Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on December 10, 2014, 06:12:20 PM
-
A lot of atheists, famously among them, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, deride and criticize religion as an irrelevant and often damaging institution. I believe these guys are wrong.
I think that religion, has a positive and meaningful role to play in humanity. Religion can serve as a moderating influence. Like most things, taken in moderation, it can improve the quality of life. It can promote a sense of belonging and discipline creating a stronger society. It mitigates grief in times of loss of loved ones.
To be fair, the utility of religious teachings is only as good as the credulity of the adherent. This credulity tends to lessen the more intellectually sophisticated a society becomes.
Therefore the real problem with current mainstream religions is not the concept of religion itself, but rather their pace of evolution or lack thereof.
Historically, religious teachings have changed in tandem with contemporary knowledge. One could even argue that during some epochs, religious teachings were a step ahead.
For some reason, the pace of change has ground to a halt as religions became bigger. Today, most mainstream religions are based on beliefs informed by ideas from a time when people were relatively ignorant.
This fact tends to make a lot of the religious teachings seem(or indeed actually be) ignorant. Even though they may have been cutting edge in the neolithic and earlier periods.
-
You think too hard for a negro
I can only speak of Christianity. Has it undergone ANY change in its 2000 years of existence?
-
You think too hard for a negro
I can only speak of Christianity. Has it undergone ANY change in its 2000 years of existence?
It has undergone some change. But not enough.
I am thinking around the period of renaissance it would have onboarded some ideas from the scientific breakthroughs of the era. And so on with every new discovery. If that happens gradually, few people would notice or care. In the process Jesus can take a backseat as a pretty wise guy for his time, which he really was.
1. Genesis would talk about the big bang being ignited by God.
2. God would likely become a disinterested creator of the laws of physics.
3. Revelation would instead talk about the real end of the world(whether we like it or not) within 5 billion years.
Religion would keep pace as the moral interpretation of scientific knowledge.
-
What change can you conjure up as far as Christianity is concerned? Examples
It has undergone some change. But not enough.
I am thinking around the period of renaissance it would have onboarded some ideas from the scientific breakthroughs of the era. And so on with every new discovery. If that happens gradually, few people would notice or care. In the process Jesus can take a backseat as a pretty wise guy for his time, which he really was.
1. Genesis would talk about the big bang being ignited by God.
2. God would likely become a disinterested creator of the laws of physics.
3. Revelation would instead talk about the real end of the world(whether we like it or not) within 5 billion years.
Religion would keep pace as the moral interpretation of scientific knowledge.
-
What change can you conjure up as far as Christianity is concerned? Examples
It has undergone some change. But not enough.
I am thinking around the period of renaissance it would have onboarded some ideas from the scientific breakthroughs of the era. And so on with every new discovery. If that happens gradually, few people would notice or care. In the process Jesus can take a backseat as a pretty wise guy for his time, which he really was.
1. Genesis would talk about the big bang being ignited by God.
2. God would likely become a disinterested creator of the laws of physics.
3. Revelation would instead talk about the real end of the world(whether we like it or not) within 5 billion years.
Religion would keep pace as the moral interpretation of scientific knowledge.
The most obvious one I can think of. The shepherd was initially a person with no place to lay his head. These days, shepherds have fleets of chase cars and learjets. Rolling like kings. The earthly variety.
-
Jesus Christ had a house my broda, and many people especially women supported him out of their means. That's a bad example
Besides, Jesus used asses and boats for transport. Nowadays they have jets. If that is the change you are talking of, you are mighty funny
The most obvious one I can think of. The shepherd was initially a person with no place to lay his head. These days, shepherds have fleets of chase cars and learjets. Rolling like kings. The earthly variety.
-
Jesus Christ had a house my broda, and many people especially women supported him out of their means. That's a bad example
Besides, Jesus used asses and boats for transport. Nowadays they have jets. If that is the change you are talking of, you are mighty funny
The most obvious one I can think of. The shepherd was initially a person with no place to lay his head. These days, shepherds have fleets of chase cars and learjets. Rolling like kings. The earthly variety.
The point is that the mainstream religions have not changed much if any.
