Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hiiri]

No. But it can be thought to be true (and, IMNSHO, wrong) in two ways that I vehemently oppose:
- Religious people thinking that their beliefs supercede scientific data in some way
- Scientism, or the belief that "what science says" (or their interpretation of it) is somehow "true"
The first one pitches me neatly with everyone else versus the religious fundies, the latter gets me in trouble with the atheist scientism fundies.

Damn! They're on to us! Help us, oh holy Dawkins! Reveal the truth to us, so we can enlighten these infidels! Bring forth the holy scripture "God delusion"!

You know, science is right because a scientist says it's right. Sheesh, it's really simple concept.

Atheism 101:
Science gives us neat stuff, like cars and phones, therefore science is always right.
Scientists do science, therefore scientists are always right.
Scientists say THERE ABSOLUTELY IS NO GOD AND NEVER WILL BE! Therefore God does not exist.

[10ebbor10]

((actually, a significant part of the scientific community is religous. Example: George LeMaitre, a catholic priest who first proposed the Big bang theory.))

Yes I know you're being sarcastic about a stereotypic view of atheists. It doesn't mean you are allowed to be wrong.

[Owlbread]

Scientists aren't always right, but by god they're far closer to the mark than Muslims/Christians/Buddhists.

[10ebbor10]

The problem we have is that many people seem to think that religion and myths are some kind of protoscience, that science and religion are succesive phases in a search for knowledge, and that they are mutually exclusive. None of this is true.

In order to make it even more clear.

Scientists and Religions are not shooting for the same goal.

[Hiiri]

((actually, a significant part of the scientific community is religous. Example: George LeMaitre, a catholic priest who first proposed the Big bang theory.))

Yes I know you're being sarcastic about a stereotypic view of atheists. It doesn't mean you are allowed to be wrong.

And most famous of them all; Isaac Newton. Sure, being religious doesn't make a person stupid, but it does make them (probably) wrong on one subject.

[kaijyuu]

I've little (read: almost none) respect for religions that aren't logically consistent, but those that are tend to be great in my book. So if you can analyze a religion to hell and back and not come up with contradictions, thumbs up! I'll consider it a rather valid thing to base your life philosophy on. But if you can find contradictions, and lots of them.... :|

[10ebbor10]

I've little (read: almost none) respect for religions that aren't logically consistent, but those that are tend to be great in my book. So if you can analyze a religion to hell and back and not come up with contradictions, thumbs up! I'll consider it a rather valid thing to base your life philosophy on. But if you can find contradictions, and lots of them.... :|

With sufficient analysis you can find contradictions everywhere. Most religions don't have contradictions though, they have things that might seem contradictory, and their holy books might contain contradictory things, but it's the intrepretation that makes a religion. As such, as new intrepretations are formed and old ones are rejected, a religion grows and modifies itself. A religion is not a static thing, nor is it something definable, it's more personal.

((I seem I have to lost my point somewhere. Comes down to see what works for you, and watch out for those who insist on using a single intrepretation of a text))

[Leafsnail]

If you're allowed to selectively "interpret" things you can't really ever be wrong or contradictory (I maintain that homophobic readings of the Bible, or most other readings even, are just as valid as non-homophobic ones for instance).  Not that it really matters considering the fundamental problem is lack of any actual basis, but hey.

The first one pitches me neatly with everyone else versus the religious fundies, the latter gets me in trouble with the atheist scientism fundies.

Yeah we all know you're a contrarian, good for you.

[Scoops Novel]

Has anyone ever popped the question about all the other fucking life in the universe which isn't as well off as us if we're supposedly god's chosen? I look forward to seeing how we deal with being inadequate next to another species, if only for that.

[10ebbor10]

Has anyone ever popped the question about all the other fucking life in the universe which isn't as well of as us if we're supposedly god's chosen? I look forward to seeing how we deal with being inadequate next to another species, if only for that.

They can invent their own gods for all I like. The chance that we ever hear about, let alone ever see alien beings.

