Topic: Atheism

[NaivetyinBlack]

I can see the argument that that's where many of the issues lie, not inherently in organised religion, but the literal interpretation of scripture and reliance on dogma which, as you say, is quite pervasive in Christianity and Islam, at the expense of 'deeper understanding'. And that's to not make any claims about what deeper understanding is or isn't.

Again, its all relative.

Hinduism - The vedas were original texts for practices which help broaden the focus of the mind (Yoga, meditation, Universe exploration via astronomy and trying to understand reality, dualism and existence in general ). Keeping in pace with dualism of it all, you have the doctrine of Charvaka, which is borderline atheism, kicks Nietsche out of the park and yet is an integral part of Hinduism. Two sides, different meaning of a deeper understanding.

Buddhism - A much more constrited but heavily focused on personal connection with 'the spirits' as they would call it. They are the ones who made spirituality popular and dragged it into the mainstream, as most Atheists or *cough* Agnostics would like to refer to it as.

So what kind of a 'deeper understanding' are you talking about ?

[Yanwoo]

This is your problem. You take a vague, trite phrase like "deeper understanding", drop it in as a main component of your point and then promptly disclaim any responsibility for the use or indeed the meaning of the phrase.

I don't have any problems 

I deliberately put it in inverted commas and was responding to NativityInBlack, who used the phrase.

It's a broad concept with the specifics likely varying by religion and tradition, and by individual experience. It's the basic idea that through spiritual and/or religious practice, a different sense of reality can be experienced, maybe a connection with God, and/or insights can reveal themselves. If you're interested in more detail, there is no shortage of texts that can describe and explain it much better than I can.

The 'truth' or otherwise of these is not the point here, hence the disclaimer, it's that there has been many people who claim these things happen. It's a component of many religions, which is the relevance here.

[Corkboy]

It's the basic idea that through spiritual and/or religious practice, a different sense of reality can be experienced, maybe a connection with God, and/or insights can reveal themselves.

I'm picking this as the most vapid of your sentences so far.

[TepidT2O]

I'm picking this as the most vapid of your sentences so far.

I'm better, because I go deeper....

[NaivetyinBlack]

Its the kind of statement you would find in those tacky yoga / meditation parlor brochures. 

[Yanwoo]

Again, its all relative.

Hinduism - The vedas were original texts for practices which help broaden the focus of the mind (Yoga, meditation, Universe exploration via astronomy and trying to understand reality, dualism and existence in general ). Keeping in pace with dualism of it all, you have the doctrine of Charvaka, which is borderline atheism, kicks Nietsche out of the park and yet is an integral part of Hinduism. Two sides, different meaning of a deeper understanding.

Buddhism - A much more constrited but heavily focused on personal connection with 'the spirits' as they would call it. They are the ones who made spirituality popular and dragged it into the mainstream, as most Atheists or *cough* Agnostics would like to refer to it as.

So what kind of a 'deeper understanding' are you talking about ?

Exactly, that's why I used the general phrasing, because it can mean many different things. For the sake of this discussion, I was just arguing for it's existence and importance as a general concept in many religions, to counter the idea that religion was primarily just scripture and dogma. One could argue, that ultimately, that deeper understanding is actually all the same, but that's for another discussion!

It's tricky to talk in general terms to define Hinduism or Buddhism, because there is such wide variations within different traditions. I don't recognise your description of buddhism as 'personal connection with the spirits', and although that might be the a view from some of the more mystical buddhist traditions, it's not what I would associate with the core teachings.

[The Gulleysucker]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

Comfirmation you never read some of my posts over the years.... disappointing...

It's quite an old Skeptics expression popularised by the likes of Sagan and Randi.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

Now that's new to me, I too have never heard of it before, though it sounds like something Stanley Unwin would surely have come out with..

Most deepity, boyls and girms, laydles and gentleboles...

[WhereAngelsPlay]

The Bible would get more respect from me if it hadn't gotten so many basic facts wrong about the rock we live on and the Universe we are travelling through.

As it is,it is just a book of stories that were borrowed/stolen from the many 'religions' that came before it,made up by men in power to control and extort from the plebs..And that is just the best scenario,if it all turned out to be true then the entity 'God' would be the most sadistic,evil,sexist and self obsorbed son of a bitch in history.

[Conocinico]

I always delete these sort of posts when I sober up, no doubt I'll want to again but this whole thread, you would have to admit, has been as boring as fuck. So let's change tack.

What the fuck are numbers?

Seriously, what are they? Are they an invention, are they universalia post res or do they exist?

It bothers me. Sorry about the detour.

[Conocinico]

No I agree. We call tem numbers but they are existing structures. We play around with them, test them, and they answer back.

I would say, we learn their properties. Yet, I can't think of any other invention with which we're so unfamiliar.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

I would say, we learn their properties and I can't think of any other invention with which we're so unfamiliar.

