On religion (in particular Christianity), rationality, and this forum - are we allowed to discuss it?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

What? nobody contests that was a real person.

Well for one the name Jesus would never have existed.

But that there was an angry Jew at that time fed up with how their elite was treating the general Jew population? Sure there was. There was alot of them in fact. That there was a Jew teaching something different then from the mainstream Jewish teachings? Sure. Probably happening.

It's not like this happened out of nowhere.

Well exactly, but it's not exactly hard to see the elephant in the room, as far as legend is concerned.

As painful as it is to say this there are those who don't. As bizarre as this sounds there are many things which the majority believes which a subset of the population doesn't. If we live on a planet that, despite being proven to be round, some people think is flat, or that crop circles are from aliens, just about anything could be doubted by someone.

Wow. Trump was bad, but now this?

Let's not bring politics or anything politics related into the discussion - its already a very sensitive topic as it is

Some say it's more an issue of sociology. What are you trying to get to the middle of in this thread, specifically speaking anyway?

[Ixthos]

Let's say at the very least I believe in an Arthur-like figure. Most of my convictions come from an audio-lecture series which I am struggling to relocate.

If you manage to locate it again please let me know - that sounds very interesting. I don't know if it would be enough to convince me, but I have a curiosity for Arthurian legends and how they came about (there also is a great book series which is long and infamous called the Wheel of Time, which I enjoy, that uses Arthurian legends as part of the basis for the setting - the main main character is called Rand Al'thor, another legendary character in the setting is called Artur Hawkwing, and two of the secondary main characters are based on Norse mythology. Also, the female-only magic users are based on an island called Tar Valon (Avalon)).

What? nobody contests that was a real person.

Well for one the name Jesus would never have existed.

But that there was an angry Jew at that time fed up with how their elite was treating the general Jew population? Sure there was. There was alot of them in fact. That there was a Jew teaching something different then from the mainstream Jewish teachings? Sure. Probably happening.

It's not like this happened out of nowhere.

Well exactly, but it's not exactly hard to see the elephant in the room, as far as legend is concerned.

...

Let's not bring politics or anything politics related into the discussion - its already a very sensitive topic as it is

Some say it's more an issue of sociology. What are you trying to get to the middle of in this thread, specifically speaking anyway?

I'm glad you asked that as I was thinking about clarifying that and was wondering how and when to do it. The main idea is to challenge the idea that being religious requires being unreasonable, or gullible, or surrendering your mind to another. I am a Christian and don't follow any other faith (aside from my respect for Judaism as the root faith of mine, and which I believe is partially right), but still I don't like seeing members of other religions presented as fools, even though I disagree with them.

Now no doubt there are those who have given up their reason in any given faith, and in the West Christianity is the most prominent religion and so the demagogues and fanatics and charlatans who dress themselves in a cloak of Christianity, some sincerely and some with a hidden agenda, have certainly presented Christianity in a cancerous cast, but that is not the whole story. My goal, though addressing the idea of religions in general, is mainly focused on countering this idea about Christianity. As I've said I don't follow any other religion, and if I am able to have a frank discussion with a member of another religion, or an atheist or agnostic, I will try to win them over, but when I see religion being presented as the domain of the ignorant, that deeply irritates me. Indeed, Who Watches the Watchers was an episode of Star Trek that I had mixed feelings about for a long time, but Chuck's review has given me a new appreciation for that episode, as the pseudo-religion of the Prime Directive was pitted against the primitive superstition - and it ultimately was about beliefs both justified and unjustified, and dogma.

My goal is centred on Christianity, and to challenge the idea that it is a religion without foundation. I would also like to challenge certain other ideas, such as what faith actually is (in short - faithfulness; like trusting a parent who you know has strong arms to catch you when you jump after they have told you to), and to put forth some arguments that it is likely many here haven't heard before.

My main argument is this: Christianity has evidence. It might not be enough to convince you, but then perhaps it might. Each piece might or might not be enough in and of itself to prove the claim, but together they make a strong case. I am not trying to lay out the full and ultimate proof that Jesus is God and the only means of salvation, only to make you think, and to question, and to look. I am trying to show that you can be Christian and rational at the same time, and while there are many who started as Christians and became atheists, there are just as many who started as atheists and on the basis of rationality became Christian.

