Heaven, I'm in heaven

[mpjh]

Now, that would be something.

[FabledIntegral]

So because we haven't figured out how it works yet - although having discovered how the others "work," that disproves God? Hardly. The argument that religion evolved from cavemen had a perfectly logical argument that... everything evolved from cavemen. Whatever else comes what has been proven since is irrelevant to that argument involving cavemen themselves.

Ok. So are you saying that Religion will eventually evolve like the others did to the point that you WILL be able to prove your gods exist ("figure out how it works") and not have to rely on myth, legend & lore?

No - I'm saying it's not a valid argument to rely on that alone. And it very well could - it was beyond any comprehension by the people back then how lots of the things work now - what's to say that can't be held with religion as well? I'm merely saying that it's a very valid point saying everything evolved from cavemen, and it would be very arrogant to say that our time era is the era in which we finally know everything. We know more than we used to, that is all.

The entire premise of religion doesn't have to involve proof because of the entire supernatural context which exists outside the realm of the natural. So those arguments don't work. If you want to attack the validity of religion don't attack something within your own context and expect the other side to abandon yours. You're basically saying "the way my belief system works involves proof, and even though yours doesn't NEED proof to be valid according to your context, it thus is invalid." Well by their standards it isn't. Instead, you should question the reasoning for believing it in the first place rather than attack the validity of it and whether or not it makes any sense to pick the particular religion and if the morality of it makes sense, considering that is the basis of religion in general.

[mpjh]

Hmmm. Last time I checked we were both in the same real world. So make your argument here, not in some "other" world that only you even believe in.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ok. So are you saying that Religion will eventually evolve like the others did

Not will evolve, has evolved, and demonstrably so. Look at all the claims about Christian atrocities. Most of them are 500 years old or more. The most recent being a mere two hundred or so years old. The secular atrocities are far more recent. So, religious thought has evolved and as I've shown it isn't because people are leaving the churches. They're growing faster than world population. There are more Roman Catholics than there are inhabitants of the People's Republic of China (not that it isn't a tight race on that one though ).

Each of the disciplines I mentioned share a common ancestry just as I stated. You agreed to that, and cannot show that religion hasn't adapted through time. Porky stated that it was an outgrowth of the superstitions of cavemen. Big deal, so are the other disciplines, that hardly invalidates any of them. It seems that point stands unless Porky, or you, would like to take a stand against it.

[FabledIntegral]

Hmmm. Last time I checked we were both in the same real world. So make your argument here, not in some "other" world that only you even believe in.

Irrelevant to the already established premise when arguing. You're asking them to make arguments which cater to your beliefs, not theirs. That's ignorant. You're saying "this is how I believe the world works, and answer these arguments I've presented by my standards, not yours."

[porkenbeans]

My premise has not been successfully rebutted at all, Fab.
I am clearly saying that all religion is evolved from misconceived superstitions.
It was NOT handed down by God.
If you understand the logic of this statement, you will start to see the true nature of mankind.

Of coarse we will continue to evolve. The understanding level of mankind will indeed be much higher in the future. Every advancement that our race has ever had to this end, has come from our study of science and nature. Not from the study of the Bible, the Koran, or any other book of fairy tales. That is not to say that there are not truths to be found in those books. The teachings of Jesus is exactly the same as my own beliefs, in the respect of, how we should treat our fellow man. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The "golden rule" is my way of living my life. But not because the Bible tells me so. And not because I am afraid of going to hell if I don't. I choose this because I feel that it is the best way to live in harmony with everyone.
Have you ever noticed the difference in the old and new testament God ?
The old testament God was a mean, and vengeful son of a bitch. he was someone to be feared. I guess becoming a father mellowed him. Because the New testement God is a loving and friendly sort of fellow. In the B.C. world, fear of retribution was the way people were kept in line. But as our understanding evolved, we learned that it was not fear that ultimately lead us to wisdom. The wisdom of the golden rule has proven to be the best way to go. We have the Greeks to thank for much of this change of heart. When you study the history of mankind, you can follow this evolution of wisdom.
It is very sad for me to watch as some attempt to drag us backwards. Especially those that profess to be followers of my most admired and courageous man that ever lived. It only reminds me that, ...We still have a long way to go.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I am clearly saying that all religion is evolved from misconceived superstitions.

You have neither proved that (or even tried) nor connected it to the topic at hand in any way.

