion was that religious doctrine IS dogma. All I need to do to prove you wrong is to show that SOME is not: and I was merely using Christianity as my example (since it is what I know best).
The resurrection of Christ. All Christians must believe it, and the only evidence for it is in religious text, all scientific evidence to the contrary is ignored.
False. First, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. Evidence that people do NOT normally rise from the dead is not evidence that God CANNOT raise people from the dead, obviously. This is basic science. It's like saying if you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground, so therefore, it should ALWAYS fall to the ground... but what if I put my other hand under the ball? It won't very well hit the ground, will it? The claim of the Bible is that God intervened, and science has never tested that hypothesis, so therefore, science has nothing to say one way or another.
Please respect science enough to not try to force it to say something it doesn't say.
Second, we have eyewitnesses who independently testified to the event, outside of the religious texts. And perhaps more to the same point, those religious texts (aside from the Gospel of John) were floating around the area while the eyewitnesses who say the saw the risen Christ were mostly still alive: standard historical analysis methods tell us that it is extremely unlikely that the gospels would have survived if a large number of people (around 500 people) would have been around as eyewitnesses to deny the events contained therein.
Is it proof? Nope. Evidence? You betcha. Is there any evidence against it, scientific or otherwise? Nope.
Wanna try again?
You don't know much about the definitions
*cough* Look, you used both words. They mean essentially the same thing, and in using both, you implied no distinction. Get over it.
You're incapable of demonstrating a single thing in the Bible that tells anyone to exclude any evidence. You're just inventing something that doesn't exist.
Of all the quotes (and weak paraphrases) you gave, NONE of them say to ignore evidence. They express confidence in the truth of the Bible. Can you not see the difference? Al Gore says that anyone who doesn't believe in AGW is wrong... that is because he is
You really don't know that religions are built around certain dogmas?
If by dogma you mean things that cannot be questioned or are not backed by any evidence, then you're wrong.
Religions obviously require suspension of disbelief
So does everything else, outside of, perhaps, pure mathematics. Irrelevant.
accepting things which are supposedly above reason
False. They are above our CAPACITY to reason, which is not the same thing. Most people accept the Big Bang and other things that are above their capacity to reason, as well, by the way.
you want to tell me you don't know that?
I am telling you that it is false.
As I said to the other commenter: I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.
Yes, Protestantism is based on questioning your faith.
So you mean "yes and yes.":-) That was my point.
But somehow, you don't find many ex-Protestants-turned-atheists at revival meetings, do you?
Not many, no. I don't go to revival meetings. But I have met people who were Protestants, became atheists, and then became Protestants again. Yes. It is rare, true, but mostly because it is rare to find ANYONE who has one set of beliefs, then changes, and then changes back. You also don't often find atheists-turned-Protestants who then become atheists again. But they do exist, in both directions.
The "questioning" is not earnest inquiry
Utterly false. You're just making that up. You shouldn't do that. In fact, I've never met a Christian that I've known well who has NOT undergone a "crisis of faith" that led to earnest inquiry. You've got it completely backward.
for the badly cribbed ramblings of sunstroke-addled "prophets" (and the occasional self-serving insertion such as Deuteronomy) that it really is
Again, you shouldn't make up such stupid things. It just hurts your argument. You can't back up any of that.
You're not going to be welcomed back into the fold.
False. You lose. In fact, that is precisely what happens.
If your questioning gets you to a re-affirmed belief, then you've "succeeded". If it turns you away you're an evil heretic and need to be burned.
Again, false. In my experience, people pray for you and if you do come back, it is with open arms.
Now, granted, some people (and some sects) will burn you. People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing. What a shock. No one implied otherwise. But for every Fred Phelps there's many more Billy Grahams.
So no, his claim is correct.
Based on what? You provided no evidence beyond assertions that don't actually work out in the real world.
Oh and just a little clue for you... all of Protestantism was BASED ON the notion that religious doctrine CAN and SHOULD be questioned, and subject to examination (that was one of the primary bases of the theses, if I may school you via rhyme). The Apostle Paul himself told us to subject all teachings, including his own, to examination. To claim all religious doctrine, including Christian doctrine, is dogma denies a couple thousand years of Christian teachings to the contrary.