-
Windy this is actually a mighty good example. The greatest motivation for many religious leaders today, it seems, is to prosper themselves using the flock. The biggest 'christian' group in the world the world thrives in material riches and boasts large tracts of land and vast amounts of money in the banks. Heck, it controls many nations' banks and politics too.
Some of the so-called apostles today own lands, automobiles and learjets that would have embarrassed the Son of Man by whose names they call their ministries. Think about it: horses were the wealthy men's preferred means of transport in Palestine - the Son of man chose boats and donkeys, or "Route 11". You can imagine today if Christ wanted to move from Kaloleni to Magadi, it would be unthinkable of him riding in his so-called apostles' jets and limos.
As you say, they also hobnob with kings and decide the political destiny of nations. Christ never dabbled in earthly politics. Contrary to what some popular preachers teach, Christ had no earthly possessions save the clothes he wore on his back, which he lost at the crucifixion. He lived with the family of Lazarus.
Luke 9
57As they were going along the road, someone said to Him, "I will follow You wherever You go." 58And Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."
[/quote]The most obvious one I can think of. The shepherd was initially a person with no place to lay his head. These days, shepherds have fleets of chase cars and learjets. Rolling like kings. The earthly variety.
[/quote]
-
Actually Termie I think Nuff Sed is on point. The problem is we compare these modern 'Christians' who are really antiChrists with Christ.
We should compare real Christians with Christ
Look at this true prophet/God's messenger (http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/egw25.htm)
She stayed in a house valued at $10M in present rates
At some point she raked in present terms $100,000 to $265,000
Her large staff of 14 people included a personal nurse (Sara McEnterfer), a cook, a copyist, a seamstress, farm hands, several secretaries and various other office assistants and office personnel.
That is living, not staying in holes like fools 8)
And she knew bling (http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/contra7.htm) and her sheeple invented Photoshopping to cover her excesses
Windy this is actually a mighty good example. The greatest motivation for many religious leaders today, it seems, is to prosper themselves using the flock. The biggest 'christian' group in the world the world thrives in material riches and boasts large tracts of land and vast amounts of money in the banks. Heck, it controls many nations' banks and politics too.
Some of the so-called apostles today own lands, automobiles and learjets that would have embarrassed the Son of Man by whose names they call their ministries. Think about it: horses were the wealthy men's preferred means of transport in Palestine - the Son of man chose boats and donkeys, or "Route 11". You can imagine today if Christ wanted to move from Kaloleni to Magadi, it would be unthinkable of him riding in his so-called apostles' jets and limos.
As you say, they also hobnob with kings and decide the political destiny of nations. Christ never dabbled in earthly politics. Contrary to what some popular preachers teach, Christ had no earthly possessions save the clothes he wore on his back, which he lost at the crucifixion. He lived with the family of Lazarus.
Luke 9
57As they were going along the road, someone said to Him, "I will follow You wherever You go." 58And Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."
-
Windy, I must say, however, that rejecting Christianity because some self-proclaimed apostles are living large is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would not like to join the large company of those who cut their noses to spite their faces. As an aside, I note the erroneous reinterpretation of scripture and the continued discrediting of certain named persons - not by your person.
-
Adherents of the ONLY (schizophrenic) prophetess to have ever breathed since John the Revelator should be the last to throw stones seeing they live in glass delusions
Windy, I must say, however, that rejecting Christianity because some self-proclaimed apostles are living large is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would not like to join the large company of those who cut their noses to spite their faces. As an aside, I note the erroneous reinterpretation of scripture and the continued discrediting of certain named persons - not by your person.
-
Windy, I must say, however, that rejecting Christianity because some self-proclaimed apostles are living large is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would not like to join the large company of those who cut their noses to spite their faces. As an aside, I note the erroneous reinterpretation of scripture and the continued discrediting of certain named persons - not by your person.
I dont think windy knows why he is rejecting christianity.......such vague reasons.
@Windy
What I am interested in is at what point in life did you decide that christianity, or is it religion wasnt for you, as in turning point from catholisms to atheism? Anything concrete in particular that you can think of?
-
Adherents of the ONLY (schizophrenic) prophetess to have ever breathed since John the Revelator should be the last to throw stones seeing they live in glass delusions
Windy, I must say, however, that rejecting Christianity because some self-proclaimed apostles are living large is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would not like to join the large company of those who cut their noses to spite their faces. As an aside, I note the erroneous reinterpretation of scripture and the continued discrediting of certain named persons - not by your person.