[mpjh]

Hmmm. Last time I checked we were both in the same real world. So make your argument here, not in some "other" world that only you even believe in.

Irrelevant to the already established premise when arguing. You're asking them to make arguments which cater to your beliefs, not theirs. That's ignorant. You're saying "this is how I believe the world works, and answer these arguments I've presented by my standards, not yours."

Nope, just saying that you have to argue with both feet on the ground, otherwise all you are doing is blowing subjective smoke.

[porkenbeans]

I am clearly saying that all religion is evolved from misconceived superstitions.

You have neither proved that (or even tried) nor connected it to the topic at hand in any way.

Talk about smoke.

[FabledIntegral]

My premise has not been successfully rebutted at all, Fab.
I am clearly saying that all religion is evolved from misconceived superstitions.
It was NOT handed down by God.
If you understand the logic of this statement, you will start to see the true nature of mankind.

Which doesn't disprove their religion. It's a valid argument to say that "why would you believe in God," but not "your God is false for these reasons."

Of coarse we will continue to evolve. The understanding level of mankind will indeed be much higher in the future. Every advancement that our race has ever had to this end, has come from our study of science and nature. Not from the study of the Bible, the Koran, or any other book of fairy tales. That is not to say that there are not truths to be found in those books. The teachings of Jesus is exactly the same as my own beliefs, in the respect of, how we should treat our fellow man. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The "golden rule" is my way of living my life. But not because the Bible tells me so. And not because I am afraid of going to hell if I don't. I choose this because I feel that it is the best way to live in harmony with everyone.

Advancement doesn't correspond with validity.

Have you ever noticed the difference in the old and new testament God ?
The old testament God was a mean, and vengeful son of a bitch. he was someone to be feared. I guess becoming a father mellowed him. Because the New testement God is a loving and friendly sort of fellow. In the B.C. world, fear of retribution was the way people were kept in line. But as our understanding evolved, we learned that it was not fear that ultimately lead us to wisdom. The wisdom of the golden rule has proven to be the best way to go. We have the Greeks to thank for much of this change of heart. When you study the history of mankind, you can follow this evolution of wisdom.

You'll find that argument comprising one of my main points in "Is God really just?" which I started a long time ago. I already told you I don't believe in the Christian God at all. But that argument isn't for THIS thread. Porky, you're missing the point, I'll say it again as I've said it 5x in the past and you've ignored it. You points ARE valid. They are NOT on topic.

It is very sad for me to watch as some attempt to drag us backwards. Especially those that profess to be followers of my most admired and courageous man that ever lived. It only reminds me that, ...We still have a long way to go.

It's all relative to what you understand.

[FabledIntegral]

Hmmm. Last time I checked we were both in the same real world. So make your argument here, not in some "other" world that only you even believe in.

Irrelevant to the already established premise when arguing. You're asking them to make arguments which cater to your beliefs, not theirs. That's ignorant. You're saying "this is how I believe the world works, and answer these arguments I've presented by my standards, not yours."

Nope, just saying that you have to argue with both feet on the ground, otherwise all you are doing is blowing subjective smoke.

You're arguing against the wrong points - and I'll say it again.

You can't argue that science should apply to the supernatural - the definitions are contradictory. Thus you should question "what leads you to believe that you should even believe in the supernatural" NOT "because the supernatural does not follow the rules of science it can not possibly exist." Of course it can, the definition of the word is "not within the realm of the natural."

Thus all points trying to discredit God because it doesn't conform with science are ignorant and irrelevant. The only thing you can do is question "what possibly makes you come to the conclusions you did, before knowing about God in the first place? Were you born into a religious family and thus biased and it's because you didn't question what you grew up with?" etc.

You're basically arguing "No, Jesus couldn't have fed an entire group of people with only 5 loaves of bread (or however many it were, I don't recall) because that's not possibly by science to somehow have more bread keep coming. There has to be a finite, limited amount!" I don't think you've ever heard that argument from a credible source, have you?

[mpjh]

I am not argueing against religion at all. I think people can and should believe whatever they want. That concept is embedded in our constitution and is a central tenent of our freedeom

I only argue against the imposition of someone's religious beliefs on my civil freedoms. Especially when they do it because "god told me to do it" or "it is a commandment of god" or "the bible says so".

So for example, when a president takes us to war because "god spoke to me and said I should do this" then I have a problem with religion, and that is why I want to engage in argument that is based in the real world, the world I live in. That is where my freedom and my civil rights are exercised.

