Science is the Devil!

[Sky]

That is an excellent point about the vast amount of revision work done on the bible (why would it ever need be revised or translated if it were the word of god...guess he ran out of miracle juice at some point, which might explain the penchant for Virgin Mary sightings on toast and potato chips rather than red sea parting these days).

I'm agnostic. I'm perfectly willing to admit there's a shitload mankind doesn't understand about the universe. But I draw the line at blind faith in a dubious book, because I'm a realist. I like to live in a world of facts and science. If anything, priests should be scientists working to discover the miracles god provided, science hasn't disproven the idea of a lifeform of the scale we could call a god, hell, the big bang theory in many ways supports the bible's creationism, so long as you don't take things too literally (heh).

But picking up Aesop's fables and trying to convince people that it's correct, and use it to discount proven scientific reality...that's a tough one. They are just fables, stories to maybe get a lesson from to help you be a better person. Nothing more. Really. And the ironic thing is, a whole hell of a lot of people miss that message, I seem to understand Jesus' mission better than the christians I come across (being brought up in a religious household with a bible study teacher might help, but note I'm agnostic, though I take the lessons taught to heart).

[Mortriden]

I believe that is a common thing among any religion.  Look at all the different interpretations of the Muslim faith.  We only hear about some of the worst, but they are there (maybe we could compare Southern Baptists to Hamas?)

[stray]

I'd like to add that the Bible has gone through several translations which, btw, were called for by persons with political agendas. I don't think that most people who call themselves Christians can read Hebrew.

I lost you....How are translations relevant here? Did you mean "revisions"?

If so, it's really a non issue. In fact, it's pretty amazing how much the original "text" is still in tact. There are very few variants passages and wordings between traditional scripts (Masoretic and Byzantine respectively) with the much older Dead Sea Scrolls and various 1st and 2nd century New Testament texts that were discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries --- Much to the dismay of those who doubted the authenticity of traditional "recieved" texts. They were hoping to find bigger differences in the older, newly discovered scrolls, but found that there was very little that they could really sink their teeth into.

Anyone who uses "revision" as an argument to doubt the integrity of the recieved texts has not done enough research on the matter. The variants found between different copies are fewer than those found in any other ancient text in existence (Cicero, Plato, Sophocles, or Caesar for example). Not only that, but the oldest known copies of the Biblical texts predate copies of most of the other ancient literary works by almost a thousand years (the oldest copies of Aritostle's writings are from 1100 A.D. for example).

Yet, even though they predate these by a millenium, they still hold up their reliability and integrity better. And the majority of the variants that do exist are either typos and changes in word order. There are very few instances of injected commentary.

Hell, the Bible has fewer variants than even Shakespeare -- and those writings benefited from the advent of the printing press!

Anyways, I'm not throwing this out to try to "justify" the worth of the biblical message or anything. But as far as the text itself goes, it has more reasons to be considered reliable than not.

[SirBruce]

Actually, a far better argument in that vein can be made regarding what books of the Bible are considered valid, rather than on the specific texts of the books themselves.  And you must admit that there is plenty of disagreement on that, and there are quite a few more that existed in the early church.

Bruce

[Samwise]

I think that'd be brought up much more often if the contents of newer/apocryphal/questionable books were cited with the same frequency that, say, Genesis is.

[voodoolily]

I'd like to add that the Bible has gone through several translations which, btw, were called for by persons with political agendas. I don't think that most people who call themselves Christians can read Hebrew.

I lost you....How are translations relevant here? Did you mean "revisions"?

Ever hear of something being "lost in the translation"? How about the game of telephone (in case you haven't, it's where you whisper something to one person, they whisper to the next, etc. and when it gets around the circle it's a very different thing than was initally whipered)? I'm still saying that the Bible is a likely victim of telephone game and translation inaccuracies. Aside from the fact that revisions were politically driven. And I'd also question who did the research you're citing, and whether or not the findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or are just being given as gospel.

The Bible is a piece of mythology. It documents the best explanation people had for significant (and sometimes not so significant) political, historic and geologic events at the time. Furthermore, it is my opinion that people for whom the Bible is the source of an entire ethos should know what it actually says. That is all.

[Samwise]

Anecdotal evidence on the topic of things being lost in translation: my grandfather can read the New Testament in its original Greek, well enough to teach classes on it, though he failed in his attempts to get me to learn ancient Greek myself.  He's also even more curmudgeonly than I am, and loves nothing more than to rail on bad translations (don't get him started on the Divine Comedy).  I've never, not once, heard him gripe about English translations of the Bible.  That, to me, says a lot.

