Mageth

There's big differences, Radorth. One doesn't have to "submit" to anything external. One can realize and follow one's own path and not be possessed by some being that "will[s] and work[s] in us the things which please him."

And, BTW, one doesn't have to spend anything on dolls, incense and teachers. And you seem to forget your god demands that tithe, along with submission to his will in all other areas of your life.

Rational BAC

OK ---I'm trying out this new (to me) system

If you believe (as I do) that it is quite probable that the Bible is just a man made and man inspired attempt to put down on paper an oral tradition of a supernatural type event that happened 40-50 years before.-----------Then-----------What can you do but cherry pick?

Of course the 2nd option----the one that atheists choose---is to say that nothing happened at all. That a religion with ideas so powerful that it has today close to 2 billion adherants is based on NOTHING AT ALL---a large mass hallucination of some kind-------a tall tale that got out of hand and found a whole bunch of gullible people to believe it had some truth in it.

That one I don't buy. It does not seem very probable or rational to me. But ---if that is the choice you have made---then OK with me. We can agree to disagree on that one.

fishbulb

You are clearly making an emotional, not rational argument. You assume something is true because you are most comfortable with the idea that it is. That is not a logical or rational stance to take. The term most commonly used to describe the kind of justification you are using is "wishful thinking."

Other people have been raised with other traditions and beliefs. What makes you think your traditions are correct while theirs are wrong?

"Best" is a subjective term. Equating most intelligent with best betrays a personal bias; intelligence is not an objective measure of worth or quality. But why do you think it is so absurd that we are the most intelligent life in the Universe? I can think of no principled reason to assume that we cannot be, though it may be reasonable to assume that we are probably not the most technologically advanced beings that exist.

You haven't stated your premises (the reasons why humans are not the "highest" life form in the Universe) so it is not possible to determine whether or not your conclusion is logical. In fact, it seems that your argument is "it strikes me as absurd, so it must not be true." That is not a logical argument. You have to explain why it would be absurd that humans are the "highest" (and define what you mean by that) life form in the Universe.

Imagine a lime green velour leisure suit in your closet. Is that possible? Of course. Is there a lime green velour leisure suit in your closet? If so, groovy, man. If not, observe the difference between possible and actual.

As long as we are making leaps of faith, there is no reason to stop anywhere. But if we are taking a rational look at things, there is no reason to even start.

Why stop there? Why not a whole race of all-knowing, all-seeing entities made of pure thought, transcending matter and energy and existing in a form not even conceivable to us? With a stable of winged unicorns on which they ride through the ethereal plane, jaunting from Universe to Universe.

Does that sound ridiculous? It does to me. But you have no justification for making the leap of faith that you do and then declaring that that is a good place to stop. You simply say, "it is possible that what I would like to be true is, in fact, true, so let's just assume it is and ignore all of the other possibilities."

There is practically no limit to what we can fantasise or envision possible, but just because we can dream it doesn't mean it exists.

In the end, none of what you say would lead anyone to Christianity. You are simply taking what you already believe to be true and making assumptions and interpretations that validate what you already believe. But surely you can see that anyone can do this for any belief they happen to hold. It's all really pointless. If you have already made up your mind, there is no point in looking for evidence.

fishbulb

Why is that so hard to believe? Even today, we know of urban legends that become so widely accepted that even people we expect ought to know better come to believe them. Compared to the people of 2000 years ago, we are an extremely skeptical lot. Imagine how much easier it would have been to convince people who generally believed in magic and miracles. Imagine how much easier it would be when the largest, most powerful government in the world made it the basis for their state religion. And once a myth gains general acceptance, it is passed down as truth from generation to generation. It has nothing to do with hallucination. We don't know what the story of Jesus is based on. Perhaps it is largely factual, perhaps it is based loosely on actual events, perhaps it is entirely fictional. There is really no way to tell what, if anything, really happened in Gallilee and Jerusalem around 30-35 C.E.

Atheists don't deny the possibility that there could be some, perhaps even a great deal, of truth behind the Jesus myth. Atheists are just unwilling to make the leap of faith and believe that something did happen and, moreover, it was divinely orchastrated. But atheists aren't the only ones who don't make that leap of faith. Jews generally don't believe that anything of spiritual significance happened. Many Muslims do, but they regard Jesus as an important prophet and not the son of God. How many Sikhs or Hindus believe that the Jesus myth holds any supernatural truths?

A large majority of people on Earth do not believe that Jesus is the messiah, saviour, or son of God. At the very least, a small majority or large minority do not even believe that the events described in the Jesus myth are even real. Atheists are in the minority when it comes to belief in some god, but they are clearly in the majority when it comes to belief in Christianity.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Thanks Treakle--

You're welcome, glad that it helps

If you believe (as I do) that it is quite probable that the Bible is just a man made and man inspired attempt to put down on paper an oral tradition of a supernatural type event that happened 40-50 years before.-----------Then-----------What can you do but cherry pick?

Ummm, I'm not really sure how to phrase my question so you understand it. I'm not challenging your decision to cherry pick per se.
You've stated previously in the thread that you feel "guided" in what you choose from the Bible. What I'm trying to find out is where you think this guidance comes from. Presumably your guiding "spirit" (or however you choose to define it) is what led you to the Bible in the first place.