Of course, many Christians ARE dogmatic. No doubt there. But only someone truly ignorant on the subject, or maliciously dishonest, would say it is a reflection of the nature of Christian doctrine itself.
Incorrect. A straw man fallacy does not actually back up anything.
For chrissake, every dictionary definition of dogma even says it's a synonym for religious doctrine.
Incorrect.
How can that not make sense?
Because -- unlike you -- I actually understand the word "dogma," and I know what religious doctrine is. You misunderstand one or the other, or both.
All definitions I've ever seen of dogma imply that the belief is not subject to examination, or isn't backed up by any evidence. I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.
You cannot do it.
That's not to say it is PROVABLE. But evidence and proof are not the same thing. It's also not to say you will accept or appreciate the evidence, but that's hardly interesting to whether or not something is dogma.
Who said anything about rational?
Um, you.
The phrase is 'reasoned with'.
Yes, you said that too: and people who cannot be reasoned with are "irrational." That's what the word means.
You can't reason with people who exclude evidence because some book tells them to exclude it.
You're incapable of demonstrating a single thing in the Bible that tells anyone to exclude any evidence. You're just inventing something that doesn't exist.
You may be willing to judge them out of ignorant assumptions in absentia
Huh. That's what YOU were doing to "religious people." I was just playing along in the game you started.
Unless you can point me to evidence that this group has done nothing else, made no other efforts, then I reject the validity of your judgement.
And I reject the validity of your ignorant judgment against religious people.
You're protected by the resistance from the gaps in the stream, but sufficient voltage or proximity will overcome that.
Exactly. There's plenty of voltage in some currents to jump between streams of urine, but -- apparently -- not enough in a third rail of whatever train track they tested on Mythbusters.
That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.
It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."
Of course, history proves this to be wrong -- it's easy to rattle off many, many rational religious people throughout history -- but what's history in the face of a snarky television character?
So when rational argument is ignored or avoided...
That is precisely what these atheists are guilty of, in fact. They don't want rational argument, so they do stupid things like this.
I find that people who feel the need to perform stunts like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "cause." Yes, we get it, you hate the Bible. But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring.
False. My point was pretty clear: the number of people doing something is mostly unrelated to whether it should or will be in the Olympics. There needs to be a minimum threshold around the world, but that is merely a precondition, and not a point in favor of the event.
There are plenty of things in the Olympics that are no more worthy of being there than pole dancing.
As I already mentioned, there are INNUMERABLE of things that are not in the Olympics. Why pole dancing, and not pilates, or step aerobics, or Wii? Each of these has far more people involved in them, and each requires as much skill and practice to master. My point is, again, clear, and obvious: her point (that lots of people do it) has no bearing on her argument (that it should be in the Olympics).
In addition, however, it SHOULD NOT be in the Olympics, not simply because there's reasons it shouldn't be (which there are, and you mention two of the several: its bad image and its utter lack of objective scoring), but because there's NO reason it SHOULD be in the Olympics. None at all. "Lots of people," again, is a precondition, not a reason.
Hell, they even have an event explicitly called 'dancing'. It's ice dancing.
Yes, and ice dancing is a completely ridiculous event that has no business in the Olympics, and is only there because of the huge popularity of figure skating. And if the IOC could get rid of this embarrassment now, they probably would, but it would offend the figure skating crowd too much, and that's where they get much of their money.
Is there anything behind your views besides 17th century puritanical pretense? I suspect not.
What you suspect is irrelevant, since you have no basis for any suspicions: you obviously didn't read my comments, since you were arguing a similar straw man that the previous commenter did -- talking about "worthiness" -- and then you go further to invent for me a "puritanical" position I never came close to implying.
Slashdot Mirror
Sad for you.
Let me paint it this way: what role this supposed questioning plays in emergence, continuing existence or daily life of religions?
To ensure your faith is real.
Ignored byvast majority of the faithfull?
Nope. Again, I've never met a Christian who has not undergone such an examination.
(which, again, represents what the religions is about)
The religion is about ... questioning? Not-questioning? I don't get what you are trying to say.
At best I might grant you it is actually questioned if you agree that "masses" and those who, as you claim, question dogmas...actually follow quite different religions.
I don't care what you will grant me. I care what is true. Yes, some people don't question, but I don't know any such people.