[CrazyAnglican]

So for example, when a president takes us to war because "god spoke to me and said I should do this" then I have a problem with religion, and that is why I want to engage in argument that is based in the real world, the world I live in. That is where my freedom and my civil rights are exercised.

Which religious figure do you blame for G.W.'s little chat with the Almighty? Which ones came out and placed their stamp of approval on it? The People of the USA had two legal elections and the guy one. He isn't a religious figure, only a secular one that happens to be a Christian. Nothing he says has anything to do at all with Church policy any more than the Pope has direct say in U.S. governmental policy.

Have a problem with G.W? Get in line, but to generalize that problem to religion based on his statements? That makes about as much sense as crediting religion for an NFL team's winning season because the head coach was a Christian and prayed on his decisions. The Christian churches just aren't responsible for everything everyone says about God. They have policies aplenty of their own that do show their track record, and much of that is good, as we've established earlier.

[mpjh]

Oh, get real. GW's strongest base is the Evangelicals. They even voted for him this last time around. I think their religious rigidity is one of the greatest threats to this country and our freedom.

[FabledIntegral]

I am not argueing against religion at all. I think people can and should believe whatever they want. That concept is embedded in our constitution and is a central tenent of our freedeom

I only argue against the imposition of someone's religious beliefs on my civil freedoms. Especially when they do it because "god told me to do it" or "it is a commandment of god" or "the bible says so".

So for example, when a president takes us to war because "god spoke to me and said I should do this" then I have a problem with religion, and that is why I want to engage in argument that is based in the real world, the world I live in. That is where my freedom and my civil rights are exercised.

Then why would you respond if I was talking to backglass about something irrelevant/you aren't interested in.

[mpjh]

First, because I wanted to.

Second, because I made a relevent response to the previous post.

Third, because, while I did the OP, you have taken this thread off topic and I was looking for a way to bring it back.

Fourth, because I can.

[CrazyAnglican]

My premise has not been successfully rebutted at all, Fab.
I am clearly saying that all religion is evolved from misconceived superstitions.

Not exactly, you merely stated caveman's superstitions. As I stated big deal, some great ideas came out of those same caves.

It was NOT handed down by God.
If you understand the logic of this statement, you will start to see the true nature of mankind.

Logic of this statement? The problem here is you actually didn't address your supposed point at all. You, as FI rightly stated, assume no God had a hand in anything. Christians, on the other hand, believe that he does. Therefore, in your own paradigm, it seems to you like you've jumped up and said "Ah, Ha! Ya' See. All this religion is a human concoction all along!", and your underwehlmed Christian audience generally says 'But God was leading all those leaps of faith in the right direction, hence we are at the place we've arrived". I purport that if science really was chipping away at religion the number of Christians would be dwindling. Quite to the opposite, the numbers of adherents are increasing, and stand to grow moreso in the future. You've done nothing to account for this other than assert that some poll said something that I disputed, citing evidence that you didn't even bother to respond to.

Of coarse we will continue to evolve. The understanding level of mankind will indeed be much higher in the future. Every advancement that our race has ever had to this end, has come from our study of science and nature. Not from the study of the Bible, the Koran, or any other book of fairy tales. That is not to say that there are not truths to be found in those books. The teachings of Jesus is exactly the same as my own beliefs, in the respect of, how we should treat our fellow man. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The "golden rule" is my way of living my life. But not because the Bible tells me so. And not because I am afraid of going to hell if I don't. I choose this because I feel that it is the best way to live in harmony with everyone.

Now, here we have a subtle slap at Christians.

The "golden rule" is my way of living my life. But not because the Bible tells me so. And not because I am afraid of going to hell if I don't. I choose this because I feel that it is the best way to live in harmony with everyone.

In your own omniscience, you seem to have assumed that Christians adhere to the tenets and teachings of Christ because they are "afraid of going to Hell"? At least that's the blatant implication of making such a contrast. You, on the other hand, see the insightful and evocative nature of Christ's teachings and choose to follow them because it's the "best way to live in harmony with everyone". You've just asserted the superiority of Christian thought with regard to life in a community, but can't bring yourself to become a part of that community because you see us as fearful. Pehaps, if you talk to a few more of us and you'd see the errancy of your assumption.