[Abagadro]

Depends on the version. The King James Version is pretty lousy (ironically the one used by most thumpers). The New  American Version or the New Revised Standard Version are pretty good.

[Paelos]

The Bible is a lot of things. Parables, Proverbs, Songs, and Commands. Jesus himself communicated mainly through stories. Nobody said Jesus was lying because he told a parable about the Prodigal Son. Was there such a son? Maybe, but it doesn't really matter. If the Bible didn't exist today, and God wanted to communicate with us, I would expect him to give us the same thing, stories. It's something that transcends time and gives us an idea of how to live.

[Abagadro]

I thought God communicated with us through tortillas and grilled cheese sandwiches now.

[voodoolily]

Yes, Paelos, but the problem is clearly not that the Bible is a collection of parables for which we find morals to guide us in our everyday lives. The problem is people quoting it as fact and using it to justify hateful actions.

Edit: I think oftentimes people fail to realize that the tenets of Christianity are nearly identical to those of other organized religions (at their core). This is a notion that I like to think strengthens the argument that (non-sociopathic) humans are already born with an internal "moral compass", regardless of faith in a god or devotion to a religion. I think humans already know right from wrong and are inclined to act on those gut feelings without the threat of eternal damnation. Or, maybe they really don't, and that's why some people need religion.

[Paelos]

Yes, Paelos, but the problem is clearly not that the Bible is a collection of parables for which we find morals to guide us in our everyday lives. The problem is people quoting it as fact and using it to justify hateful actions.

Like God smote the gays in Sodom so we too should smite the gays? Yeah, people are idiots in all religions. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[voodoolily]

Yes, Paelos, but the problem is clearly not that the Bible is a collection of parables for which we find morals to guide us in our everyday lives. The problem is people quoting it as fact and using it to justify hateful actions.

Like God smote the gays in Sodom so we too should smite the gays? Yeah, people are idiots in all religions. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think a really funny movement (besides bowel, which is hilarious) would be to start a satyrical Old Testament movement. Like hold up signs that say "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" and "Rebellious Children Should be Stoned" (even though they usually already are). And other ones about it being okay to own slaves and hit your wife.

[Murgos]

The problem is what do you do with the hundreds of thousands of followers you will attract overnight?

[pants]

The problem is what do you do with the hundreds of thousands of followers you will attract overnight?

Profit!

[stray]

Edit: I think oftentimes people fail to realize that the tenets of Christianity are nearly identical to those of other organized religions (at their core).

I think oftentimes people fail to realize that the tenets of Christianity have nothing in common with those in other religions (yes, at their core).

Believe it or not, "moral" and "wisdom" teachings aren't really that important to Christianity.

It's central tenet, and the one thing that seperates Christianity from most religions is "human sacrifice". The idea that the death of a specific human being is the ONLY path to redeem your soul, regardless of how little or how much wisdom you have, or how virtuous one is in life, is non existent in other belief systems.

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" -- 1 Cor 1:23

In a certain light, it was actually meant to be a "foolish" religion: Just to make the threshold that much easier for people to pass through. It requires nothing but for people to drop their ego, and accept that another man's actions can speak for your own.

The problem is, humans are too self absorbed to want to make it anything easy for themselves. They refuse to accept simplicity.

It really has nothing to do with other faiths. The main difference between them is that they emphasize "enlightenment" -- while Christianity on the other hand, emphasizes "redemption".

[Strazos]

Edit: I think oftentimes people fail to realize that the tenets of Christianity are nearly identical to those of other organized religions (at their core). This is a notion that I like to think strengthens the argument that (non-sociopathic) humans are already born with an internal "moral compass", regardless of faith in a god or devotion to a religion. I think humans already know right from wrong and are inclined to act on those gut feelings without the threat of eternal damnation. Or, maybe they really don't, and that's why some people need religion.

That's one of the arguments I use to try to explain to people that all religions are really the same...they all believe in the same god, etc., but just sing a different song.

[Alkiera]

I agree with Stray on Christianity.  It's dead simple.  Love God, love other people. 

I'd agree, within limits, that all the other world religions are similar on a certain level, including Judaism.  They all 'preach' a list of bad things you should avoid doing, lists of things you should be doing, descriptions of the ideal human existance, and mechanisms for reaching that ideal... along with a lot of other stuff that is there to support those lists and mechanisms.