So, how does this spirit manifest itself? How did you know that it was leading you to the Bible (as opposed to another holy text, or philosophy, or even something like "Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance")? How do you know when your guide tells you to choose one verse & ignore another?

I'm most interested in how you first became aware of this guide.

Of course the 2nd option----the one that atheists choose---is to say that nothing happened at all. That a religion with ideas so powerful that it has today close to 2 billion adherants is based on NOTHING AT ALL---a large mass hallucination of some kind-------a tall tale that got out of hand and found a whole bunch of gullible people to believe it had some truth in it.

But presumably that means that every other religion with above a certain number of adherants also contains truth. I'm afraid I don't think argumentum ad populum is very convincing. Just because a certain number of people speak Klingon or Quenya doesn't mean that either the Klingons or the High Elves exist.

That one I don't buy. It does not seem very probable or rational to me. But ---if that is the choice you have made---then OK with me. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But of course.

TW

Mageth

Originally posted by Tercel
Why is that a bad concept? You need only take a quick look at the world to see that man ain't perfect.

No, humans are humans. "Perfection" is another one of those concepts that belong on the scrap heap. And perfection, as you use it, is a part of another false dichotomy religions put on us humans - perfection/corruption. God's perfect, man's corrupt; to seek perfection, one must ask for it from god. Perfection/corruption, good/evil - pretty much the same concepts.

Humans aren't perfect, and they aren't "corrupt." They aren't "good" and they aren't "evil." They're just what they are - humans, a species of intelligent naked ape.

Our "salvation" won't be found in some external god - if we want "saving", we'd better get busy, because it's our job.

In addition, the biblical concept of corruption extends to all of Nature, not just man. You may not believe this, but a lot of xians do - that all of Nature was corrupted by the Fall. So the perfection/corruption concept extends into a perfect heaven/corrupt earth dichotomy. And a corrupted earth to be "tamed" by man - historically an unhealthy attitude.

I don't really see why a good/evil dichotomy is bad - surely if everything believe in good/evil and did their best to do good the world would be a better place than in a world where everyone considered them both okay?

Did I say everyone is to consider both good and evil okay, especially to do? No, I didn't. One can recognize good and evil without applying the biblical good/evil definition to it. One can recognize that what we label "good" and "evil" are aspects of the same existence, and don't spring from opposing celestial forces and are not synonymous with "god's will" and "not god's will." And such a one can choose to do good and avoid evil. It doesn't take god for one to accept "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as a good principle by which to live one's life.

The biblical good/evil dichotomy is largely what got us into the spot we're in now - major world religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism that have an us/them world view. We're the true religion, they're false religions. We're good, they're evil. Our god is the true god, they serve the devil.

I don't think it's fair to say that Christianity considers man "evil" either.

What I said was that Christianity considers man sinful and thus falling on the evil side (or the side of evil, if you will). Do you disagree with that? I think it's a pretty accurate description of the way most Christians consider the default human condition.

Christianity sees Christ as being within you as well as external, so I don't see your point about Buddhism.

You're interpreting "Christ" from a Christian perspective. That's not the same concept of Buddha/Christ in Buddhism. There's no third party that "possesses" you in Buddhism. In Buddhism, you realize the Buddha/Christ within you. The Buddha/Christ is not some entity, it's not a god. It's really indescribable, but I can give it a shot.

It's a recognition of the fundamental, indescribable Mystery within, and underlying, all of us, indeed all of nature. That Mystery is not god. To call it "god" is to describe it, to label it, to personify it, to box it in, to destroy it. Some call it "life" or "life-force", but neither are wholly satisfying. And by recognizing the commonality of yourself, all other humans, and indeed all of nature as participants in this Mystery, one can obtain inner peace, and a reverent, peaceful life.

Well, that might sound nice to your average politically correct postmodernist, but I wouldn't consider that a bonus myself.

So, you'd rather have billions of people competing in mutually exclusive world religions, each considering themselves the "most true religion", each considering their team "good" and the other teams "evil", and thus continuing the conflicts we've seen throughout history and continue to see today? Incredible. If opposing such a divisive worldview makes me "politically correct" and "postmodernist", so be it. "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Bree

Perhaps you need to brush up on your literature - did Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde teach you nothing?

Quote:

"Greater good is halfway back to bad."

CaptainOfOuterSpace

Rational BAC -

Your very name is an oxymoron.

Starboy

As far as I can tell Rational BAC considers his Christian beliefs to be rational because he doesn't appear to believe in much of what is commonly associated with Christian belief. It would appear that he is only a Christian for no other reason than that is what he calls himself.

Starboy

CaptainOfOuterSpace

First, define what you mean by "adherants." No two Christians have exactly the same beliefs, and a lot of Christians would consider what you're doing an abomination. The diversity of belief within Christianity is as great as the diversity of the world's religions themselves.

There are good reasons why there are so many adherents of christianity today. Its earliest forms were enforced with fear, and its opponents were exterminated. The religion itself is fear-based. After hundreds of years, the belief became increasingly virulent, especially in a vertical pattern. That is, parents feel extremely strongly compelled to teach the religion to their children at a young age (also through the use of fear).

Perhaps yours is not an instance of cherry-picking Christianity, but rather an instance of just-in-case Christianity. That's why you still can't justify your beliefs to anyone. (How can your beliefs be based on "faith" if your name contains the word "Rational"?)