There are people who won't -- due in part to fear and so on -- question as far as others will, but this is usually because they are simply not equipped to do so. And good for them: it's stupid to try to evaluate arguments against your beliefs if you are not prepared to evaluate them.
For example (not looking for an argument here in this, just using as an example of how people process knowledge and arguments), I could talk about our physical laws and what they say about the First Cause, the spark that set off the Big Bang. I can argue -- and understand! -- the case that to follow the laws of physics as we know them, the First Cause must have been one that was from a sentience, because a decision had to be made to set off the Big Bang, and before the Big Bang, there were no events, therefore no time, therefore no state changes to cause the Big Bang in the first place.
Now, to someone who is an atheist, but doesn't understand the scientific and philosophical reasons why I make all these claims, they might be convinced that I am right. But why SHOULD they be convinced, if they don't understand it? That's hardly fair.
In the same way, I don't expect all Christians to open themselves up to examination of every minute aspect of Christianity ... the point is honest examination, and you can't honestly examine something on grounds that you don't understand.
So there are some people who will examine anything. There are others who will know their limitations and limit their examinations to grounds they can comprehend. There are others who won't examine at all.
That's how people work.
(that also stems from what I was claryfying, that religions are not about what their PR claims but about actions and opinions of worshippers en masse)
What you think is "en masse" most likely is not.
There's far more Billy Grahams than Fred Phelps in Christianity. The Fred Phelpses just get more press.
I think it is a group of idealists merely trying to persuade people away from the irrational and towards the more rational.
But they are doing it VIA irrationality, which makes them look stupid.
Proselytizing atheism is certainly more rational than religious evangelists trying to convert non-Christians to their cause with government subsidies.
Which is illegal in this country, so irrelevant to the discussion.
This is less of a stunt than, for example, the Southern Baptists trying to Save Jews by conversion (Ref: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcon.htm, http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07c/baptist_messianic.html, et al).
You're not making any sense. The act of trying to convert Jews to Christianity is not, in itself, a stunt at all.
No one is talking about this because the atheists are trying to convert people; it's the fact that they are doing a silly stunt that is at issue. Almost every group -- religious and otherwise -- proselytizes. Simply noting that a group proselytizes doesn't have a bearing on whether or not they engage in stunts to any degree.
the [atheist bigots] up here don't get any government funding or tax subsidies like the religious bigots do.
There, I fixed it for you.
And again, in the U.S., they get no subsidies or funding either, not for proselytizing. They can get tax-exempt status if they agree to not do certain things, but so can an atheist group. Far from being a subsidy, it's an expression of the First Amendment: it's difficult to reconcile that a church should be free from government involvement while taxing it. Now, you could, of course, tax the churches just as you would tax anyone else ... but if you do THAT, then you have no justification for giving government money to a non-religious charity, but NOT giving it to a religious one.
Long ago it was decided it's easier just to keep them separate.
The thing is that religious EVANGELISM IS BIGOTRY.
False.
It is people saying that you are not "saved" or good because of your beliefs or lack of beliefs.
So when Martin Luther King Jr. tried to convince people to NOT be bigots, he was being a bigot?
Sorry, you're not making sense. Bigotry is more than just saying "you're wrong."
Atheism is highly rational in the sense that it rejects this religious bigotry.
No, it doesn't. By your own definition: atheists OFTEN tell people they are not good because of their beliefs.
People like me get pretty god-damned pissed off at hypocrites and zealots telling us how immoral we are.
While I agree this sort of evangelism is wrong, frankly, this is more YOUR problem than theirs. You live in a pluralistic society, where people are free to express their opinions, and you just need to get over it.
just about the one thing most religious people have in common is their (outward) disdain for sex and sexuality
Nonsense. There is a disdain for extramarital sex, and for graphic public displays of sex, but that's not the same thing. As to the public displays of sex, just like you think I should keep my religion in your home or church, I think you should keep your sexuality in your home or ... club or whatever. As to the extramarital sex, well, ask any spouse of any famous person who's got in trouble for having an affair, and ask them if they are just expressing a sense of "sexual oppression."
Ironic, since that's the thing that usually gets these religious nuts in (legal) trouble. The people who protest too much are usually the ones to watch out for.