Christianity is different because of the simplicity of it.  Love God, love people.  What does it mena by love?

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not selfseeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

In short, Love is pretty much all those things that people are not, by default.  It's something that must be learned, either the easy way, if you're taught as a child, or the hard way, as you do all the normal human things and find out, 'Gee, I always have a hard time with relationships, why could that be?'  Notice how you never see people who demonstrate Paul's attributes of love on the Jerry Springer show.

This is a notion that I like to think strengthens the argument that (non-sociopathic) humans are already born with an internal "moral compass", regardless of faith in a god or devotion to a religion. I think humans already know right from wrong and are inclined to act on those gut feelings without the threat of eternal damnation.

Yeah, that theory is working out really well...  except young children are inherently rebelious and self-centered, until taught to be otherwise.  If everyone knew right from wrong, and was inclined to act on those feelings, the world would be a far different place, I'm sure.

Or, maybe they really don't, and that's why some people need religion.

Those that feel they 'are good people' and therefore don't need religion were often taught to be good people by religious parents, or by people whose parents were religious.  Most of what people are taught by most religions is how to be a good person...  because it's not built in.  Violence in the inner cities(and the outer ones), school shootings, etc?  Mostly can be traced back to kids who basically raise themselves, with no input from parental figures.

Alkiera

[Strazos]

Those that feel they 'are good people' and therefore don't need religion were often taught to be good people by religious parents, or by people whose parents were religious.  Most of what people are taught by most religions is how to be a good person...  because it's not built in.  Violence in the inner cities(and the outer ones), school shootings, etc?  Mostly can be traced back to kids who basically raise themselves, with no input from parental figures.

While I do agree with your statement generally, how many people here had parents who maybe had to go through some Catholic school, and learned not a damn thing from it, yet are still good people?

Granted, I think, in theory, religions can teach a lot of good things, especially through actual study (rather than simply passively listening to a sermon). It's the execution that people seem to consistently fuck up.

But as Marx would say, it's still the opiate of the masses, and throughout history, has basically done as much bad as good (at best).

[Murgos]

  Violence in the inner cities(and the outer ones), school shootings, etc?  Mostly can be traced back to kids who basically raise themselves, with no input from parental figures.

This is true even if the parents are highly religious.  It doesn't really reinforce your point.

[Alkiera]

Thanks, Strazos, I knew someone would nitpick that when I wrote it.  My statement doesn't allow for the fact that since the 60's or so, some Americans have stopped trying to raise their kids, and depend on school or their friends or something to teach them how to be good people.  And that this trend tends to grow over time, as kids who basically raised themselves become parents, and then grandparents.

All of philosophy and alot of religion seems to stem from people who looked around at human existance, and thought, "Man, this is messed up!"  Then then thought about why, and how to fix those problems.  Jews claim their fixes came from God via Moses.  Islam claims their rules came from Allah(see the Jew's God), via Mohammed.  Most eastern religions/philosphies got their rules from guys who had a lot of time on their hands to spend thinking.  Christians got their rules from God, via Jesus.  Wildly enough, a lot of these rules are the same, tho they came from different sources, spread across a decently sized portion of the earth.  Why?  Because human nature is pretty much the same, world-wide.  Cultural effects are relatively minor in comparison, especially since the Romans unified a great deal of the population of the earth, and then the Spanish, French, and British took care of the areas the Romans missed.  Humans, by default, really suck to deal with.  So we came up with rules, that if followed, make life much nicer on the whole.

Yet, these rules have since been seperated from religion, and are called 'ethics', due to the anti-religious push in the last 150 years or so, because people want to be able to say they are 'good people' without religion...  Yet the vast majority of the common ethics came from millenia-old religions.

Violence in the inner cities(and the outer ones), school shootings, etc? Mostly can be traced back to kids who basically raise themselves, with no input from parental figures.

This is true even if the parents are highly religious. It doesn't really reinforce your point.

That was in response to voodoolily's comment about people being inherently good, not anything to do with religion.  I think it does make the point I was aiming at, that people are NOT inherently good.  Your additional information adds that being a 'good person' is not genetic, either, with which I agree. 

Alkiera

[Johny Cee]

A major stumbling block in this thread is definition of religion.  What is a religion?

Should it be narrowly defined as "belief in God/gods/all-mighty spirtual being despite abundant facts for the contrary?"  This seems to be the general view of most casual atheists,  who discount the practical societal benefits of organized religion based on criticism of said religions various myth/legendary cycles.

