"Well Documented, Even Outside the Bible"

[gourimoko]

I suspect that isn't religious ideology that leads one to militant-ism. I imagine most militants are not all that religious, or weren't initially (and probably still aren't). Well, rather they had very strong militant leanings/tendencies for any number of reasons that were exploited by a group with their own agenda. The religious ideology bullshit is mostly window dressing, perhaps done to help drive home a message.

Take a disenfranchised person for whatever reason (economic poverty, existential boredom, inveterate shithead) and force feed them a militant ideology but one that is rather generic when stripped of its labels, you get a militant, not a devoutly religious person. Being a strict ideologue doesn't make one religious, it only makes one a blind follower of a set of rules--those rules could be any set of rules. In this case it just happens to be a grossly distorted set of tenets of Islam, distorted by those who want to control a group of people.

One could easily substitute any religion in for Islam, and end up with the same results. The religion itself doesn't matter much.

This is a great post.

 

[gourimoko]

This was a great thread. I'm still atheist by the way.

@Sumac13 crushed it with his last post in here.

I'm not an atheist to the surprise of many..

And yeah he did...

 

[The Oi]

I'm not an atheist to the surprise of many..

And yeah he did...

Can you explain again why not?

 

[gourimoko]

Can you explain again why not?

From a logical standpoint?

I'm not a positivist. So I don't accept the axiom that we can only identify what is real by what we can observe. To me, that argument is one to be made, not accepted prima facie.

So from that basis, to me it seems clear that as a starting point, to argue for or against a things existence conclusively, does require some proof. A thing does not, by default, lack existence simply because it has not yet been observed.

This is a position rooted fundamentally in recognizing that boolean logic, which is the basis for modern positivism's assertion of a default false value, is not representative of our modern understanding of nature. Nature is has never operated in a binary fashion, so this method of scientific understanding and reasoning is incomplete and a more accurate description of reality can be harnessed using three-value logical paradigms.

Beyond that, there are other logical and scientific critiques of positivism that are beyond the scope of the question at hand; but nonetheless, the issue of positivism must be addressed because it is largely the basis for modern day strong atheist arguments.

So with all that having been said, I think both believers and strong atheists are making arguments without observational evidence. These are both faith-based arguments, or, choices of belief; rather than empirically-derived conclusive statements of fact.

So when someone says with certainty that "God exists," I look at them and say "how do you know that?"

And when someone says with certainty that "There is no God," I ask them the same question.

Lastly, I just want to make the point about "strong atheists," which would include the ideology of "New Atheists," and that is the distinction between those who assert there is no God conclusively as opposed to weak atheists who are usually not atheists at all and generally more accurately described as being agnostics.

Those few that are weak atheists, and choose to believe in no God but admit it is possible, still have a more rational claim than strong atheists who make factual assertions without actually composing an argument.

I am a Catholic by religion and culture, but rationally I am agnostic. Some might call this the reverse position of weak atheism, in that, I leave the question open, but I do tend to believe God exists.

 

[The Oi]

From a logical standpoint?

I'm not a positivist. So I don't accept the axiom that we can only identify what is real by what we can observe. To me, that argument is one to be made, not accepted prima facie.

So from that basis, to me it seems clear that as a starting point, to argue for or against a things existence conclusively, does require some proof. A thing does not, by default, lack existence simply because it has not yet been observed.

Therefore, I think both believers and strong atheists are making arguments without observational evidence. These are both faith-based arguments, or, choices of belief; rather than empirically-derived conclusive statements of fact.

So when someone says with certainty that "God exists," I look at them and say "how do you know that?"

And when someone says with certainty that "There is no God," I ask them the same question.

Lastly, I just want to make the point about "strong atheists," which would include the ideology of "New Atheists," and that is the distinction between those who assert there is no God conclusively as opposed to weak atheists who are usually not atheists at all and generally more accurately described as being agnostics.

Those few that are weak atheists, and choose to believe in no God but admit it is possible, still have a more rational claim than strong atheists who make factual assertions without actually composing an argument.

I am a Catholic by religion and culture, but rationally I am agnostic. Some might call this the reverse position of weak atheism, in that, I leave the question open, but I do tend to believe God exists.

What about Catholicism appeals to you? At lease moreso than other religions?

Why do you believe god exists? What is it in the form of, if any?

 

[gourimoko]

What about Catholicism appeals to you? At lease moreso than other religions?

For starters I choose to be Christian because of the message of Jesus. I find this to be a message that does not rely, whatsoever, on the existence of the divine or metaphysical to still have vast importance on day to day life and personal ethics.

That isn't to say that I don't find Buddhism quite attractive, I do, but, for me, the appeal of Buddhism does not begin as close to the reality of everyday life as does the basic tenets Christianity. So with that, I would opt for Christianity as a choice.

From there, well, Catholicism is Christianity at it's root. The appeal is in the adherence to traditions and dogmatic principles that have existed for thousands of years.

