Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

Thank-you, that's usually the best plan. Sometimes I have a hard time following all the big schooled people. Your conclusion does indeed follow from your premise.But this isn't what you're being told in this thread.You're being informed that your premise is incorrect.
You're being informed that people can believe in a certain religion without accepting "a certain set of doctrinal beliefs to be an absolute truth."So, now what? This statement is not valid.Such a position doesn't mean it's "not really religion"... what it means is that your idea of what "really is religion" is incorrect.The issue is your pre-conceived idea of what religion must be.Can you show me that your idea of what a religion is must be true? That it cannot possibly be any other way?I can show you that jar is, really, "in a religion."

quote:

---

Religion

​

• the belief in a god or in a group of gods
• an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
• an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

---

jar is, obviously, all 3 of these things (in being Episcopalian).
They don't say anything about "absolute truth."Therefore... jar is in a religion.
He may not be in a religion as you think of the term. But I am unaware of any force that makes your thoughts the only way things can actually be. Exactly.
And, you can see (hopefully) that if someone does not have any "absolute" core religious tenants in their religion... then they would not have such a problem.

Again, that post simply shows how totally ignorant about Christianity and limited in your thinking ability you are at this stage, but that can be cured if you want and are willing to work at it.Granted the Christian Cult of Ignorance chapters of Club Christian do teach such utter nonsense but that is partly what drives any thinking people away from the religion.If Jesus was divine while living here on earth among us then his death would have been meaningless and just make God look stupid. Humans can't just kill Gods. That's one way to tell if something really is a God. So if that were the case then Jesus death and resurrection are just a sham, a con-job.Further, if God can forgive sins then the act gets even funnier. Are you claiming that God decides that instead of just forgiving sins She decides to put on a human costume, get killed, reborn and only then forgive sins? And someone is expected to believe that?Not all chapters of Christianity are so shallow and simplistic as to use that as the basis of their beliefs.BUT ... imagine a God actually becoming human, not part god part human, not god and human, not god in a human costume but just human. Imagine god not able to walk or talk or control his bowels or feed himself and having to learn to see and hear and understand and learn to walk and learn to talk and learn to go potty...Imagine god knowing nothing more than what he is taught and experienced over thirty years; not all knowing, all powerful, just another human.Now that is a sacrifice.Imagine that god now only human living a life to teach by example. To teach us what a human can be, to say "Here, look, this is what human is and can be."Imagine this Jesus saying "Take up your cross and follow me; feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, comfort the sorrowful, teach the ignorant..."Christianity can be more than just a religion based on "What's in it for me?" or "Jesus the get outta hell card."

That's the No True Christian fallacy.You don't get to decide what every single Christian must believe.

But why can't you embrace some (because if you take all of them you still end up with things like slavery being okay, etc) of Jesus' teachings without having to adhere to the religious aspect involving him? If you aren't completely positive that "He" is the Lord and savior of mankind, why cling on to that idea before there's any evidence to really know? People who get on a religion kick are always certain they are right and that they are adhering to "truth" and it becomes a reality for them. If they weren't so dedicated to it it wouldn't be a religion in the first place.Science CAN obviate certain beliefs held by a certain religion. Let's say hypothetically that one of the chief tenants of a religion is that "God said the earth is flat". Science has accidentally rendered that idea to be highly implausible.Obviously there's no way to disprove the existence of any god or any religion, but when a religion makes certain claims about what reality and the universe holds true and they become controverted by scientific discovery, they become less and less believable. The reason why no one believes in Zeus anymore and Thor is because we figured out how lightning and thunder work WITHOUT those gods. Science didn't intend, of course, to make those gods look ridiculous, it just revealed reality and that reality clashes with those past religious notions.The moment a person holds a religious view as "true", details of said religion aside, they are asserting an idea about how certain things work based on what the deity has revealed to them or in a holy book. Once someone has done that they are setting themselves up to potentially clash with science because science continues to reveal the unknown and much of that "unknown" is currently explained by different religions. When we figure out the reality behind that unknown it's going to step on certain toes of whatever religion happens to be in the way.This is why religion (this is the way things are no matter what) and the principle of science (let's try to figure out the unknown because we don't know) are inherently incompatible. I'm not sure why these concepts are so difficult to figure out?I keep seeing people throw around this idea of "fundamentalism" in order to create some sort of "vast" difference between the "crazy literalists" and a "less hardline religion", but if it's religion there's something it already assumes to be the "truth". Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Jar, I don't need a long epistle about your version of Christianity, the one where you find certain chapters to be "ridiculous" and others to be "not so shallow and simplistic". Obviously you reject certain fundamentalist readings of Scripture which describe the God Yaweh and Jesus and talk about how he came to forgive sins by dying on the cross. So you believe your own wonderful version, but it's not any less dogma. You decided to get rid of the pulp and keep the juice. You seem to think then that God completely gave up his godship and became fully human to become a REAL sacrifice, not just a partial sacrifice...but an "incredible sacrifice". Lovely.Here's more of your doctrine:

