"Prosperity Gospel"

[sol]

I think it just means you are theoretically logically consistent in your beliefs

Yea, they didn't really get into the more practical logical inconsistencies, like Christian Scientists who don't believe in modern medicine but do believe that television works.

I think it's pretty easy to be internally logically consistent and still be very divorced from physical reality.  Especially if you're not logically comparing your beliefs to things that can actually be observed or measured.

[Tyson]

I think it just means you are theoretically logically consistent in your beliefs

Yea, they didn't really get into the more practical logical inconsistencies, like Christian Scientists who don't believe in modern medicine but do believe that television works.

I think it's pretty easy to be internally logically consistent and still be very divorced from physical reality.  Especially if you're not logically comparing your beliefs to things that can actually be observed or measured.

Yeah, but if they did that, there'd be a lot fewer (and smaller) gaps for God to exist in. 

[sunday]

Definitely just a fun thing. I've answered as my own beliefs, as a god believing person, and in one scenario, as someone who believes as my god a god that can only make as many potato latkes as he wants as his supreme godly superpower.

[sunday]

As I recall, on that site, I think it says there are actually more ways/combinations for believers to come out without any hits than non-believers.

[forummm]

As I recall, on that site, I think it says there are actually more ways/combinations for believers to come out without any hits than non-believers.

Magic explains a lot of things. It can be shaped to fit whatever your thinking is. And if the facts of the world seem inconsistent with your beliefs, it's just that your brain isn't big enough to figure it out--you're wrong, not god. God is good and all powerful. Why is there so much suffering by good people? Some higher purpose you can't understand.

Not saying that belief in a deity is wrong. Just expressing a view on how it's potentially easier to have it fit in a variety of personal holdings. Whereas if you don't believe in a deity, you have much less flexibility in your thinking.

[Kris]

As I recall, on that site, I think it says there are actually more ways/combinations for believers to come out without any hits than non-believers.

As I played with it, that was definitely my impression.

[brooklynguy]

Magic explains a lot of things. It can be shaped to fit whatever your thinking is.

This is why I too object to the logic behind some of the site's test questions.  I answered the "if god exists, can he make 2 + 2 = 5 or make circle be a square?" in the affirmative, on the theory that the question was essentially asking "if something exists that can make the impossible possible, can it make the impossible possible?"  "Yes" seems to be a better answer to that question than "no."

[gobius]

Magic explains a lot of things. It can be shaped to fit whatever your thinking is.

This is why I too object to the logic behind some of the site's test questions.  I answered the "if god exists, can he make 2 + 2 = 5 or make circle be a square?" in the affirmative, on the theory that the question was essentially asking "if something exists that can make the impossible possible, can it make the impossible possible?"  "Yes" seems to be a better answer to that question than "no."

Same here.

[gobius]

Yet oddly enough the moderators seem to tolerate/encourage this garbage.  Bigotry is everywhere, it seems.

Let's not be dishonest about it.  There is no bigotry here.  I encourage everyone to find their own path in life, and to let others do the same.  You seem to be the only one intolerant of dissenting opinions.

Some churches are great.  Others are scandalous.  You get to pick which kind you belong to, or you get to choose not to belong.  So do I.  Please respect that choice.

Yes, but do you get to also SAY it? Why can't everyone just say what they believe except for you? I think that would be fair. Or maybe it isn't. But I wouldn't want to say so.

I don't recall seeing him saying that Christians, or anyone for that matter, have no right to state their beliefs.  Saying you think beliefs are illogical, wishful thinking, magic, idiotic, etc is not the same as saying people don't have rights to those beliefs, a right to state those beliefs, or a right to practice those beliefs.

[gobius]

I find the whole "atheists' morality has no foundation" to be a curious argument.

Many Christians are taught that the world is inherently evil because of sin. Before a baby is born it is already a sinner. All babies. Satan and his demonic forces have corrupted the world and everything in it. Even Christians themselves are corrupted sinners (although some seem to forget this). And without a conscious and committed, day-by-day, and minute-by-minute struggle waged against the forces of darkness, Christians would also fall into the moral-free ways of the heathens. That's the narrative. Maybe Christians think that they would all be terrible people if they walked away from their faith.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian family, so I was taught this from birth: Humans are wicked and evil, and the only good that exists in this world comes from God himself. It's a very effective teaching if your goal is to prevent people from even entertaining the thought that God/Jesus/the Bible might actually be fallible.