You are muzzling discussions, let DB be...his beliefs are non of your business.
-
Windy, I must say, however, that rejecting Christianity because some self-proclaimed apostles are living large is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would not like to join the large company of those who cut their noses to spite their faces. As an aside, I note the erroneous reinterpretation of scripture and the continued discrediting of certain named persons - not by your person.
I dont think windy knows why he is rejecting christianity.......such vague reasons.
@Windy
What I am interested in is at what point in life did you decide that christianity, or is it religion wasnt for you, as in turning point from catholisms to atheism? Anything concrete in particular that you can think of?
It's theism in general that is not for me. Rather than just Christianity.
I can't put a finger on the exact moment that light came on. Closest might be when I had this discussion with an atheist and I ran out of logical arguments for my theism. I still clung to what I had been told since I was a child for a little while after that.
I think religion in moderation might actually a good thing for homo sapiens. With intelligence comes a certain knowledge of mortality and the trauma of that knowledge. I think religion or spirituality can help blunt the edge of that shock.
It's more effective if the beliefs are supported(or at least not obviously contradicted) by contemporary knowledge.
-
Not to butt in, but Mya88's query is of interest to me too. I find it intriguing how and why you dropped religion even from the explanation given. Was it that what you had been told as a child was "erroneous" (for example, that God exists) and the atheist proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt?
Was the atheist a bully (like the ones we see on here who, really having nothing of substance to say, hurl epithets at anything they don't agree with)? Perhaps you were still too young to see through the logical fallacies of atheism and you gave in to the bullying. I assume you are better equipped now and can rebut.
Or was it that the atheist made some remarkable revelation that left your mouth agape? I'd be really like to know what the atheist said or proved that swept you off your religious feet.
-
Not to butt in, but Mya88's query is of interest to me too. I find it intriguing how and why you dropped religion even from the explanation given. Was it that what you had been told as a child was "erroneous" (for example, that God exists) and the atheist proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt?
Was the atheist a bully (like the ones we see on here who, really having nothing of substance to say, hurl epithets at anything they don't agree with)? Perhaps you were still too young to see through the logical fallacies of atheism and you gave in to the bullying. I assume you are better equipped now and can rebut.
Or was it that the atheist made some remarkable revelation that left your mouth agape? I'd be really like to know what the atheist said or proved that swept you off your religious feet.
Like I mention, it was not so much a one time epiphany, for me, as a gradual realization.
Small things stacking up. Till you embrace the inevitable conclusion. I was fully grown up when this happened.
The atheist was not a bully at all. His arguments were not airtight. But on the balance of probabilities, persuasive enough.
I also understand that a perfectly intelligent person can harbor religious beliefs. It's part of human nature.
I don't despise religious people. You can be atheist without being anti-religious.
I grew up in a religion that emphasizes that there is logical proof for a deity. That faith is actually not so much a belief as an acknowledgement of logical facts.
I have also always harbored doubts and questions. Which I considered some sort of peccadillo.
This fact might expose the beliefs of an adherent so inclined, to the ravages of logic.
Even then, it still took a while to erode the belief. Ultimately, the atheist's argument formed only a part of the reasons for this erosion.
-
Windy, I must say, however, that rejecting Christianity because some self-proclaimed apostles are living large is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would not like to join the large company of those who cut their noses to spite their faces. As an aside, I note the erroneous reinterpretation of scripture and the continued discrediting of certain named persons - not by your person.
I dont think windy knows why he is rejecting christianity.......such vague reasons.
@Windy
What I am interested in is at what point in life did you decide that christianity, or is it religion wasnt for you, as in turning point from catholisms to atheism? Anything concrete in particular that you can think of?
It's theism in general that is not for me. Rather than just Christianity.
I can't put a finger on the exact moment that light came on. Closest might be when I had this discussion with an atheist and I ran out of logical arguments for my theism. I still clung to what I had been told since I was a child for a little while after that.
I think religion in moderation might actually a good thing for homo sapiens. With intelligence comes a certain knowledge of mortality and the trauma of that knowledge. I think religion or spirituality can help blunt the edge of that shock.