I'd argue that a religion should be defined as belief in a cause/societal movement DESPITE empirical evidence to the contrary of beliefs espoused.  Basically boiled down to,  socieal construct supported by belief and faith without or with little proof.  Whether that belief is in the natural moral good of humainty,  trickle down ecomonics, the benefits of the welfare state, or what have you.  Especially when the faith comes despite the fact that it runs contrary to self-interested motives, or when it is actively determental to your own wants, needs, or desires.

By this definition,  we can include the two religions of the American political scene,  Democrat and Republican.  I am constantly amazed and astounded by the devotion or hatred showered on specific political figures that have very little actual differentiation.  Whether you believe Clinton is the anti-christ or Bush is the new Hitler,  they are both moderates.  Their policies have fairly small differentiation.  But somehow people heap torrents of emotion on the subjects. 

More telling are regional differences within both parties.  A southern Democrat can be quite a bit more conservative than a northeasten Republican,  but somehow partisans will lionize their politician while demonizing the opponent.

Why?  Because they have faith in the Rightness of their side's cause.

This definition would, of course,  encompass Red Sox fans.....

[Strazos]

A major stumbling block in this thread is definition of religion.  What is a religion?

This is a question that is so difficult to truely answer that there are numerous college courses on it, and they all usually fail to completely answer this question; there are alwasy numerous "exceptions".

Stuff, and a mention of Eastern religion.

EDIT: Whoops, you covered yourself by throwing Philosophies in there. SEE: Daoism, Confucism, Shinto, Buddhism (To a degree, depending upon sect).

[Paelos]

I find it funny that atheists want to point to this "overwhelming evidence" to the contrary of the existence of God. Even the most rudimentary philosopher would agrue the "I can't see it or touch it, so it doesn't exist" defense. Also, science goes a long way to understanding the systems of the world. Things move and operate in amazing symbiosis. But understanding systems better and better does not disprove the existence of a Creator.

[tazelbain]

I think it is an overwhelming "lack" of evidence. So much harder disprove things than it is to prove when you can't examine it.  The God of Gaps is hard to pin-down because every time you fill in a gap, his followers point to another gap.  Lots of gaps, but less than there use to be.

[Shmtur]

I find it funny that atheists want to point to this "overwhelming evidence" to the contrary of the existence of God. Even the most rudimentary philosopher would agrue the "I can't see it or touch it, so it doesn't exist" defense. Also, science goes a long way to understanding the systems of the world. Things move and operate in amazing symbiosis. But understanding systems better and better does not disprove the existence of a Creator.

Now you're just putting words in other people's mouths.  Yes, the end of that statement is correct; it doesn't disprove the existence of a creator.  Nor does it prove anything.  It is not provable or disprovable in any way, so therefore the only "correct" (logically) stance to take is agnosticism.

I put that in quotation marks for a reason.

[HaemishM]

Yeah, that theory is working out really well...  except young children are inherently rebelious and self-centered, until taught to be otherwise.  If everyone knew right from wrong, and was inclined to act on those feelings, the world would be a far different place, I'm sure.

Young children are not rebellious. Young children are testing the bounds of their reality, and that includes what things mommy and daddy let me get away with without any punishment, as well as the bounds of "hot things burn," "pain hurts." They aren't self-centered, they just have no sense of the feelings of others beyond their own good and bad feelings. A child, a baby is a creature of pure instinct and emotion, without the refined perceptions based on experiences.

I believe there is an absolute morality, which we learn through our growing understanding of the world around us and the people we have to interact with. Once we learn that someone else can hurt us, then we learn that it is wrong to hurt others. The Golden Rule principle. Some people choose to ignore this absolute morality, and others have better or worse understanding of this morality based on their own experiences.

As for Christianity being unique, it really isn't. What Christians call redemption, other religions call enlightenment. Christians like to say that they are unique because other religions supposedly work off of actions, the performance of rituals, etc. But really, the first step in all relgions is believing that the fundament of that religion, the central deity or deities, are the model from which your life should be lived and through which your eternal soul will gain its eternal reward.

Joseph Campbell is the man to read for comparative religious studies. Central tenet: All religions are cultural interpretations of the same universal truths.

[voodoolily]

Thank you, Haemish, for summarily supporting everything I said, was trying to say, or was about to say. The part of a kid's brain that comprehends empathy and is cognizant of the feelings/needs of others doesn't even develop until around age 3 or 4. That's why toddlers are infamously impossible to deal with and think everything is theirs. Emotional and intellectual development has stages, just like physical development. There are many classic studies in early childhood development/psychology that support this.