Being rational in an of itself doesn't mean you are right, but it also means you have given the issue some thought, and examined the evidence - after all, who on this forum thinks they are making all their choices rationally also agrees with every other choice or belief of those around them who also claim to be making their choices rationally? Indeed, how many counter intuitive properties and paradoxes of the universe and logic do we know to be true but haven't actually tested for ourselves, taking on the words of others? Perhaps, seeing some of the evidence and hearing the appeals, this will be enough to make some who read this look deeper and find themselves surprised, and change their own attitudes and beliefs - and anyone who is reasonable should be prepared to do so, whether or not they think they will be, when presented with arguments that both make a claim and back it up.

So, in summary, my goal is to challenge the idea that Christianity doesn't have any evidence, that being Christian means having to ignore the evidence or deny science and logic and reason. There certainly are those who do, but there are also those who, using reason and examining the evidence, have become Christian.

[Admiral X]

Something tells me that you'd be wasting you time with this crowd.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

My main argument is this: Christianity has evidence. It might not be enough to convince you, but then perhaps it might. Each piece might or might not be enough in and of itself to prove the claim, but together they make a strong case. I am not trying to lay out the full and ultimate proof that Jesus is God and the only means of salvation, only to make you think, and to question, and to look. I am trying to show that you can be Christian and rational at the same time, and while there are many who started as Christians and became atheists, there are just as many who started as atheists and on the basis of rationality became Christian.

As far as I can tell, the speculative problem with Christianity isn't unavoidable damnation. It's more a lack of motivational accountability.

And really, any argumentation by atheists I'm aware of has never been to challenge the social doctrines adhering to God but just the metaphysical validity of a creator of the physical universe, which is utterly inconsequential to consideration of a practicing religion.

[Ixthos]

Something tells me that you'd be wasting you time with this crowd.

Perhaps, though I do owe them a chance to re-evaluate their beliefs, to allow them to show that they are rational and to show the rationality behind Christianity. Perhaps it will all be for nothing, but if there is a chance even one starts to think, starts to question, starts to learn, then it will matter. I don't have to convince them, but I do have to try - thanks for the encouragement though

My main argument is this: Christianity has evidence. It might not be enough to convince you, but then perhaps it might. Each piece might or might not be enough in and of itself to prove the claim, but together they make a strong case. I am not trying to lay out the full and ultimate proof that Jesus is God and the only means of salvation, only to make you think, and to question, and to look. I am trying to show that you can be Christian and rational at the same time, and while there are many who started as Christians and became atheists, there are just as many who started as atheists and on the basis of rationality became Christian.

As far as I can tell, the speculative problem with Christianity isn't unavoidable damnation. It's more a lack of motivational accountability.

And really, any argumentation by atheists I'm aware of has never been to challenge the social doctrines adhering to God but just the metaphysical validity of a creator of the physical universe, which is utterly inconsequential to consideration of a practicing religion.

For some religions that is true, especially anamistic ones, though my personal experiences with atheists usually involve them starting their rejection of religion relates either to the idea that there isn't any proof for God or any given religion (though often with some form of appreciation expressed for Buddhism, sometimes for the general perception of it or seeing it as an atheistic religion or philosophy even when disagreeing with it), or that even if the religion is true it is immoral, both views (lack of evidence and immorality) I disagree with, even when I can understand and appreciate the motivation behind each view. I certainly can appreciate those who look at the behaviours of many who call themselves Christians, whether or not they are, and use them as an indictment on the whole faith, up to and including concluding faith is dangerous (indeed, something that makes me deeply angry - more so than atheists calling the religious fools - is when Christians and those claiming to be Christians give the faith a bad name), and likewise those who apply it to all religions. It is an issue for me, however, when they then use faulty logic or cherry pick that data to draw conclusions about religion or Christianity on the whole.

On the issue of whether or not the universe needs a creator, that is an entirely new issue that could take up a whole other conversation, but in general I find that type of argument or discussion to be self refuting, kind of like the idea of p-zombies (a thought experiment about people who act like people in every way but internally lack consciousness), being something that any framework which assumes it to be the case contains a contradiction. In this case, the presence of order and the presence of a finitely locatable beginning.