It's more effective if the beliefs are supported(or at least not obviously contradicted) by contemporary knowledge.
You believe in religion but shun theism….. That sounds contradictory. Atheism is the belief that no God exists. Religion for the most part is based on the precedence that at least a God or some other form of deity exists, be it Allah, Buddha, et cetera. I am of the opinion that you cannot be both, so I am unclear how you are able to reconcile the two. I did look into nontheistic religions and found that some form of Hinduism and Satanism belong here. And even these two believe in some ‘higher power.’
I am surprised that you let someone else convince you otherwise instead of searching for your own truth. My experiences are quite different. Even though I grew up in a religious household, I just went with the motions but there wasn’t any pressure on my part to adhere strictly to any particular practices that was left for the grown folks. So when I was away on my own, I spent a large chunk of time out of church but ultimately, it’s my own personal experiences and search for the truth that led me back, in other words, that was the tried and tested method. I also think religion in moderation is good, what we are experiencing in the world is extremisms of religions and the lack of tolerance for others beliefs. … a recipe for disaster.
Therefore the real problem with current mainstream religions is not the concept of religion itself, but rather their pace of evolution or lack thereof.
Again, you are being vague here. In your opinion, at what pace if any should religion be evolving at, in other words, cite examples where you feel that mainstream religion wasnt able to catch up.
-
mya88,
Maybe I should put it this way. I understand the religious impulse. It helps most people come to a healthy accommodation with death.
Put another way, without religion, I think there would be widespread despair. One could argue the same is true with extreme religiosity. Extreme religiosity also leads to widespread despair.
The important thing is that none of this means that religious teachings and beliefs are true. Or that I believe in them. But they work as long as they are believable.
I allow people to persuade me one way or another. This particular atheist did not so much persuade me, as cast another seed of doubt. I was headed that way either way.
Religious Evolution
I think if you go back to the stone age, the religious beliefs tended to have a higher fidelity to what was generally accepted as fact. There was probably no distinction between a religion and daily life. We worship the sun. The sun is good for us. The sun is God. It was consistent with the facts on the ground.
I am saying that it takes a lot of compartmentalization to embrace current mainstream religions, for those inclined to rationality. Darwinian evolution would be an obvious area where the mainstream religions have just failed to catch on.
-
mya88,
Maybe I should put it this way. I understand the religious impulse. It helps most people come to a healthy accommodation with death.
Put another way, without religion, I think there would be widespread despair. One could argue the same is true with extreme religiosity. Extreme religiosity also leads to widespread despair.
The important thing is that none of this means that religious teachings and beliefs are true. Or that I believe in them. But they work as long as they are believable.
I allow people to persuade me one way or another. This particular atheist did not so much persuade me, as cast another seed of doubt. I was headed that way either way.
I am not sure it’s as simplistic as you portray it. Religious impulse is way more than just having a healthy accommodation to death, after all everyone will die at some point or another. I think has more to do with finding peace of mind, which translates to healthy quality of life and self, having hope through trials and tribulations of life’s treacherous journey, accepting that there is more to life than that physical presence and yes ultimately eternal life with the maker at the end of that journey. It has more to do with the afterlife than death itself. Religion doesn’t shield you from death; it offers an afterlife that atheists don’t believe in. Given the level of curiosity that you approach the gospel and the fact that you can at least tolerate some form of religion, there is still hope of getting you on the right side. Even Jesus himself, the son of God WEPT when he learned that Lazarus had died.
Religious Evolution
I think if you go back to the stone age, the religious beliefs tended to have a higher fidelity to what was generally accepted as fact. There was probably no distinction between a religion and daily life. We worship the sun. The sun is good for us. The sun is God. It was consistent with the facts on the ground.
I am saying that it takes a lot of compartmentalization to embrace current mainstream religions, for those inclined to rationality. Darwinian evolution would be an obvious area where the mainstream religions have just failed to catch on.
Without getting into the lengthy evolution debate Darwin’s theory only came into effect around the 19th century and to me that’s not even a discussion. He took what was already there and tried to give it a scientific perspective….ie part of the natural selection part which I agree with to some degree with (only because I have some experience with genetics) contrary to most other Christians, ( because its irreconcilable with the genesis of man). I however find the notion that all species, plants, animals bacteria evolved from a single cell bogus.