Compared to Protestantism, I think many of the original Reformation created churches are fine; in fact, many of them are in communion with the Catholic Church since their fundamental teachings and beliefs are so similar.

Christian religions that stemmed from the partition of the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism are also largely in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and are considered part of the Universal Church. So this would include all of Orthodox Christianity.

I've studied, extensively, Gnosticism and ancient Christian mysticism and find the belief system and the historical derivation of their practices and ideology fascinating. I don't think one can even begin to understand Christianity in a complete sense without understanding these religions.

Now, with respect to "Evangelical" Christian Churches, well, I'm sure many of their attendees are good people. But I find many congregational Christian religions ultimately lose their way since they've divorced themselves from tradition, from the authority of the Church, it's wisdom, and instead opted for a personal, individual interpretation of the Bible.

I find this leads, almost invariably, to irreconcilable conflicts and contradictions and this causes too many people to lose their faith due the disorganization and almost make-it-up-as-you-go attitude about scripture.

I don't mean to sound like a Catholic apologist, but, that's my rational reason for being a Catholic; given that I choose to be a Christian, Catholicism at least seems like the most logical choice.

Why do you believe god exists?

That's complicated. But can be summed up by saying, personal experience.

What is it in the form of, if any?

I have no idea and wouldn't venture to guess a conclusive statement.

I would say though that I believe that God might not be a "person." God might simply be the multiverse/universe. And the Universe might fulfill what we as people feel would be the requirements for a God.

There are lots of answers to that question.

 

[The Oi]

For starters I choose to be Christian because of the message of Jesus. I find this to be a message that does not rely, whatsoever, on the existence of the divine or metaphysical to still have vast importance on day to day life and personal ethics.

That isn't to say that I don't find Buddhism quite attractive, I do, but, for me, the appeal of Buddhism does not begin as close to the reality of everyday life as does the basic tenets Christianity. So with that, I would opt for Christianity as a choice.

From there, well, Catholicism is Christianity at it's root. The appeal is in the adherence to traditions and dogmatic principles that have existed for thousands of years.

Compared to Protestantism, I think many of the original Reformation created churches are fine; in fact, many of them are in communion with the Catholic Church since their fundamental teachings and beliefs are so similar.

Christian religions that stemmed from the partition of the Roman Empire, and the Great Schism are also largely in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and are considered part of the Universal Church. So this would include all of Orthodox Christianity.

I've studied, extensively, Gnosticism and ancient Christian mysticism and find the belief system and the historical derivation of their practices and ideology fascinating. I don't think one can even begin to understand Christianity in a complete sense without understanding these religions.

Now, with respect to "Evangelical" Christian Churches, well, I'm sure many of their attendees are good people. But I find many congregational Christian religions ultimately lose their way since they've divorced themselves from tradition, from the authority of the Church, it's wisdom, and instead opted for a personal, individual interpretation of the Bible.

I find this leads, almost invariably, to irreconcilable conflicts and contradictions and this causes too many people to lose their faith due the disorganization and almost make-it-up-as-you-go attitude about scripture.

I don't mean to sound like a Catholic apologist, but, that's my rational reason for being a Catholic; given that I choose to be a Christian, Catholicism at least seems like the most logical choice.



That's complicated. But can be summed up by saying, personal experience.



I have no idea and wouldn't venture to guess a conclusive statement.

I would say though that I believe that God might not be a "person." God might simply be the multiverse/universe. And the Universe might fulfill what we as people feel would be the requirements for a God.

There are lots of answers to that question.

So you believe that Jesus Christ existed. Do you believe that the stories of him are accurate? Do you believe that the miracles he's claimed to perform were performed?

Do you believe that he was the son of whatever god is?

 

[gourimoko]

So you believe that Jesus Christ existed.

Believe? No. I'm fairly confident Jesus existed, on a factual basis. Unlike Moses and Abraham which are almost assuredly mythological characters; the man known as Jesus was very likely a real person in an historical sense.

Do you believe that the stories of him are accurate?

Much of the accounts of the Gospel have a good deal of third-party (non-Christian) historical context, so, to answer your question, I would venture that it is more probable than not that much of the Gospels accounts are at least somewhat accurate.

Do you believe that the miracles he's claimed to perform were performed?

You mean, do I believe he walked on water or turned water into wine?

I'm not sure about that, one way or the other. However, I don't think it's necessary to believe in the literal interpretation of the Gospel to understand it's message.

Do you believe that he was the son of whatever god is?

I'd say yes, probably.

But I leave a very good amount of room for doubt.

Honestly, it's a hard question to answer because it's completely based around the conceptualization of what God is and who Jesus is. So the question can be answered a myriad of different ways without necessarily forming a logical contradiction with the message of the Gospel.

Jesus doesn't really explain the Trinity, so you can't hold his message to that standard.

 

[Cavatt]

This isn't the best article about this guy's findings. I couldn't find the other one I read, but it is interesting.

http://www.vice.com/read/jesus-was-a-roman-hoax-to-trick-the-jews