(Also, heads up to everyone, I'm hoping to get the data points post up by Friday, though it might go up earlier or by Saturday. Until then, and to everyone who has participated in this thread, thank you, and I hope your week is a great one!)

[Madner Kami]

Something tells me that you'd be wasting you time with this crowd.

Perhaps, though I do owe them a chance to re-evaluate their beliefs, to allow them to show that they are rational and to show the rationality behind Christianity. Perhaps it will all be for nothing, but if there is a chance even one starts to think, starts to question, starts to learn, then it will matter. I don't have to convince them, but I do have to try - thanks for the encouragement though

The condescension from your words is dripping on the floor. I suggest to clean that up, before you slip.

[Ixthos]

Something tells me that you'd be wasting you time with this crowd.

Perhaps, though I do owe them a chance to re-evaluate their beliefs, to allow them to show that they are rational and to show the rationality behind Christianity. Perhaps it will all be for nothing, but if there is a chance even one starts to think, starts to question, starts to learn, then it will matter. I don't have to convince them, but I do have to try - thanks for the encouragement though

The condescension from your words is dripping on the floor. I suggest to clean that up, before you slip.

Perhaps. I don't see any myself, but I apologise if that is in some way a reflection of my own attitude. I am not meaning to be condescending, and I do apologise if I was.

Still, while you are here, could you perhaps address some of my rebuttals you your points from earlier? You haven't really engaged with me in the four responses I've made to you, just to one of them, just making a point and then ignoring my responses to them with one exception earlier.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

My main argument is this: Christianity has evidence. It might not be enough to convince you, but then perhaps it might. Each piece might or might not be enough in and of itself to prove the claim, but together they make a strong case. I am not trying to lay out the full and ultimate proof that Jesus is God and the only means of salvation, only to make you think, and to question, and to look. I am trying to show that you can be Christian and rational at the same time, and while there are many who started as Christians and became atheists, there are just as many who started as atheists and on the basis of rationality became Christian.

As far as I can tell, the speculative problem with Christianity isn't unavoidable damnation. It's more a lack of motivational accountability.

And really, any argumentation by atheists I'm aware of has never been to challenge the social doctrines adhering to God but just the metaphysical validity of a creator of the physical universe, which is utterly inconsequential to consideration of a practicing religion.

For some religions that is true, especially anamistic ones, though my personal experiences with atheists usually involve them starting their rejection of religion relates either to the idea that there isn't any proof for God or any given religion (though often with some form of appreciation expressed for Buddhism, sometimes for the general perception of it or seeing it as an atheistic religion or philosophy even when disagreeing with it), or that even if the religion is true it is immoral, both views (lack of evidence and immorality) I disagree with, even when I can understand and appreciate the motivation behind each view. I certainly can appreciate those who look at the behaviours of many who call themselves Christians, whether or not they are, and use them as an indictment on the whole faith, up to and including concluding faith is dangerous (indeed, something that makes me deeply angry - more so than atheists calling the religious fools - is when Christians and those claiming to be Christians give the faith a bad name), and likewise those who apply it to all religions. It is an issue for me, however, when they then use faulty logic or cherry pick that data to draw conclusions about religion or Christianity on the whole.

On the issue of whether or not the universe needs a creator, that is an entirely new issue that could take up a whole other conversation, but in general I find that type of argument or discussion to be self refuting, kind of like the idea of p-zombies (a thought experiment about people who act like people in every way but internally lack consciousness), being something that any framework which assumes it to be the case contains a contradiction. In this case, the presence of order and the presence of a finitely locatable beginning.

(Also, heads up to everyone, I'm hoping to get the data points post up by Friday, though it might go up earlier or by Saturday. Until then, and to everyone who has participated in this thread, thank you, and I hope your week is a great one!)

This all being said, I'm still particularly uncertain why you are debating the historical accuracy of instances such as the flood involving Noah's Arc or the materialistic reimagining of Yeshua. I don't find it very hard to find their social significance, most defensible as fables/metaphors for rather humanely extraordinary yet tangibly ordinary social phenomena.

Atheists arguing about "proof of God" namely represents what I had just asked about: metaphysical underpinnings that derail what we know about the physical universe. God also happens to have an exclusively social facet as well, much more only brushing with supernaturality instead of depending on it. Atheists kind of argue against this, but it's kind of just part and parcel with the objective reality argument, and becomes an issue due to personal experiences being the common account of evidence for the existence of God. Social relevance isn't really the point of dispute here, just that it does depend on a physically invalid being. Any matters of coincidence end up being just that, and completely ignore the overall social significance.