-
mya88,
Maybe I should put it this way. I understand the religious impulse. It helps most people come to a healthy accommodation with death.
Put another way, without religion, I think there would be widespread despair. One could argue the same is true with extreme religiosity. Extreme religiosity also leads to widespread despair.
The important thing is that none of this means that religious teachings and beliefs are true. Or that I believe in them. But they work as long as they are believable.
I allow people to persuade me one way or another. This particular atheist did not so much persuade me, as cast another seed of doubt. I was headed that way either way.
I am not sure it’s as simplistic as you portray it. Religious impulse is way more than just having a healthy accommodation to death, after all everyone will die at some point or another. I think has more to do with finding peace of mind, which translates to healthy quality of life and self, having hope through trials and tribulations of life’s treacherous journey, accepting that there is more to life than that physical presence and yes ultimately eternal life with the maker at the end of that journey. It has more to do with the afterlife than death itself. Religion doesn’t shield you from death; it offers an afterlife that atheists don’t believe in. Given the level of curiosity that you approach the gospel and the fact that you can at least tolerate some form of religion, there is still hope of getting you on the right side. Even Jesus himself, the son of God WEPT when he learned that Lazarus had died.
Religious Evolution
I think if you go back to the stone age, the religious beliefs tended to have a higher fidelity to what was generally accepted as fact. There was probably no distinction between a religion and daily life. We worship the sun. The sun is good for us. The sun is God. It was consistent with the facts on the ground.
I am saying that it takes a lot of compartmentalization to embrace current mainstream religions, for those inclined to rationality. Darwinian evolution would be an obvious area where the mainstream religions have just failed to catch on.
Without getting into the lengthy evolution debate Darwin’s theory only came into effect around the 19th century and to me that’s not even a discussion. He took what was already there and tried to give it a scientific perspective….ie part of the natural selection part which I agree with to some degree with (only because I have some experience with genetics) contrary to most other Christians, ( because its irreconcilable with the genesis of man). I however find the notion that all species, plants, animals bacteria evolved from a single cell bogus.
It may not be that simple. But I think it is mainly about mortality. You eliminate death form the picture, and religion becomes utterly irrelevant. What would be the point after all?
Humans are imbued with a sense of justice. Their natural balance is restored when they can reconcile very vile people like Hitler with hell for instance. The notion that he would butcher people like that and wind up the same as his victims, is obscene to our senses. Religion soothes those kind of worries.
As for me, if I see the evidence, I have no problem believing anything. To be fair, I really doubt the kind of evidence required to make me a theist is out there.
If you restrict atheism to a belief, or lack of the same, in a deity, you will be surprised at the range of possible things that atheists can believe in, including an afterlife. I don't make the mistake of assuming my personal beliefs reflect those of all atheists.
I also have a problem with the single cell origin. What is the source of that conclusion? If it can happen with one cell, what is there to stop multiple genesis from other unrelated cells?
-
I also have a problem with the single cell origin. What is the source of that conclusion? If it can happen with one cell, what is there to stop multiple genesis from other unrelated cells?
@Termi
While Darwin’s theory was vague as to how all organisms arise from a single cell (slow progression through natural selection), biologists have since been busy testing some his theory……….I mean what are the odds that all species from the three main domains of life, which include bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea (prokaryotes), and eukaryotes, (the group that includes plants, animals, humans and other multicellular species), evolved from a common ancestor.
From what I gather, this is what they have come up with: All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins. The 23 universal proteins perform fundamental cellular activities, such as DNA replication and the translation of DNA into proteins, and are crucial to the survival of all known life-forms. A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar. For this reason, taxonomy of classification was modified to reflect these new findings.
Problem is the first two domains are single celled organisms with no nucleus (which has genetic material ie DNA and controls all activities of the cell) while the latter to which plants and animals belong are multicellular They tried to hypothesize that through endosymbiosis where one organism actually lives inside the other), prokaryotic cells (bacteria, fungi) gave rise to eukaryotic cells (plants, animals). How exactly, I can’t figure out. What I know for sure is that genetics and genomics are fast growing and as longs as cells compatible anything is possible.