That's what I mean, we have to call them something. But like it or not, life is made up of numbers. Mathematics, ultimately, is the golden rule. 

And it is not called religion.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The Bible would get more respect from me if it hadn't gotten so many basic facts wrong about the rock we live on and the Universe we are travelling through.

As it is,it is just a book of stories that were borrowed/stolen from the many 'religions' that came before it,made up by men in power to control and extort from the plebs..And that is just the best scenario,if it all turned out to be true then the entity 'God' would be the most sadistic,evil,sexist and self obsorbed son of a bitch in history.

You do know it was written a few thousand years ago don't you?

I'd be interested to see if you can come up with any other writings at the time that have lasted as long that show modern learning.

I'm guessing you can't because a lot of 'stuff' we 'know' is reasonably recent**

**Though the Chinese and Arabic Nations were way ahead of us Westerners for most of history. When we were eating mud and cleaning clothes with piss, they were off studying the heavens and creating works of great science and understanding.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I always delete these sort of posts when I sober up, no doubt I'll want to again but this whole thread, you would have to admit, has been as boring as fuck. So let's change tack.

What the fuck are numbers?

Seriously, what are they? Are they an invention, are they universalia post res or do they exist?

It bothers me. Sorry about the detour.

PI annoys the shit out of me.

I like to think that PI is actually 1 or something and the rest of our numbers are way off track.

[Alan_X]

You do know it was written a few thousand years ago don't you?..

But isn't it the word of God? Surely if he created the Universe he could have put down the basic facts about it? The date it was written is only relevant of you accept that it's a mish-mash of old pre-scientific myths.

[TepidT2O]

You do know it was written a few thousand years ago don't you?

I'd be interested to see if you can come up with any other writings at the time that have lasted as long that show modern learning.

I'm guessing you can't because a lot of 'stuff' we 'know' is reasonably recent**

**Though the Chinese and Arabic Nations were way ahead of us Westerners for most of history. When we were eating mud and cleaning clothes with piss, they were off studying the heavens and creating works of great science and understanding.

We were cleaning clothes with piss just a little over 100 years ago.... goood stuff piss...

[Corkboy]

this whole thread, you would have to admit, has been as boring as fuck.

If only there were some way for you not to read it....

[WhereAngelsPlay]

But isn't it the word of God? Surely if he created the Universe he could have put down the basic facts about it? The date it was written is only relevant of you accept that it's a mish-mash of old pre-scientific myths.

Exactly my point.

[Conocinico]

If only there were some way for you not to read it....

Yeah that was wrong, there's been some thoughtful posts and interesting arguments in here, I don't know what I was thinking.

[thejbs]

The mistakes in the bible, and the lack of any extraordinary knowledge out of time with when it was written is the biggest red flag when it comes to any claims of divine authorship. There's nothing in there to suggest it was written by or inspired by a God, and plenty to suggest it wasn't.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The mistakes in the bible, and the lack of any extraordinary knowledge out of time with when it was written is the biggest red flag when it comes to any claims of divine authorship. There's nothing in there to suggest it was written by or inspired by a God, and plenty to suggest it wasn't.

I'd imagine that cutting-edge scientific texts written today would be largely laughed at or found hugely amusing by people that wanted to mock things 2,000 years in the future.

Time isn't a forgiving thing.

[Yorkykopite]

I'd imagine that cutting-edge scientific texts written today would be largely laughed at or found hugely amusing by people that wanted to mock things 2,000 years in the future.

Time isn't a forgiving thing.

The obvious difference is that it will be the scientists doing the laughing.

When Christians laugh at the Bible and Muslims at the Koran we'll be able to start making comparisons. Until then.....

[electricghost]

I'd imagine that cutting-edge scientific texts written today would be largely laughed at or found hugely amusing by people that wanted to mock things 2,000 years in the future.

Time isn't a forgiving thing.

Are you saying that we know more now than god knew back then Andy ?

[jooneyisdagod]

I'd imagine that cutting-edge scientific texts written today would be largely laughed at or found hugely amusing by people that wanted to mock things 2,000 years in the future.

Time isn't a forgiving thing.

Not even close. Scientists of the future would recognise that those texts were written based on the best possible interpretations of the best possible data available at that time.

Contrast that with religious people that contend that holy books are the immutable word of God. 

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I'd imagine that cutting-edge scientific texts written today would be largely laughed at or found hugely amusing by people that wanted to mock things 2,000 years in the future.

Time isn't a forgiving thing.

Are you saying that we know more now than god knew back then Andy ?

[redbyrdz]

I'd imagine that cutting-edge scientific texts written today would be largely laughed at or found hugely amusing by people that wanted to mock things 2,000 years in the future.