Nonsense. People said that afte
If "serious" preachers at your place must rely on evidence for people to follow, their faith is quite shallow, superficial.
Nonsense.
What it means, on the contrary, is that we have significant scholarship, including for the layperson, to dig deep into the Bible, to uncover the evidence.
There's a popular book series by Lee Strobel, for example, called The Case for Christ. It goes through (at a high, lay, level) the evidence for the existence of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the historical reliability of the Bible we have today, and so on.
At universities we have departments devoted to apologetics, the philosophical examination of Christian and religious belief.
I learned Koine Greek, myself, so I can actually go in and examine the text.
Far from being shallow, it engages us to engage in a lifelong intellectual pursuit of the facts, wherever they may lead.
This is claimed to be questioned.
It is questioned. All the time.
That's a different thing than actually questioning.
Fine, I'll bite: what evidence would you accept that it is actually questioned?
It seems to me you ONLY believe it is not actually questioned because you falsely believe that if it WERE actually questioned, then there would be more atheists.
ultimatelly, what a very large portion of worshippers think (or, say, actions consistantly seen together with certain faith) is ultimatelly also what that religion represents; not only what it claims to represent.
What you said was, "And you really argue that what vast majority of Christians stand for is NOT what Christanity ultimatelly represents?" I am still confused as to what you mean by this.
You and I know know perfectly well that you will accept no example of lack of evidence.
What I know perfectly well is that you have not provided one, and, given this comment, apparently you believe, as I do, that you are incapable of providing one.
Sad, really
What's sad is that you are feigning disappointment in me for being better at this than you are.
it is not the case that Protestantism welcomes a full, unreserved examination of faith, when such examination leads to its rejection
False.
That, were the questioner to reject the faith, his ex-brothers/sisters would rejoice for him and affirm his choice.
Obviously, we'd disagree with it. That is not the same as not fully welcoming the process that led to it. Those are two obviously separate things.
As you said, they would "pray for him". To me, that says they disagree with his choice.
You're not arguing against anything I've said. Of course, as I said, we would disagree with the choice. But it IS a choice, and MUST be a choice, and without a full and honest examination, there cannot be a choice. Therefore, we do promote such examinations.
the (approved) goal of the questioning is to come to a stronger faith (as you said "with open arms"), not to embrace its rejection
No, the goal is to make sure you really believe it. If you reject it, then you were never really convinced in the first place, and it's better to explicitly reject it now than to go on living a lie. Yes, the result on the other side is stronger faith, but the goal is to verify that faith (or lack of it).
yet the impression I have of the various Baptist, Episcopalian, Born-Again, etc.. variations is that they don't exactly welcome the "exit strategy".
The church I go to (Baptist) certainly does not want anyone to reject Christianity, but it absolutely welcomes people to honestly examine their faith, and if they at the end reject it, then they reject it.
Granted, some churches don't work that way. I couldn't even guess at the numbers. But in my experience, which is vast (but limited, of course), most churches do. But even if it is a small number, it still refutes the blanket claims made by you and others to the contrary.
And to be clear, the "welcomed back into the fold" referred specifically to someone who had rejected the faith, not re-found it.
Then I don't understand how you could be using the phrase. "The fold," to me, refers to the Body of Christ. If you're not a member, then you're not in the fold, so ... it makes no sense to welcome someone back into it.
If you mean welcome back to visit and have some coffee at a prayer meeting, then yes, that happens too. It's uncomfortable, but it goes both ways: can you see an ex-atheist being welcomed like that to an atheist meeting?
Hell, if an atheist were honestly thinking "maybe there really is a God who sent his Son Jesus ... I am not convinced, but I want to learn more," he'd be excoriated by a majority of the atheists I run into in discussions like this.
you can see the Old Testament "prophet" wandering around, pointing a finger, his eyes standing out, and screaming "you're all filthy sinners! repent!"
He wrote the book, you know, later, in retrospect. Your implication implied otherwise.
wouldn't you know it - this "discovered" volume just happened to reaffirm what the good king's reforms were all about. Ain't that just convenient.
You're committing the question-begging fallacy. You know that, right? At the WORST CASE, you assume that God couldn't (or wouldn't) have made it happen just like that, intentionally.
I mean, I am not saying you're wrong. You could be right. We don't know. I am saying you're wrong to assert it as fact.