quote:

---

"BUT ... imagine a God actually becoming human, not part god part human, not god and human, not god in a human costume but just human. Imagine god not able to walk or talk or control his bowels or feed himself and having to learn to see and hear and understand and learn to walk and learn to talk and learn to go potty...

​

Imagine god knowing nothing more than what he is taught and experienced over thirty years; not all knowing, all powerful, just another human.

​

Now that is a sacrifice.

​

Imagine that god now only human living a life to teach by example. To teach us what a human can be, to say "Here, look, this is what human is and can be."

​

Imagine this Jesus saying "Take up your cross and follow me; feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, comfort the sorrowful, teach the ignorant..."

​

Christianity can be more than just a religion based on "What's in it for me?" or "Jesus the get outta hell card."

---

So should I just "imagine" this as you say or is this something you believe really happened? Okay so we get it, most of the Bible is garbage according to you (bravo for figuring that one out). But oh, this particular teaching, well, you must know that this is what REALLY happened! It must feel similar to being your own prophet. You read what a bunch of people had to say about Jesus but you've been able to crack the code on what really happened.You seem to be one of those unique Christians who somehow can keep Christ and all the characters in the Bible as real but without needing the Bible -- I get it, yes that probably makes your position seem a lot more reasonable than someone who is willing to give the Bible a face value reading. The point is, you still have a bunch of religious ideas that you've managed to come up with that you hold to be true independent of the Bible and that makes it no different in relation to my point than if you were deriving those ideas as a direct interpretation from the Bible. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You're being informed that your premise is incorrect.
You're being informed that people can believe in a certain religion without accepting "a certain set of doctrinal beliefs to be an absolute truth."

​

So, now what?