I still remember when I was in middle school and we had to read the diary of Anne Frank. And because of my upbringing, one quote stuck out in my memory that I'll never forget: "In spite of everything, I think people are basically good at heart." I remember thinking, here's a young girl who hid in an attic for years and was eventually killed by Nazis, and she can still believe that people are basically good. Who am to believe otherwise, when I've lived a life without knowing hardly a single discomfort? I think that was the beginning of the end of my faith in Christianity. One by one, I began to observe and quietly critique tenet after tenet that I'd always been preached, and so many were found provably wrong (Creationism) or laughably outdated (gay people are an abomination), that started to ignore them, one by one. Finally, when I got sick of attempting to piece together a coherent belief system from the wisdom that remained (and of course, there are many good parts to Christianity that just don't seem to get preached quite as loudly), I eventually shed the entire weight of my religious beliefs. The beauty of my transformation, however, was that it was the beginning of my faith in humanity. Fortunately, there's no doctrine to go along with humanity, so I'm free to inspect its faults and to try to judge it rationally rather than blindly.

Good post

I really enjoyed this one too.

[sunday]

As I recall, on that site, I think it says there are actually more ways/combinations for believers to come out without any hits than non-believers.

I meant to reply to Poorman with this since he or she was incredulous that a believer was able to "win" at the game.

[LibrarIan]

Wow. What has happened to this thread?

[sol]

Wow. What has happened to this thread?

People stopped arguing and learned to get along?  Is it too boring for you now?

[LibrarIan]

Wow. What has happened to this thread?

People stopped arguing and learned to get along?  Is it too boring for you now?

Yes. We should argue more.

[Cookie78]

Wow. What has happened to this thread?

People stopped arguing and learned to get along?  Is it too boring for you now?

Yes. We should argue more.

No!

[forummm]

Wow. What has happened to this thread?

People stopped arguing and learned to get along?  Is it too boring for you now?

Yes. We should argue more.

No!

[brooklynguy]

For a while there, the discord in here got nearly as violent as it did in the dual momentum thread.  I guess religion is almost as divisive a topic as chartist investment strategies.

[forummm]

For a while there, the discord in here got nearly as violent as it did in the dual momentum thread.  I guess religion is almost as divisive a topic as chartist investment strategies.

But less divisive than guns and slavery.

[MrsPete]

I don't mean to belittle people, just bad ideas. 

This sounds like the school yard bullies who claim, "I'm doing it for their own good.  It'll toughen them up." 

If you were discussing a belief -- whether it's the best place to invest your money or whether the Ten Commandments are still valid -- that'd be discussing a good or bad idea.  Throwing out an overarching judgement that people who believe in God are simply foolish or inconsistent in their thinking is more than that. 


regulator (or MrsPete, EricP, etc) - I'll give you a last chance: in plain, non emotionally-charged language explain what sol has said that's bigoted and attacking you?

Otherwise let's have the mods get involved for you derailing the thread with your endless complaining. If you are really that upset, leave?
[/quote]
I haven't been emotional, and given that I've been working night and day and haven't been on this site for days, it's unfair to blame me for "endless complaining".  But since you've been kind enough to grant me "one last chance", here's my viewpoint: 

I'm saying that it's wrong to insult another person's religion.  It's something that decent people do not do.  It is considered bad form to insult minority religions, to insult the handicapped, to insult people based upon the color of their skin in our society, the list could go on ... why then is it still perfectly acceptable to ridicule and belittle people who hold conservative Christian values?  It's rude, boorish, the behavior of a bully. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe something you clearly don't believe (though it is giving me some insight into Calvinism, a topic that I find confusing).  I'm talking about how people should and shouldn't treat one another. 

[Gin1984]

I don't mean to belittle people, just bad ideas. 

This sounds like the school yard bullies who claim, "I'm doing it for their own good.  It'll toughen them up." 

If you were discussing a belief -- whether it's the best place to invest your money or whether the Ten Commandments are still valid -- that'd be discussing a good or bad idea.  Throwing out an overarching judgement that people who believe in God are simply foolish or inconsistent in their thinking is more than that. 


regulator (or MrsPete, EricP, etc) - I'll give you a last chance: in plain, non emotionally-charged language explain what sol has said that's bigoted and attacking you?

Otherwise let's have the mods get involved for you derailing the thread with your endless complaining. If you are really that upset, leave?