Genesis. Cosmogeny, theogeny and The Fall. If modern copyright/IP law existed back in the heady days of Moses, the Bible would've been sued into oblivion by the RTAME (Religious Text Association of the Middle East) for blatantly plagiarizing such elements as light from darkness/great flood/garden of eden/fall of man/angels/the 7 fat/7 lean cow story, etc.
You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above.
No, I did not. You're very confused. Your quote only shows me saying that there's both good and bad in religion, not trying to -- as you falsely claimed -- attribute everything good to religion. Nor did I even state or imply that anyone should be thanked, as you, again, falsely claimed.
I did the first, part, yes: I said, "ahh, but that's just human nature." But I never said that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."
You denied something which you wrote just moments ago.
You clearly saw something in what I wrote that literally was not there, in any form.
similarly brainwashed to you
Again -- you don't seem to understand this -- making things up doesn't help you. Really, it doesn't.
I can choose.
I did choose. And I can choose again if I am convinced that I am wrong. And I am open to convincing. None of you appears to be up to the task.
Don't feel bad: it's not that you are bad at this (although you are), it's that you don't have good arguments on your side.
Allright, now it's clear that you don't even know the basics of faith.
That's my line to you.
It's specifically about believing in things without evidence
False.
any serious preacher will agree with that.
False. On the contrary, any serious preacher will call that simplistic and inaccurate.
Perhaps you don't know the difference between proof, and evidence?
you seem to managed to convince yourself that it's all simply a fact
Nothing I said remotely implied this. Again, stop making things up. It hurts your argument.
You really don't see anything in general Christian doctrine not backed by evidence?
Do you? Cite it. If you think it's so obvious, why can you not do it?
(The answer is unfortunately obvious.)
They question the doctrine except for questioning the notion that Protestantism / Christanity is ultimatelly correct
False. This is questioned all the time.
And you really argue that what vast majority of Christians stand for is NOT what Christanity ultimatelly represents?
I cannot answer that unless you describe what YOU think Christianity "ultimately represents." If you mean that what it "ultimately represents" is that it is "ultimately correct," then ... of course Christians stand for that. But how does standing for something mean you don't ever question it? That makes no sense.
See, you're doing it. Twisting points, "this is just stupid", "that's false", "few examples I saw/didn't saw settle the matter", "Bible itself is correct, some/most just lack understanding"
Sigh. Let's go through this one at a time.
First, I twisted no points, that I can see. If I did, point it out and we can discuss it. But either way, twisting points is not related to dogma. People on all sides of EVERY issue twist points; that doesn't make their argument dogma.
And if something is false or stupid, it's not dogma to say so ... it's true. Perhaps you're implying that I think that merely saying so makes it true, but that is incorrect.
As to the "examples" thing ... you made a blanket statement. I pointed out that it doesn't always hold true ... therefore, loigically, it is not true. This is basic logic, and not in any way related to dogma.
As to the latter claim about the Bible being true and people lacking understanding ... I never made such a claim. I pointed out the fact that you were wrong in your characterization of the Bible, but far from being dogmatic about it, I explicitly gave you the opportunity to back it up.
It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute :)
I never did that, or anything like it.
Heh, OK, that was funny. I hope it was intended as such. :-)
Awesome, thanks for the facts. It's what I suspected, but I didn't know the numbers.
There is no strawman.
Incorrect. That document falsely asserted that religion necessarily ignores contradictory evidence. That is a straw man fallacy. That document invented a false claim against the adversary, then attacked that claim in order to attack the adversary.
You clearly don't know what a strawman is.
That's my line to you.
I'll grant that there may be some dictionaries that do not list religious doctrine as one of the definitions of dogma.
I don't care if they ALL do. Dictionaries are often wrong, obviously. The point is what dogma means, and how it relates to actual religious doctrine in real life. Dogma means a lack of evidence, or ignoring evidence; you said that all religious doctrine is dogma; that's obviously false.
So, in a absolute sense, yes, not 'every' dictionary, but that is simply deliberate obtuseness on your part about a rhetorical device.
Incorrect, since my point was not whether a dictionary claimed a relationship, but whether that claim of relationship makes sense. It does not.
Stop being disingenuous.
Learn what "dogma" means.