Perversion of social order beyond that isn't really an argument in objective validity, but more a social observation. You're completely right in that it's largely anecdotal, and a red herring as far as an overall indictment of religion iirc. But, emphasizing again here, speculation about supernatural events ties much more with the former concern than latter.

[Beastro]

This all being said, I'm still particularly uncertain why you are debating the historical accuracy of instances such as the flood involving Noah's Arc or the materialistic reimagining of Yeshua. I don't find it very hard to find their social significance, most defensible as fables/metaphors for rather humanely extraordinary yet tangibly ordinary social phenomena.

I'm tired and I'm prolly gonna muddle this, I need to throw this out.

Depends on what is meant by that, the role of the symbolic and how "reality" meshes up with symbolism. That the symbolism can be more real than the materialistic perspective we're used to seeing things through. It's not an easy nor small thing to go into.

It took me awhile to grasp and largely revolves around the fact that the world is too complex for each one of us to individually navigate through taking the whole in. Things need to be simplified, but those simplifications are not falsities, they are distilling down the essence of what really matters that is "more real than real".

An example of that is that I could ask you to show me the nation you live in. I'm assuming it's America where you're at. You could go and point to a random location and I could say that's just the sky, or a mountain or some natural feature. You take me to city hall or the police station and point to it and I could say those are just buildings. You could point to your flag and I could say it's just a bit of cloth with some coloured lines and 50 stars on it.

You can't show me America, and yet America is everywhere around you. Inhabiting it, it surrounds you and it actually lives within through how much of the culture you have absorbed. There is a spirit there in the same sense that sports teams have spirit.

It's in this context that we can say "Japan bombed America on Dec. 7th 1941 at Pearl Harbour and America crossed the Pacific waging war until Japan was defeated." America and Japan didn't do these things; millions of people, machines and munitions did, but we don't say it's silly to say such a thing (Though I have seen people make such ultra0literalist quips) because we understand what is being said in such encapsulating language.

So did Noah's Flood happen? Yes and no. Not from a materialist and literalist Ken Ham perspective, but within that story contains what matters in what is trying to be conveyed, and that isn't simply touching on something like the rising sea levels of the pre-historical world, which is again another materialist and literalist perspective, though that isn't entirely wrong. The fact is that may be one of many things contained in that story, as is the metaphorical matter of allowing chaos to build eventually brings a flood of disaster upon you (and more, above all tying into the rest of the Bible and how self-referential it is).

There is also the simple, evolutionary function of what has survived and how much is packed into the Bible. It's why I like Genesis so much. You can feel tens of thousands of years of human existence fly by on a few pages, billions go by on the first page in a way that expresses itself most importantly to human understanding. That is comparable to asking in 10,000 years which is more important to knowing about WWII? The sum total information we have about the war, or a story which distills the gist of what is really important about the war into something that will actually last that long, because nothing voluminous will survive that long.

Does that mean such a story would be false? I'd only say so with a modern mindset towards things being deliberate products of minds with an angle set. That is not what the Bible is to me. No matter the intent of the authors, it all comes together to produce something of coherence from the incoherence of many hands. For me, that is the hand of God moving over the waters.

And if someone is going to say that X contradicts Y so how can I say it's coherent, then I'm sorry, you're looking at it too much from a modernist perspective, which I why the Bible is so misunderstood. Look on it as a dream. You can say this part of a dream didn't mesh with this other part and it doesn't make sense, but the important thing is what you took away from the depth and impression of the dream. I've had some very potent dreams whose "sense" I don't care about. They've been about figures marching up to me and lecturing me on the part I'm playing in impairing my mental health, which is then counter-argued by others making contrary points which I take as an internal dialogue I'm having with myself.

I could go on, but I'll leave it at this, I fear I'll just get lost in rambling.