I haven't been emotional, and given that I've been working night and day and haven't been on this site for days, it's unfair to blame me for "endless complaining".  But since you've been kind enough to grant me "one last chance", here's my viewpoint: 

I'm saying that it's wrong to insult another person's religion.  It's something that decent people do not do.  It is considered bad form to insult minority religions, to insult the handicapped, to insult people based upon the color of their skin in our society, the list could go on ... why then is it still perfectly acceptable to ridicule and belittle people who hold conservative Christian values?  It's rude, boorish, the behavior of a bully. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe something you clearly don't believe (though it is giving me some insight into Calvinism, a topic that I find confusing).  I'm talking about how people should and shouldn't treat one another.
[/quote]
As someone of a minority religion nothing that Sol said is uncommon for me to hear.  And frankly, I really don't care.  What I care about is losing a job, losing custody, being attacked physically etc.  You have a very strange and high view of how should people act.  Maybe be in those minority positions and see how Christians treat us and then maybe the natural backlash won't seem so bullying but a natural response.

[sol]

I'm talking about how people should and shouldn't treat one another.

 

With civility and respect, generally speaking.  Please relay that message to the person who called me a profane bigot earlier in this thread.  In the spirit of Jesus.

I've tried to be very clear in this thread that I support everyone's right to choose their own path, follow their own path, and even preach their own path.  That sentiment has consistently been met with people saying something like "of course I do but you do not so please shut up."  I have not asked anyone to shut up.  I have only sought your engagement and honest, civil, contributions.  I even found some.

With that said, this was a thread about dishonest people who lie about religion in order to defraud people.  Any time you convince someone to part with their last dollar by lying to them, whether it is about healthy cigarettes or talking snakes, other civic-minded folks might try to protect that potential victim from being taken advantage of.  I am not trampling anyone's rights by highlighting the lie.  I am not bullying anyone by trying to protect the victim of a scam.

You can continue to call me rude names all you like, I still won't reciprocate. You and I are both free to contribute to this thread, and I would welcome your thoughts on why you think your faith is somehow different from magic, on why religions should be held to a different standard of fraud than other ideas, or why you think the prosperity gospel is not a scam.

But please try to be nice about it.  Personal attacks don't generally advance the discussion, and they make you look like a bad Christian.

[sol]

As someone of a minority religion nothing that Sol said is uncommon for me to hear. 

Gin's case is perhaps illustrative for MrsPete.  To a Christian, the traditional Pagan belief in multiple gods of nature seems ludicrous.  To early Islam, the Christian belief in the multiple gods of the Trinity seemed ludicrous.  To me, they all seem equally ludicrous because they are all based on ancient superstitions that don't reflect our modern understanding of the universe.

If you think carefully about how you feel about Pagans, now that you've sort of met one, you might understand a bit about how I feel about Christians (and Pagans).  It's sort of like "wow that's a really outdated idea that used to be really important, but now is kind of just a weird cultural artifact of our human history.  People don't still take that stuff literally, do they?"  Followed by "I hope nobody is using those crazy ideas to steal money from old people."

Now if you just want to celebrate it, that I'm totally behind.  Traditions are important.  Knowing and celebrating your roots is important.  But I'd argue you can do that without seriously believing in talking animals, or adhering to the old rules about pork and rape.  We've moved on, as a society; pork is back in, rape is back out.  The rules have changed for most of us, and I think for the better, so why fight it?

[libertarian4321]

Here's a new flash for you: they're all scammers.

Anybody who asks you for money for magical reasons is lying to you, because magic isn't real.  There is no good luck charm, no curse to be lifted, no vampire protectors or wolf bane, and there is certainly no invisible bearded white man in the sky who will send you dollars if you send your dollars to the charlatans on television.

Some churches will do great things with your money, if you choose to support them.  But you should give because you support the mission or the charity work, not because the voodoo lady says her zombie overlord will punish you if you don't. 

It's the 21st century, people.  We have robots driving around Mars.  It's time to let go of our ancient superstitions, to celebrate our myths as part of our cultural heritage but not literal truths any more than Zeus and Poseidon.  Why is that so hard?

You wouldn't ridicule someone for the color of his skin or his sexual orientation.  You wouldn't belittle a person for choosing to live in a different part of the country.  You wouldn't even make fun of someone for liking music or hobbies that you don't like.  You wouldn't insult the intelligence of someone who chose to join a club that isn't for you.

Why, then, do you feel free to blast someone else's religious beliefs?  It's crass and rude, and it has no place in a supposedly enlightened world.  It seems you adhere to the philosophy that people should be open minded -- unless you're talking about a conservative Christian point of view, and then it's fine to make fun of another person's most closely held values.

If you had an adult friend who believed in an imaginary friend (say Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin), and was sending money to some organization built around belief in Santa Claus, would you take them aside and try to preach some reason to them?