The delightful irony is that you're echoing playground bullies everywhere with the assertion "You're just Christians because you Scaaaaared!, go ahead, be an atheist! I dare you!". That line of reasoning has probably lead to more broken arms and bloody noses than anything else I could imagine between schoolyard chums. Anyway, trying to prove you're not scared is generally a poor reason to do anything, so I'll merely say believe whatever makes you feel better and let that one rest.

Have you ever noticed the difference in the old and new testament God ?
The old testament God was a mean, and vengeful son of a bitch. he was someone to be feared. I guess becoming a father mellowed him. Because the New testement God is a loving and friendly sort of fellow. In the B.C. world, fear of retribution was the way people were kept in line. But as our understanding evolved, we learned that it was not fear that ultimately lead us to wisdom. The wisdom of the golden rule has proven to be the best way to go.

Yes, here we go. Let's make a claim that would take 600 pages to go nowhere. I'll give you three specific events from the Bible. You cite 'em. We'll discuss 'em. We won't go on from there. If he's as bad as you say, it should be easy for you, right?

We have the Greeks to thank for much of this change of heart. When you study the history of mankind, you can follow this evolution of wisdom.

Again a cited source as to how a first century Jewish Carpenter was supposed to have been influenced by Greek Philosophy would be nice. You're probably hoping we'll take that one on "faith", right?

It is very sad for me to watch as some attempt to drag us backwards. Especially those that profess to be followers of my most admired and courageous man that ever lived. It only reminds me that, ...We still have a long way to go.

I love it. Funny thing about these atrocities; sometime they have little to do with religion. Imagine that.

As a commentator for state-owned Channel One television explained to the nation, the uniform is supposed to promote nostalgia for the 1930s. Nostalgia for what, exactly, you may ask. For the time when millions of peasants who resisted collectivization were sent to Siberia? For the largely artificial, Stalin-orchestrated famine in Ukraine and Kazakhstan that left some 5 million people dead? Or maybe nostalgia for the Great Terror, which resulted in many more millions of Soviet citizens being killed or dispatched to the gulag?

I'm not saying the religious have their hands totally clean, but here is an interesting counterpoint to your progression of wisdom. If this is what we're evolving into, why wouldn't anyone advocate a little step back every now and again.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

[CrazyAnglican]

Oh, get real. GW's strongest base is the Evangelicals. They even voted for him this last time around. I think their religious rigidity is one of the greatest threats to this country and our freedom.

You're entitled to your opinion as to what is a great threat, of course, but all you've said is a lot of Christians voted for him. That can be said of anyone elected in the United States, and hardly indicts any religious organization. If it does, connect the dots for us. Show us how.

[Backglass]

No - I'm saying it's not a valid argument to rely on that alone. And it very well could - it was beyond any comprehension by the people back then how lots of the things work now - what's to say that can't be held with religion as well? I'm merely saying that it's a very valid point saying everything evolved from cavemen, and it would be very arrogant to say that our time era is the era in which we finally know everything. We know more than we used to, that is all.

We also have no proof that the legend of the Loch Ness Monster isn't real. By your rules of engagement, it is perfectly valid to assume that it (she) does. Do you believe there is a chance that Nessy is real? I do not as no modern day, verifiable source has ever seen/heard/touched/smelt/felt it. All the stories are from days past....fables not unlike your god.

The entire premise of religion doesn't have to involve proof because of the entire supernatural context which exists outside the realm of the natural. So those arguments don't work. If you want to attack the validity of religion don't attack something within your own context and expect the other side to abandon yours. You're basically saying "the way my belief system works involves proof, and even though yours doesn't NEED proof to be valid according to your context, it thus is invalid." Well by their standards it isn't. Instead, you should question the reasoning for believing it in the first place rather than attack the validity of it and whether or not it makes any sense to pick the particular religion and if the morality of it makes sense, considering that is the basis of religion in general.

Well of course...you are laying down all the ground rules first as to what is valid & invalid. You are basically saying "I can come up with any proof I want, and you cannot disallow me to use it as proof, because it is my belief within my own context". Your bible comes to mind. Using this logic, it is simple to prove your god exists...because the bible says so. Your entire argument begins with the existence of a supernatural realm inhabited by magical spirits which I do not believe exist any more than Santa's Workshop at the North Pole does.

[CrazyAnglican]

Fabled Integral is an atheist. He doesn't consider it his God or his Bible. I'm enjoying listening to the lesson in logic, and having a great time with the number of people that aren't having any of it.