Time isn't a forgiving thing.

Unlikely. Science uses deductions from principles to explain observations, and tests ideas with measurements. Those will still be valid in 2000 years, unless the laws of nature change. They might find it amusing how we didn't know how certain things fitted together, or how we could miss some crucial piece for so long, but good science of today will remain good science. There is good science from 2000 years ago that is still valid.


By difference, religion is based on faith. By nature, it is not possible to prove religious ideas, you have to believe in them. Religious thinking is completely different from logical, deductive, scientific thinking. If you don't believe in something it is easy to mock it, no matter how much or how little time has passed.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Digressing slightly but whenever I hear Rob Gutmann speak this is the guy I'm picturing talking in my mind's eye.

[thejbs]

I'd imagine that cutting-edge scientific texts written today would be largely laughed at or found hugely amusing by people that wanted to mock things 2,000 years in the future.

Time isn't a forgiving thing.

But that's my point.

An omniscient and omnipotent being wouldn't have made those miatakes 2000 years ago. Nor do the scientists of today claim to be gods.

I mean, God created the universe but didn't understand basic astronomy?

[Purple Red]

For me, the evidence we have uncovered about how 'stuff' works makes life deeper, more wonderful, even more astonishingly beautiful.

On the flip side, belief in the face of evidence is a real issue. 

When asked why they had started smoking again, the response 'I believe the doctors are wrong' doth butter no parsnips ..

Oh I agree completely. I certainly wasn't being dismissive of science. It fascinates me and the more I learn about the more amazing this world we live in becomes. My point wasn't so much about using belief to delegitimise science but using it as something to enhance existence. So say the theoretical patient you brought up was told smoking had given him lung cancer and he only had a few months left. The science there is indisputable, but if the patient wanted to believe he was going to survive longer it would improve his happiness and well being regardless of the scientific fact.

Oddly enough the opposite appears to be true. The greater the scientific progress the more amazing and numinous the world seems. There's nothing in the Bible or the Koran that can match the sheer wonder of asteroid showers or DNA. They lack the imagination that comes with genuine openness to the mystery of the universe.

I think this may be a bit of a generalisation. Many believers think that science enhances their spiritual beliefs as opposed to threatening them. A Muslim colleague of mine provided me with a Qu'ran one time and there was a section at the back called 'Science and the Qu'ran' in which the compilers of the text had explained scientific 'miracles' using the text. It was interesting stuff. So rather than denying science many believers believe science is the work of God. "Science is the canvass on which God paints his masterpiece" as the saying goes. I think the idea that science and religion are enemies is getting a bit dated.

[Purple Red]

But that's my point.

An omniscient and omnipotent being wouldn't have made those miatakes 2000 years ago. Nor do the scientists of today claim to be gods.

I mean, God created the universe but didn't understand basic astronomy?

The Bible is a symbolic piece of literature. I don't think the writers ever intended for it to be read as a scientific textbook to be fair.

[Corkboy]

The Bible is a symbolic piece of literature. I don't think the writers ever intended for it to be read as a scientific textbook to be fair.

The "writers" were apparently a god, and that god made it very clear it was "his word". If you're calling it symbolism, you're basically ignoring the central thrust of the thing.

[Yorkykopite]

Many believers think that science enhances their spiritual beliefs as opposed to threatening them. A Muslim colleague of mine provided me with a Qu'ran one time and there was a section at the back called 'Science and the Qu'ran' in which the compilers of the text had explained scientific 'miracles' using the text. It was interesting stuff. So rather than denying science many believers believe science is the work of God. "Science is the canvass on which God paints his masterpiece" as the saying goes. I think the idea that science and religion are enemies is getting a bit dated.

I'm aware of that. Each scientific advance is treated as evidence of God's infinitely cunning mind. There's very little one can do to combat this thinking because, obviously, there's literally nothing on Earth or in the universe that mystics cannot put down to the operations of God. No evidence is cited naturally, but religious faith doesn't need evidence as we know.

Of course it gets harder when mystics try to prove that all this new scientific knowledge is already contained in the Bible or Koran. I haven't seen the appendix you refer to and therefore maybe it really does demonstrate that Mohammed had a working grasp of nuclear fission and angioplasty. But you'll forgive my scepticism. Generally, it seems that these large claims are never advanced by mystics until some wretched mortal has already presented his scientific conclusions to the human race. At which point there is a holy rush to find 'antecedents' and 'intimations' in Scripture.

But I suppose even this is a better than the third stock response which is to deny the validity of everything that isn't already squeezed into the pages of the holy book. These are the guys who stick, through thick and thin, to the idea that Earth was created a few thousand years ago and that Mo really did fly on a horse to Jerusalem etc etc etc.

[thejbs]

The Bible is a symbolic piece of literature. I don't think the writers ever intended for it to be read as a scientific textbook to be fair.