And now the ethnocentrism comes out. Where previously we were talking about religion, suddenly we're talking about Christianity.
Ummmm. That is the topic of this discussion. You do realize they were talking about the Christian Bible in the story, right?
Further, your assertion was that religious doctrine IS dogma. All I need to do to prove you wrong is to show that SOME is not: and I was merely using Christianity as my example (since it is what I know best).
The resurrection of Christ. All Christians must believe it, and the only evidence for it is in religious text, all scientific evidence to the contrary is ignored.
False. First, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. Evidence that people do NOT normally rise from the dead is not evidence that God CANNOT raise people from the dead, obviously. This is basic science. It's like saying if you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground, so therefore, it should ALWAYS fall to the ground ... but what if I put my other hand under the ball? It won't very well hit the ground, will it? The claim of the Bible is that God intervened, and science has never tested that hypothesis, so therefore, science has nothing to say one way or another.
Please respect science enough to not try to force it to say something it doesn't say.
Second, we have eyewitnesses who independently testified to the event, outside of the religious texts. And perhaps more to the same point, those religious texts (aside from the Gospel of John) were floating around the area while the eyewitnesses who say the saw the risen Christ were mostly still alive: standard historical analysis methods tell us that it is extremely unlikely that the gospels would have survived if a large number of people (around 500 people) would have been around as eyewitnesses to deny the events contained therein.
Is it proof? Nope. Evidence? You betcha. Is there any evidence against it, scientific or otherwise? Nope.
Wanna try again?
You don't know much about the definitions
*cough* Look, you used both words. They mean essentially the same thing, and in using both, you implied no distinction. Get over it.
You're incapable of demonstrating a single thing in the Bible that tells anyone to exclude any evidence. You're just inventing something that doesn't exist.
Of all the quotes (and weak paraphrases) you gave, NONE of them say to ignore evidence. They express confidence in the truth of the Bible. Can you not see the difference? Al Gore says that anyone who doesn't believe in AGW is wrong ... that is because he is
You really don't know that religions are built around certain dogmas?
If by dogma you mean things that cannot be questioned or are not backed by any evidence, then you're wrong.
Religions obviously require suspension of disbelief
So does everything else, outside of, perhaps, pure mathematics. Irrelevant.
accepting things which are supposedly above reason
False. They are above our CAPACITY to reason, which is not the same thing. Most people accept the Big Bang and other things that are above their capacity to reason, as well, by the way.
you want to tell me you don't know that?
I am telling you that it is false.
As I said to the other commenter: I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.
Well...yes and no...
Yes, Protestantism is based on questioning your faith.
So you mean "yes and yes." :-) That was my point.
But somehow, you don't find many ex-Protestants-turned-atheists at revival meetings, do you?
Not many, no. I don't go to revival meetings. But I have met people who were Protestants, became atheists, and then became Protestants again. Yes. It is rare, true, but mostly because it is rare to find ANYONE who has one set of beliefs, then changes, and then changes back. You also don't often find atheists-turned-Protestants who then become atheists again. But they do exist, in both directions.
The "questioning" is not earnest inquiry
Utterly false. You're just making that up. You shouldn't do that. In fact, I've never met a Christian that I've known well who has NOT undergone a "crisis of faith" that led to earnest inquiry. You've got it completely backward.
for the badly cribbed ramblings of sunstroke-addled "prophets" (and the occasional self-serving insertion such as Deuteronomy) that it really is
Again, you shouldn't make up such stupid things. It just hurts your argument. You can't back up any of that.
You're not going to be welcomed back into the fold.
False. You lose. In fact, that is precisely what happens.
If your questioning gets you to a re-affirmed belief, then you've "succeeded". If it turns you away you're an evil heretic and need to be burned.
Again, false. In my experience, people pray for you and if you do come back, it is with open arms.
Now, granted, some people (and some sects) will burn you. People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing. What a shock. No one implied otherwise. But for every Fred Phelps there's many more Billy Grahams.
So no, his claim is correct.
Based on what? You provided no evidence beyond assertions that don't actually work out in the real world.
So ... you can't read? Or you can't understand?