Pageau can be annoying to grasp and it's been awhile since I watched these:

The first one stands out for me given an experience I had months back. I found a frog in town around midnight walking home, hopping through the neighbourhood. I heard the nearby pond kilometers off with all the other frogs ribbiting he was going towards to mate with. I thought it would probably take him days to get there, if he ever did. He'd have roads with cars trying to squish him, yards with fences, cats trying to kill him and the highway to finally cross. I decided it would take me half an hour to take him close enough to the pond to know he was safe because we need all the frogs we can in this world given their declining populations and I'd lose about a mere hour of my night if I did so. So I did.

While I was doing so, I realized the roads were littered with earthworms. Every couple feet was a worm. I'm the kind of person that picked them up when I go past and toss them into bushes or onto grass so they won't dry out and die or get picked off when daylight comes. Going along, I realized I could spend all night and the following day picking up worms and how that wasn't what I should do. I couldn't save them all and that would distract me from my intention of bringing that frog to his friends. I ignored the worms and kept going, dropped the frog off and went back home.

Now why is this important? I'm studying to be a counselor. I have to know my boundaries and that I can't actually help anyone who doesn't want help themselves. That night, I could look on through strict materialist eyes and say it was coincidence and there's no meaning to it all, but what will make a bigger impact (and a more positive one, too) is me recognizing that symbolic lesson that night and keeping it in mind. Rationality has it's place, but it can't exclude the rest, especially since not all of irrationality is evil and silly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Ibs67ke6c&list

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w7TQ1K ... 5f&index=3

[Madner Kami]

Now why is this important? I'm studying to be a counselor. I have to know my boundaries and that I can't actually help anyone who doesn't want help themselves. That night, I could look on through strict materialist eyes and say it was coincidence and there's no meaning to it all, but what will make a bigger impact (and a more positive one, too) is me recognizing that symbolic lesson that night and keeping it in mind. Rationality has it's place, but it can't exclude the rest, especially since not all of irrationality is evil and silly.

I'm not quite sure whether you are quoting from the videos you link or whether that is something that you yourself encountered, but: The lesson you took from that happening is subject to the same problems you mentioned earlier, namely our inherent inability to comprehend complex issues in their whole, needing abstraction to achieve any understanding of the matter. In other words: You made up a lesson from random, unconnected happenstances, whose only connection is you. The lesson from that story is in essence the same thing that happens, when you stare at a carpet that has a random structure. After you looked at it for a while, the structures will start to move, to swirl and you'll see things in the randomness, that simply aren't there. Similarly pictures like this:



Some see two faces, some see a vase. But in reality it's neither. It's just a bunch of lines and coloured areas. To transpose it to your story, the faces you see is the lesson you took, that you can't solve everyone's problem. Someone else sees a vase and that same person experiencing that night wouldn't take the lesson, that one has to pick his fights, but instead learn the lesson that he isn't selfless enough, because unlike you, he didn't return home and end the night there. He instead brought the frog to the pond and then returned to the worms, saving as many as he could, before inevitably day breaks, the birds, the cars and the sun come and end the lives of the worms remaining on the roads. Yet others saw the frog and walked by, thinking nothing of it. Saw the worms wiggling, went by and had a good long night's rest, before having to go to yet another day full of work and problems being heaped upon them by others. They saw the lines and coloured areas and took the lesson, that they needed some goddamn sleep already, before falling apart mentally and physically, as they already saw faces and vases where they shouldn't be...

And here I am. I see the lines and coloured areas. I see the faces, I see the vase and the lesson I take from that is, that each is equally valid and each is equally meaningless and that the only thing that gives these lines or colours meaning is, the person who looks at them. And you know what unites them all beyond their meaningless? The complete absence of a higher being giving meaning and signs. People come and go and they interpret things in each their own distinct way, based on their experiences and state of mind. This is how things have always been, this is how things will always be, until we can manage to create direct mental links and erase individuality and in doing so, erase ourselves and loosing all perspectives.

And at Ixthos: I deliberately am not answering you, because from everything you write I just get one message. You are not here to discuss, get a different perspective, challenge your own believes and have an open mind about the views of others. You are here to spread your believes, your view, to convert and to condescend to those who see things differently. Your mind is closed and was made up far up in advance of appearing here and I've learned one lesson from loooking at the lines in my life recently: I don't have enough time to allow others to deliberately waste it. I'm putting up with that, where I must. But here? I don't have to, gladly. And if you want to change my perception of your lines, then you should start by not automatically assuming that you are in the right, while everyone speaking against you, is wrong by definition.