If I were a Christian, I wouldn't necessarily be proud of the fact that Christianity is based on human sacrifice (which does NOT make it unique from other religions), Jesus being the metaphorical lamb. Sacrifice to a bloodthirsty god is creepy.

Also, if we're gonna play the "humans are bad" "no, humans are good" game, then this conversation should be one for the Confucious vs. Lao Tsu thread, not Christians vs. everyone else.

Edit: one thing that does make Chritianity unique from probably all religions of the world is the tendency to proselytize other cultures into submission. Chrisitianity has been the undoing of so many indigenous people's faiths (in the name of righteousness) that it is just staggering. The Yanomano and Tirio Indians of the Amazon basin have all but lost their ENTIRE WAYS OF LIFE, not just their religions, because of missionaries.

[HaemishM]

According to Christianity, humans are inherently sinful.

I believe humans have the ability for both sin and good, because of the one thing most agree on. Free will. It just happens to be easier to sin than not, sometimes.

[Daeven]

Edit: one thing that does make Chritianity unique from probably all religions of the world is the tendency to proselytize other cultures into submission. Chrisitianity has been the undoing of so many indigenous people's faiths (in the name of righteousness) that it is just staggering. The Yanomano and Tirio Indians of the Amazon basin have all but lost their ENTIRE WAYS OF LIFE, not just their religions, because of missionaries.

Tell that to the Anamists of the Darfur with regard to Islam.

[voodoolily]

I didn't say that Chrisitians are the only ones who go to war kill over religion. Are they trying to convert the Anamists to Islam, or just killing them because they aren't Muslim?

Edit: in South America the missionary work doesn't just tell indigenous people to worship the Christian god, it tells them that the way they live is sinful and primitive. So now these people, who've been getting along fine for millenia, don't even know how to make their own weapons or medicine, and are becoming increasingly reliant on western technology just to survive. I'm just not aware of any other religion that does that to other people.

[Paelos]

I didn't say that Chrisitians are the only ones who go to war kill over religion. Are they trying to convert the Anamists to Islam, or just killing them because they aren't Muslim?

Edit: in South America the missionary work doesn't just tell indigenous people to worship the Christian god, it tells them that the way they live is sinful and primitive. So now these people, who've been getting along fine for millenia, don't even know how to make their own weapons or medicine, and are becoming increasingly reliant on western technology just to survive. I'm just not aware of any other religion that does that to other people.

Define "getting along fine." Cultures don't exist in a vacuum. It's better that the missionaries are going over there with a spirit of love and help than the old idea of squashing primative cultures into jam. If you want to get into the whole "white man's burden" thing that stems over from the first explorers arriving in the new world, that's a whole different can of worms than just talking about religion.

[voodoolily]

I'm not talking about what happened 250 years ago, I'm talking about what happened in the 1990s.

And still, no one wants to address the bloodthirty god aspect of Christianity. God is love, huh?

As far as going with a spirit of love and hope, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, isn't it?

[HaemishM]

Blood for the Blood God.

My biggest problem with evangelism is that it tends to quell discussion because the evangelist must always attempt to persuade the other person of their own rightness. It isn't a discussion, it's a sermon.

[Paelos]

I'm not talking about what happened 250 years ago, I'm talking about what happened in the 1990s.

And still, no one wants to address the bloodthirty god aspect of Christianity. God is love, huh?

As far as going with a spirit of love and hope, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, isn't it?

1) You referenced missionary work, which has been going on for centuries with both successes and failures. It's not perfect but it has gone a long way to help bring new life to cultures that were dealing with being surrounded by the modern world. Like I said, nothing exists in a vacuum.

2) God has many faces. God is a parent, a judge, a lover, and a friend. He gave us life and an eternal soul with the gift of free will. He asks us to sacrifice part of our lives to him. The most precious thing in the world is your life, and the essence of your life is your blood. The sacrifices of the Hebrews of animals were meant as a symbol to cleanse their sins, but this did not work. That was why God came down in the form of Jesus and laid his life down on the cross. If you want to discuss the conditions in which sacrifices were made, look at the book of Hebrews. Also, refer to the story of Isaac, Abraham's only son, when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It was a test of faith that he was willing to make, but God did not require it in the end. Look at the trials of Job and his faith in God after everything had fallen apart. The message is that nothing in our life comes easy, and the most important things we have come with sacrifices that must be made.