[Backglass]

Fabled Integral is an atheist. He doesn't consider it his God or his Bible. I'm enjoying listening to the lesson in logic, and having a great time with the number of people that aren't having any of it.

OK...Fixed.

No - I'm saying it's not a valid argument to rely on that alone. And it very well could - it was beyond any comprehension by the people back then how lots of the things work now - what's to say that can't be held with religion as well? I'm merely saying that it's a very valid point saying everything evolved from cavemen, and it would be very arrogant to say that our time era is the era in which we finally know everything. We know more than we used to, that is all.

We also have no proof that the legend of the Loch Ness Monster isn't real. By these rules of engagement, it is perfectly valid to assume that it (she) does. Do you believe there is a chance that Nessy is real? I do not as no modern day, verifiable source has ever seen/heard/touched/smelt/felt it. All the stories are from days past....fables not unlike any of the gods that men claim exist.

The entire premise of religion doesn't have to involve proof because of the entire supernatural context which exists outside the realm of the natural. So those arguments don't work. If you want to attack the validity of religion don't attack something within your own context and expect the other side to abandon yours. You're basically saying "the way my belief system works involves proof, and even though yours doesn't NEED proof to be valid according to your context, it thus is invalid." Well by their standards it isn't. Instead, you should question the reasoning for believing it in the first place rather than attack the validity of it and whether or not it makes any sense to pick the particular religion and if the morality of it makes sense, considering that is the basis of religion in general.

Well of course...you are laying down all the ground rules first as to what is valid & invalid. You are basically saying "christians can come up with any proof they want, and you cannot disallow them to use it as proof, because it is their belief within their own context". Their bible comes to mind. Using this logic, it is simple to prove their god exists...because their bible says so. This entire argument begins with the existence of a supernatural realm inhabited by magical spirits which I do not believe exist any more than Santa's Workshop at the North Pole does.

[CrazyAnglican]

Well of course...you are laying down all the ground rules first as to what is valid & invalid. You are basically saying "christians can come up with any proof they want, and you cannot disallow them to use it as proof, because it is their belief within their own context". Their bible comes to mind. Using this logic, it is simple to prove their god exists...because their bible says so. This entire argument begins with the existence of a supernatural realm inhabited by magical spirits which I do not believe exist any more than Santa's Workshop at the North Pole does.

The problem with this reasoning is that nobody is using the Bible to prove anything. The converse to the faries, Santa Claus, leprechauns argument is where do you stop applying it? It could logically go to the point that no discovery is necessary as their is no reason to believe that their isn't anything we've not seen/touched/ etc. until some little whatsit comes up and jumps in our laps. It's the opposite of the "The Bible says so" argument. It seems designed to shut the opposition down before any real debate can take place.

[FabledIntegral]

First, because I wanted to.

Second, because I made a relevent response to the previous post.

Third, because, while I did the OP, you have taken this thread off topic and I was looking for a way to bring it back.

Fourth, because I can.

1. You responded with meaningless dribble then. We were having a debate, come in and argue for one side, and then say "well I never even thought that in the first place." Whatever dude, be juvenile if you want.

2. Then why did you quote me on my post and continue responding when I had made just as relevant as a response and never failed from doing so? That would be YOU derailing the subject at hand.

3. You clearly stated via PM's that you had no problem where porky was taking the topic. For a while it turned into meaningless gibberish of arguments that were not actually having a debate about religion, which IS what porky was posting about and which you said was ok. Thus I never deviated off-topic. Please show me the post in which I did so, if you can back up your claim.

4. Once again - awesome maturity.

[Backglass]

The problem with this reasoning is that nobody is using the Bible to prove anything.

And I didn't say they were at this time (although it is often used). I said that assuming any argument is valid within a persons context, this too would be valid.

The converse to the faries, Santa Claus, leprechauns argument is where do you stop applying it? It could logically go to the point that no discovery is necessary as their is no reason to believe that their isn't anything we've not seen/touched/ etc. until some little whatsit comes up and jumps in our laps.

And if any of those creatures do jump in my lap, I will believe in them as well. This also goes for the Yeti, Bigfoot, Unicorn and Chupacabra.

It's the opposite of the "The Bible says so" argument. It seems designed to shut the opposition down before any real debate can take place.

Well, the entire debate is rooted in stories and superstition that you believe are in fact true. To me it's akin to seriously debating how long Centaurs live or why Werewolves don't just shave. You probably see this comparison as silly, but to me they are the same.

[mpjh]

4