If you're allowed to selectively "interpret" things you can't really ever be wrong or contradictory (I maintain that homophobic readings of the Bible, or most other readings even, are just as valid as non-homophobic ones for instance).  Not that it really matters considering the fundamental problem is lack of any actual basis, but hey.

That's the way a religion works, as well as anything else. You can write a perfectly innocent text, or something else, and without enough inventiveness everyone can turn it to their purpose.

What's nice to know is that the Churchfathers actually wrote rules on how to interpret the Bible, on which the homophobic readings often fail to comply*. After all, Christianity =/= Bible, but is only a collection of intrepretations of said story.

*Should read De Doctrine Christiana for that. (Basis is that every reader should keep the 7 virtues in mind, and that each intrepretation should lead to an increase in Belief, love and hope. Even if it means ignoring the literal for the allegorical meaning, for example)

[Scoops Novel]

Some of your post is missing. The point is why it's never addressed by an human religions, though I'd like to know what they would believe.

[Leafsnail]

It also means you can write something that's just straight-up incorrect and other people can twist it into a form that no longer contradicts itself or the observable world.  But again, that doesn't really matter when you consider the complete lack of basis.  A holy book that had absolutely no internal contradictions would still fall flat at that point without actual evidence.

*Should read De Doctrine Christiana for that. (Basis is that every reader should keep the 7 virtues in mind, and that each intrepretation should lead to an increase in Belief, love and hope. Even if it means ignoring the literal for the allegorical meaning, for example)

This is vague enough that it could support any interpretation really.  You could say that homophobic interpretations support the virtue of Chastity, and promotes belief in and hope for a God who designed us to love to opposite gender.

[Siquo]

I've little (read: almost none) respect for religions that aren't logically consistent, but those that are tend to be great in my book. So if you can analyze a religion to hell and back and not come up with contradictions, thumbs up! I'll consider it a rather valid thing to base your life philosophy on. But if you can find contradictions, and lots of them.... :|

I love religions based on (apparent) contradictions. Especially Apophatic theology is awesome. Buddhism embraces quite a few, as well.

[miauw62]

I have one question about Christianity:

Does the cross have a symbolic meaning or not?

[10ebbor10]

I have one question about Christianity:

Does the cross have a symbolic meaning or not?

Of course it has, everything can have/ has a symbolical meaning, depending on the context.

It has a lot of symbolic meanings. First of all, it's a symbol for Christianity.  It all depends on which faction you speak too though. Jehovah's witness don't recognize it. Wikipedia could have told you the same.

It also means you can write something that's just straight-up incorrect and other people can twist it into a form that no longer contradicts itself or the observable world.  But again, that doesn't really matter when you consider the complete lack of basis.  A holy book that had absolutely no internal contradictions would still fall flat at that point without actual evidence.

*Should read De Doctrine Christiana for that. (Basis is that every reader should keep the 7 virtues in mind, and that each intrepretation should lead to an increase in Belief, love and hope. Even if it means ignoring the literal for the allegorical meaning, for example)

This is vague enough that it could support any interpretation really.  You could say that homophobic interpretations support the virtue of Chastity, and promotes belief in and hope for a God who designed us to love to opposite gender.

I believe we had these arguments already, and that we came out that there was a complete lack of basis for anything at all. Also, what exactly does the book need to prove.
Many points can be made about the homophobic/fundamentalists readings off the Bible, or any religious book. First of all, they are not historically supported. All those intrepretations came up in the 19^the century, and clash with previous intrepretations, as well as with the texts themselves.  What seems to be the problem with your intrepretations is that you insist in grouping all of Christianity together, what of course cause problems.

Besides, It's just as easy to abuse a scientific or other text as it is to abuse something else. If we'd follow your logic through, in that every intrepretation is equally valid, we'd have to accept social darwinism and all those other things.

Besides, about the vagueness. I gave a small synopsis out of an entire literary work. There have been hundreds of books written about the Bible. Same for other religions. (The Jews even add some intrepretations to their scriptures)