Oh and just a little clue for you ... all of Protestantism was BASED ON the notion that religious doctrine CAN and SHOULD be questioned, and subject to examination (that was one of the primary bases of the theses, if I may school you via rhyme). The Apostle Paul himself told us to subject all teachings, including his own, to examination. To claim all religious doctrine, including Christian doctrine, is dogma denies a couple thousand years of Christian teachings to the contrary.
Of course, many Christians ARE dogmatic. No doubt there. But only someone truly ignorant on the subject, or maliciously dishonest, would say it is a reflection of the nature of Christian doctrine itself.
Done.
Incorrect. A straw man fallacy does not actually back up anything.
For chrissake, every dictionary definition of dogma even says it's a synonym for religious doctrine.
Incorrect.
How can that not make sense?
Because -- unlike you -- I actually understand the word "dogma," and I know what religious doctrine is. You misunderstand one or the other, or both.
All definitions I've ever seen of dogma imply that the belief is not subject to examination, or isn't backed up by any evidence. I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.
You cannot do it.
That's not to say it is PROVABLE. But evidence and proof are not the same thing. It's also not to say you will accept or appreciate the evidence, but that's hardly interesting to whether or not something is dogma.
Who said anything about rational?
Um, you.
The phrase is 'reasoned with'.
Yes, you said that too: and people who cannot be reasoned with are "irrational." That's what the word means.
You can't reason with people who exclude evidence because some book tells them to exclude it.
You're incapable of demonstrating a single thing in the Bible that tells anyone to exclude any evidence. You're just inventing something that doesn't exist.
You may be willing to judge them out of ignorant assumptions in absentia
Huh. That's what YOU were doing to "religious people." I was just playing along in the game you started.
Unless you can point me to evidence that this group has done nothing else, made no other efforts, then I reject the validity of your judgement.
And I reject the validity of your ignorant judgment against religious people.
Also, your ignorant spelling of "judgment."
You're protected by the resistance from the gaps in the stream, but sufficient voltage or proximity will overcome that.
Exactly. There's plenty of voltage in some currents to jump between streams of urine, but -- apparently -- not enough in a third rail of whatever train track they tested on Mythbusters.
religious people are dogmatic by design
That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.
It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."
Of course, history proves this to be wrong -- it's easy to rattle off many, many rational religious people throughout history -- but what's history in the face of a snarky television character?
So when rational argument is ignored or avoided ...
That is precisely what these atheists are guilty of, in fact. They don't want rational argument, so they do stupid things like this.
I find that people who feel the need to perform stunts like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "cause." Yes, we get it, you hate the Bible. But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring.
Third rail != power line
You don't really have an argument.
False. My point was pretty clear: the number of people doing something is mostly unrelated to whether it should or will be in the Olympics. There needs to be a minimum threshold around the world, but that is merely a precondition, and not a point in favor of the event.
There are plenty of things in the Olympics that are no more worthy of being there than pole dancing.
As I already mentioned, there are INNUMERABLE of things that are not in the Olympics. Why pole dancing, and not pilates, or step aerobics, or Wii? Each of these has far more people involved in them, and each requires as much skill and practice to master. My point is, again, clear, and obvious: her point (that lots of people do it) has no bearing on her argument (that it should be in the Olympics).
In addition, however, it SHOULD NOT be in the Olympics, not simply because there's reasons it shouldn't be (which there are, and you mention two of the several: its bad image and its utter lack of objective scoring), but because there's NO reason it SHOULD be in the Olympics. None at all. "Lots of people," again, is a precondition, not a reason.
Hell, they even have an event explicitly called 'dancing'. It's ice dancing.
Yes, and ice dancing is a completely ridiculous event that has no business in the Olympics, and is only there because of the huge popularity of figure skating. And if the IOC could get rid of this embarrassment now, they probably would, but it would offend the figure skating crowd too much, and that's where they get much of their money.
Is there anything behind your views besides 17th century puritanical pretense? I suspect not.
What you suspect is irrelevant, since you have no basis for any suspicions: you obviously didn't read my comments, since you were arguing a similar straw man that the previous commenter did -- talking about "worthiness" -- and then you go further to invent for me a "puritanical" position I never came close to implying.
A straw man argument means that I am ignoring key points of yours ...
Incorrect. It means you are attributing to me an argument that is not mine, and then proceeding to attack it.
That is true, but the subject at hand is Pole dancing, not those activities.
Yes, and how sad that is.