---

Nonsense. I already said that in that instance it ceases to become a religion and it's just an opinion or idea adhered to until a real answer is found, it's just an "I don't know so I'm going to think this might be the case in the meantime". A religion is a belief system that has a certain set of teachings relating to a god or gods that are already PRESUMED to exist. No one embraces a religion with the idea of "oh well, I'm going to believe this and teach it to others even though I'm not sure it's true".Let's look at the definition you quoted (from m-w I presume):"the belief in a god or in a group of gods" -- But this belief doesn't assume that the "god(s)" really do exist right?"an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods" -- People usually embrace all this to just believe that maybe it's not true, right?
"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" -- I concede that this definition does sort of leave religion to be ANYTHING, even a non religious idea that is "important" to the individual. I guess we should all figure out that when someone says they are religious they just mean they have a certain set of ideas that they REALLY VALUE. Umm, okay. That's not how it is usually meant.You can play semantics on this -- hell, you could even argue that everyone can have their own meaning for any word in the dictionary and that no one really can be the ultimate arbiter on what a word should mean! Why don't we delve into that kind of obfuscatory debate and lose sight of what I'm actually saying?I think we all know what's up. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Tempe, It may be true that many religions are "moving away" from certain dogma but at their core they aren't going to just say "oh btw folks, we really don't know", they are going to keep going...modify, keep going, modify, keep going. The religions that have not survived did not adapt. Any religion that has survived has been forced to adapt to reality throughout the ages as reality is revealed to us through science. They would still rather adapt than ask questions before assuming it. A religion can only go so far though before the probability of a discovery that shakes its core heightens.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Stop misrepresenting my position.Learn to actually read what is written.No where have I said I do not need the Bible. Sorry but the Bible (actually since there is no such thing as "The Bible" I studied most of the Canons as well as extra-canonical writings) is the primary source for any mention of a character Jesus of Nazareth. There are no independent sources for such a person.The connection to the topic though is you assertion that Science and Religion cannot coexist, that because I am religious, devoutly religious, I avoid science or scientific conclusions.You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of meanings of pretty simple words.Believe and know are not synonyms.That is the first step you need to take, Once you fully understand that we can take the next step. Again, stop representing my position.Remember believe and know are not synonyms.That is what I believe happened, but it is irrelevant whether it is what actually happened or not.No where do I say that any part of the Bible is garbage, only a complete fool would make such an assertion and a fool is one thing I am not.What really happened is totally irrelevant.Would the world be better if we feed the hungry, clothed the naked, sheltered the homeless, educated the ignorant, comforted the sorrowful?Even if all the tales about Jesus are just stories told around a campfire (likely camel dung) the message still resonates.

I never said religion and science cannot coexist in terms of one being religious and also embracing scientific ideas. Many religious people accept a whole host of scientific realities. I said that the religious principle (I know my deity is true, I have an understanding of what he/she/they want(s) and it's important to follow it) and the principle that science IS (we need to question what we think we know and figure out what truth is) cannot be compatible. Would it make you feel better if I said that my point is geared to 99.999999% of what a "religion" is supposed to mean (hence the reason it's almost silly trying to make special distinctions)? Minus you, of course, who is almost exclusive among men in having a fleeting "belief" that may very well soon be acknowledged by you as being false the second it becomes almost entirely implausible.

quote:

---

No where do I say that any part of the Bible is garbage, only a complete fool would make such an assertion and a fool is one thing I am not.

---

Oh pardon me, "camel dung".

quote:

---

Remember believe and know are not synonyms.

---

People usually believe something because they think that they are pretty sure it's true. You seem to use the word "believe" extremely lightly, to the point where it becomes an almost trivial inanity. No one really "knows" 100% anything, we should reserve BELIEF for something that has evidence, not as a replacement for "I don't know if this is true or not but I like to think maybe it might be so because it sure sounds like a hoot!!".

quote:

---

Would the world be better if we feed the hungry, clothed the naked, sheltered the homeless, educated the ignorant, comforted the sorrowful?

---

And yes, of course these are great things. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

You simply continue to misrepresent my position, but I'll try yet again. Please show where I said anything like "I don't know if this is true or not but I like to think maybe it might be so because it sure sounds like a hoot".Or you could stop misrepresenting what I write.An honest person when presented evidence that even a strongly held belief has been refuted simply say, "Damn, I was wrong but that sure is interesting." and moves on. But yet you seem unaware that even some religious schools teach students to question God; that even the Bible teaches us that we should be questioning God.Do you understand what "Israel" means?

You already represented the acknowledged weakness of your own belief by exclaiming:

quote:

---

"Even if all the tales about Jesus are just stories told around a campfire (likely camel dung) the message still resonates."

---

This really sounds like a firm belief in Jesus and that you would be completely shaken up and alarmed if you were to ever have to acknowledge that it may not be true! Not. It seems to me you really like the message, and that's fine, I think it's a great message too...more than great, extremely powerful and something we should all be paying more attention to as human beings.

quote:

---

Please show where I said anything like "I don't know if this is true or not but I like to think maybe it might be so because it sure sounds like a hoot".

