Spiritual but not religious?

seventhsojourn wrote:   Delusion: An abnormal belief which is held with absolute subjective certainty, which requires no external proof, which may be held in the face of contradictory evidence, and which has personal significance and importance to the individual concerned. Excluded are those beliefs which can be understood as part of the subject's cultural or religious background... (Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry).   stoney... if you have evidence of the non-existence of God, why not let us in on it?

That's very interesting ... I don't know when this definition was written, but it deserves to be credited as one of the early examples of political correctness. Of curse religion is a delusion, it meets all the criteria. Please note that "contradictory evidence" does not need to be evidence of the non-existence of God ... it's sufficient to show that the basic tenets and claims of the religion are flawed and contradictory. In some cases absence of evidence also means evidence of absence, for example when predictions are made or events are described which should leave detectable traces in our physical world. Not only are there no traces of a world-wide Flood as described in the old testament, such an event is down-right impossible. And this is just one of dozens or hundreds of issues which show that the Bible was not written or even inspired by an omniscient, all-powerful creator of the universe, but by some desert people who wanted to organize and unite their tribes and strengthen them against outsiders and oppressing forces. And I think that even Epignosis has to concede that this is a strong case, and it will indeed take absolute subjective certainty with no basis in reality (except for re-interpretation after re-interpretation after re-translation of the original texts, which is simply a way to add subjective claims to just about any text) to come to the conclusion that the Bible is indeed (or merely contains) the infallible word of God.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 08 2010 at 01:28

You are biased. Of course your interpretation might be correct, but whenever you're at a crossroads for interpretation that is truly ambiguous, with no objective reason for prefering one interpretation over another, wouldn't you agree that you'll chose the one that's in line with your expectations? Confirmation bias is something that nobody is immune to, that's why the scientific process involves the concept of peer review.

^ you come across like you're very, very sure that your interpretations of scripture are more valid than those of other experts. When I offer my interpretation, you say that I'm biased by 21st century views. Of course additional study can sometimes lead to further insights, and I'll be the first to admit that I spent very little time studying the Bible. Still, for someone with a strong bias, further study usually doesn't lead to a reversal of the bias - especially when the domain does not lend itself to the discovery of objective evidence.

This is why I'm simply not interested in using scripture to prove anything. It's not reliable, and you can't verify whether your conclusions and interpretations are correct. You can validate some historical facts, but ultimately scripture will not be able to prove that Jesus walked on water. I will not be able to prove that he didn't. Leading a discussion on that level is IMO a huge waste of time - I enjoy discussion some aspects, but I don't think that it has any meaningful results. Call it a hobby.

Now, when it comes to animal distribution on the other hand ... that is something that can be reasonably discussed. Any claim about it can be tested by looking at objective evidence such as the fossil record, geological strata / plate tectonics etc.. I'm sure you can see the fundamental difference.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 08 2010 at 09:51

^ I said that I was biased when it comes to the Bible, didn't I?

Maybe we can say that the whole Bible is an allegory and leave it at that. But that doesn't keep creationists from leading their children through the Grand Canyon, telling them that this is evidence for the epic flood. And a few posts ago you said that the evidence against the flood doesn't convince you, and now you opt for "it's allegorical". Maybe the walking on water part is, too ... but then again for many people believing that such miracles actually happened is key for making them believe in the religion. Indeed, most fundamentalist Christians (and Jews) would call you an Atheist for such claims.

Sorry, but your insistence of the Bible being the inerrant word of God while there are contradictions left and right, it's just too much for me. Call me uneducated in that respect if you must, but if I was to criticise astrology I guess you might chime in, even though you're not completely versed in every intricacy of astrology. Once I come to the conclusion that the core principles of something are wrong, I don't have to delve into the particulars to criticise it. Maybe that's a mistake that I should avoid ... indeed I shouldn't start discussions about particular verses when I don't care about the results of these discussions. *Unless* of course at some point someone shows me some real evidence ... but apparently God did not provide for that. Of course that would make it much too easy to believe in Him.




Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 08 2010 at 11:00

^ But we have our Lady of Fatima!

It's interesting though that it's mostly the Catholic church that's so obsessed with modern day miracles and saints ... most other Christians are quite content with the assertion that "Jesus walked on water - take our word for it!".


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 08 2010 at 11:09

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I said that I was biased when it comes to the Bible, didn't I? Maybe we can say that the whole Bible is an allegory and leave it at that. But that doesn't keep creationists from leading their children through the Grand Canyon, telling them that this is evidence for the epic flood. And a few posts ago you said that the evidence against the flood doesn't convince you, and now you opt for "it's allegorical". Maybe the walking on water part is, too ... but then again for many people believing that such miracles actually happened is key for making them believe in the religion. Indeed, most fundamentalist Christians (and Jews) would call you an Atheist for such claims. Sorry, but your insistence of the Bible being the inerrant word of God while there are contradictions left and right, it's just too much for me. Call me uneducated in that respect if you must, but if I was to criticise astrology I guess you might chime in, even though you're not completely versed in every intricacy of astrology. Once I come to the conclusion that the core principles of something are wrong, I don't have to delve into the particulars to criticise it. Maybe that's a mistake that I should avoid ... indeed I shouldn't start discussions about particular verses when I don't care about the results of these discussions. *Unless* of course at some point someone shows me some real evidence ... but apparently God did not provide for that. Of course that would make it much too easy to believe in Him.

You ask why I criticize your interpretations of biblical passages, and yet you exhibit difficulty in interpreting my last post, which was written in plain, modern English not an hour ago.

Epignosis wrote: let's say the story of the Great Flood (which is what you love to harp on more than anything) is but an allegory.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: And a few posts ago you said that the evidence against the flood doesn't convince you, and now you opt for "it's allegorical".

I go to a conservative Baptist church, and no one calls me an atheist.  A theist is someone who believes in God, not magic.  I would wager that I have associated with more fundamental Christians than you have.  I have never once been called an atheist (a "heretic," a time or two, but never an atheist). 

If you criticized astrology, I wouldn't care.  But if you said "Capricorns are born in August," then I might correct your statement.

You mention bias.  Let's say you discovered proof Jesus walked on the sea (the Bible never says "on liquid water," but I'll leave the linguistics out of this since it doesn't matter).  Would that convince you that he is the Son of God and Lord of all, and would you become a Christian?

You call the Bible a "magic book."  I'd call it a book of observation using the limited language and scientific understanding of the day.

Mike - "No magic tricks" = "The Bible isn't true"
Me - "No magic tricks" = "The Bible is even more true than I thought it was"



Edited by Epignosis - June 08 2010 at 12:11

Epignosis wrote: An atheist is someone who believes in God, not magic.

What?

James wrote: Epignosis wrote: An atheist is someone who believes in God, not magic. What?

Damn!  Foiled by a prefix! 



"A theist is someone..." 

Thanks James, I'll edit now. 


Edited by Epignosis - June 08 2010 at 12:11

Hahahah damn prefixes!

^ if you accept this particular definition from a psychiatric encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

To me, as someone who hasn't been indoctrinated to believe in a God as a child, religion indeed looks like a severe delusion. Fortunately most Christians don't believe in the afterlife as firmly as the Muslims do (well, the Christian heaven lacks the sex and food elements), but nevertheless their belief affects their daily lives in many ways - and often not for the best.

I'll happily say it again: Give me spirituality any time, but spare me the dogma and claims of omniscience ("we know what happens when we die").

In the words of King Crimson:

"Nobody knows
What happens when you die
Nobody knows
What happens when you die
Believe what you want
It doesn't mean you're right"

As an atheist I don't claim to know. As a theist you do. Now which one is the arrogant position?


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 08 2010 at 14:21