That's simply not true.  Christ (if the writers are to be believed) hinted at the inerrancy of the Bible, and his followers since have run with that as fact. The writers would appear to have intended a literal reading. 

Psalms 12:6: "the words of the LORD are flawless"
Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm"
Proverbs 30:5-6: "Every word of God is flawless"
2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, [literally God-breathed]" 
Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

That last one is of particular note because the Catholic church has done so much addition over the years.  The ideas of the trinity, purgatory, that only Xtians can go to heaven (it says the opposite), most stuff about satan and hell. 

Much Xtian imagery is from post-medieval paintings and stories.

[Xabi Gerrard]

That's simply not true.  Christ (if the writers are to be believed) hinted at the inerrancy of the Bible, and his followers since have run with that as fact. The writers would appear to have intended a literal reading. 

That last one is of particular note because the Catholic church has done so much addition over the years.  The ideas of the trinity, purgatory, that only Xtians can go to heaven (it says the opposite), most stuff about satan and hell. 

Much Xtian imagery is from post-medieval paintings and stories.

I agree with Purple Red, I dont think the bible (or any of the major religous texts) were supposed to be taken literally. I think they were symbolic & allegorical stories which aimed to instill a 'righteous' way of living amongst followers.

Those lines from the bible that you quoted don't disprove that in anyway, they're simply saying that god's word is correct, i.e. the meaning of the stories are correct.

(I'm not religious btw).

[Corkboy]

I agree with Purple Red, I dont think the bible (or any of the major religous texts) were supposed to be taken literally. I think they were symbolic & allegorical stories which aimed to instill a 'righteous' way of living amongst followers.

What are you basing that on? Take the Gospels in the bible, for example. Their USP is that they are literally the word of God. That's a pretty definitive statement so I presume you have some equally impressive evidence to contradict that?

[TepidT2O]

What are you basing that on? Take the Gospels in the bible, for example. Their USP is that they are literally the word of God. That's a pretty definitive statement so I presume you have some equally impressive evidence to contradict that?

Apart from the gospels the church decided they didn't like of course...

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

Gospel now has a meaning that is 'a thing that is absolutely true', synonymous with 'truth' - be a bit of a cheek if it turned out we weren't meant to take it literally...

[Xabi Gerrard]

What are you basing that on? Take the Gospels in the bible, for example. Their USP is that they are literally the word of God. That's a pretty definitive statement so I presume you have some equally impressive evidence to contradict that?

Lets assume you're right about that and it is meant to be literally the word of God. All that means is that God literally said the words in the (possibly allegorical) stories. Not that the stories were to be taken literally. Big difference.

[Purple Red]

The "writers" were apparently a god, and that god made it very clear it was "his word". If you're calling it symbolism, you're basically ignoring the central thrust of the thing.

What are you basing that on? Take the Gospels in the bible, for example. Their USP is that they are literally the word of God. That's a pretty definitive statement so I presume you have some equally impressive evidence to contradict that?

That's simply not true.  Christ (if the writers are to be believed) hinted at the inerrancy of the Bible, and his followers since have run with that as fact. The writers would appear to have intended a literal reading. 

That last one is of particular note because the Catholic church has done so much addition over the years.  The ideas of the trinity, purgatory, that only Xtians can go to heaven (it says the opposite), most stuff about satan and hell. 

Much Xtian imagery is from post-medieval paintings and stories.

You're treating the Bible like it's a homogenous text. Whether you are religious or not, it is quite clear that the Bible cannot be viewed as one book. The Torah is Jewish history and law, for example, while the Gospels are an account of Jesus' life and teachings. The original point was about people talking about the scientifc ignorance of the Bible. The Bible was written for a number of reasons, chiefly moral guidance, but it wasn't intended as a work of science. Yes, for religious people, the Bible is the work of God but he isn't their science teacher.

[Corkboy]

Lets assume you're right about that and it is meant to be literally the word of God. All that means is that God literally said the words in the (possibly allegorical) stories. Not that the stories were to be taken literally. Big difference.

Is that your evidence? An all powerful deity speaking in allegories, according to you?

[Xabi Gerrard]

Is that your evidence? An all powerful deity speaking in allegories, according to you?

Nope. As I mentioned before, I'm not religious (although I haven't ruled out the possibility of a creator). I just think if you're going to confirm categorically that there is no God then you're going about it all wrong. Giving yourself a pat on the back for proving that a book that probably wasn't meant to be taken literally isn't actually literally true might make you feel better on the internet but it doesn't prove one way or the other where the universe came from.

And even if whoever wrote the bible (and every other religious text) meant it to literally be the word of god speaking about everything literally (as you seem to believe to be the case), finding flaws in these man made texts still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a god, it only proves that these man made books are flawed.