​

Or you could stop misrepresenting what I write.

---

If your belief is just an idea that you want to think somehow holds merit without any real evidence, that's pretty much a description of the above statement I made. When you really believe something, you actually believe it. You're pretty sure it's right based on personal or scientific evidence. Belief should be something HUGE, not something that one is preparing to relatively swiftly disregard when the evidence comes knocking at the door. If you can't believe with a great deal of certainty, it's best to evaluate the idea against the evidence before taking such a leap.If you're really firm in your belief you should start asking yourself why you believe it and what evidence there is for believing in it. Not the most difficult concept to grasp really, eh?

quote:

---

that even the Bible teaches us that we should be questioning God.

---

I'd love to see a verse for this!

quote:

---

Do you understand what "Israel" means?

---

Something to the effect of: "Victorious with El (the Sumerian chief god later becoming a synonym for "god" in general -- alluding to Yaweh which was derived from El)"Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Not quite. And this is important. It means "Struggles with God".Remember, Jesus was a Jew not a Christian. If you read the Bible you find that a major theme is both man and god struggling with the concepts of what is right and what is wrong. It's understanding that such questions are complex and not easily solved and that very seldom is there really a right answer. That does seem to be your position. I find that sad and pitiful.Reality is. It does not really care very much what I believe is true and in the end, regardless of my very strongly held beliefs, reality still is.I'd have to be a fool to continue holding a belief once presented with evidence that refutes my belief, and one thing I am not, is a fool.This is not the thread to get into even the Bible teaching us that we should be questioning God but it is there and I can most certainly support that assertion. If you want, start a thread on the subject.

quote:

---

Not quite. And this is important. It means "Struggles with God".

---

Actually, the original literal meaning is disputed and that is only one of the meanings that has been attributed. The definition I gave is at least equally valid. Israel could also mean "Triumphant with El" (identical to what I said before), "El Rules", "El persists", etc etc.

quote:

---

Remember, Jesus was a Jew not a Christian. If you read the Bible you find that a major theme is both man and god struggling with the concepts of what is right and what is wrong. It's understanding that such questions are complex and not easily solved and that very seldom is there really a right answer.

---

That's fine. So lets start asking ourselves questions instead of just believing out of the blue that we get our morals from Jesus necessarily.

quote:

---

That does seem to be your position. I find that sad and pitiful.

---

I stated pretty clearly that when I really believe something it is based on something I feel there is good evidence for.

quote:

---

Reality is. It does not really care very much what I believe is true and in the end, regardless of my very strongly held beliefs, reality still is.

---

You betcha! Now you're preaching to the choir! So let's start thinking about reality and let's ask ourselves what human endeavor has been able to find the most effective answers historically, ones that have translated into human progress and understanding. Hmmm

quote:

---

This is not the thread to get into even the Bible teaching us that we should be questioning God but it is there and I can most certainly support that assertion. If you want, start a thread on the subject.

---

I only asked for a quick verse, not to change the direction of the discussion. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

It's a good thing that I never made such a claim then isn't it? That's fine. But in case you had not noticed, you are not me. But you asked a question that requires more thought than will fit on a bumper sticker. A quick verse instead of understanding is the hallmark of fundamentalism whether religious or atheistic. It stops thinking.

quote:

---

It's a good thing that I never made such a claim then isn't it?

---

Sure you did, you're a Christian, you've said it many times. You already have a pretty good idea of where you get your morals from.

quote:

---

But you asked a question that requires more thought than will fit on a bumper sticker. A quick verse instead of understanding is the hallmark of fundamentalism whether religious or atheistic. It stops thinking.

---

Of course, asking you for a verse is silly anyway because you just take certain ideas from the Bible whenever it suits your particular brand of Christianity. In your view, certain writers were simply "wrong" in what they were saying here and also "right" in what they were saying over here. This is the fundamental problem with your belief system, it's just ever morphing to suit your needs. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.