I would.  And I'd do the same for a friend who was foolishly sending money to some rip-off "prosperity gospel" con man claiming that his imaginary friend (Jesus/God/Allah/Zeus/whatever) would make you rich if you'd just sent him $1,000.

Just as it's okay for a child to believe in Santa Claus, it's okay for adults to believe in the mythical God/Gods of their choice.  But when the preachers who claim to represent those imaginary beings start ripping people off, it's not only not "rude" to try and stop them, it's the decent thing to do.

Because there is only one true God.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I am a minister in the Universal Life Church.  I represent the FSM and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, who died for your sins, or something.   If any of you are having financial trouble, just send me $1,000, and I'll pray until you be come prosperous.  Send in that seed money today!  Praise Jesus, Praise the FSM!

If you call me a jerk or a con artist for trying to get your money, you are just being a rude hater- because my religion is just as legitimate as any of the 10,000 other religions out there...

[Beridian]

MrsPete:

"I'm saying that it's wrong to insult another person's religion.  It's something that decent people do not do.  It is considered bad form to insult minority religions, to insult the handicapped, to insult people based upon the color of their skin in our society, the list could go on ... why then is it still perfectly acceptable to ridicule and belittle people who hold conservative Christian values?  It's rude, boorish, the behavior of a bully." 


Are we expected to respect a religion that calls for the murder of non-believers (radical Islam)?  Should I play nice and be respectful of a religion than denies an ill child needed medical care (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses)?   Is it proper to be polite and respectful to a major church that facilitated and covered up the sexual abuse of generations of innocent children (Catholic church)?  Would you take offense at someone for being critical of Jim Jone's Peoples Temple or Heavens Gate?

Nonsense is nonsense.   If there is one single christian god why are there thousands of disparate christian sects and denominations?  If there is one supreme creator who is the same yesterday today and forever, why does religion constantly morph into new forms and revise its doctrines?  The answer is obvious, religion is completely man made.  It is folklore that evolved to take advantage of and exploit the masses.

The reason that I am an atheist is that I see no evidence of a god.  In the bible god and Jesus raised the dead, parted seas, made donkeys talk, turned staffs into snakes, fed the multitudes, walked on water, and turned a woman into a pillar of salt (to name a few).  Why do such things not occur today?   Jesus said he performed miracles so that people might believe and be saved.   He even appeared to Doubting Thomas after the Resurrection and invited Thomas to inspect and touch his wounds so that Thomas's doubt would be eased. 

Is there less of a need for miracles in the modern age?  Does god (or Jesus) care less about modern man so much so that he sits on his hands and forces us to rely on bronze aged texts that have been translated, corrupted, and revised countless times?  If god truly loves and wants to save us, why does he not show himself, or at least do great miracles so that we can be sure he is for real and we are not being duped by one of the countless charlatans who have appeared throughout history?   He did these things throughout the bible to clear up confusion, expose false prophets, and get people on the right path, does he love us modern people less?

My conclusion is that your Christian god is just a myth that managed to grow and propagate within our culture due to quirks in the ways that the human mind works.  Sorry if that offends you, please feel free to critique my atheism, I will not be offended.

[Gin1984]

Gin1984:

"I'm saying that it's wrong to insult another person's religion.  It's something that decent people do not do.  It is considered bad form to insult minority religions, to insult the handicapped, to insult people based upon the color of their skin in our society, the list could go on ... why then is it still perfectly acceptable to ridicule and belittle people who hold conservative Christian values?  It's rude, boorish, the behavior of a bully." 


Are we expected to respect a religion that calls for the murder of non-believers (radical Islam)?  Should I play nice and be respectful of a religion than denies an ill child needed medical care (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses)?   Is it proper to be polite and respectful to a major church that facilitated and covered up the sexual abuse of generations of innocent children (Catholic church)?  Would you take offense at someone for being critical of Jim Jone's Peoples Temple or Heavens gate?

Nonsense is nonsense.   If there is one single christian god why are there thousands of disparate christian sects and denominations?  If there is one supreme creator who is the same yesterday today and forever, why does religion constantly morph into new forms?  The answer is obvious, religion is completely man made.  It is folklore that evolved to take advantage of and exploit the masses.

The reason that I am an atheist is that I see no evidence of a god.  In the bible god and Jesus raised the dead, parted seas, made donkeys talk, turned staffs into snakes, fed the multitudes, walked on water, and turned a woman into a pillar of salt.  Why do such things not occur today?   Jesus said he performed miracles so that people might believe and be saved.  In there less of a need for these things in the modern age?  Does god care less about modern man so much so that he has sits on his hands forces us to rely on bronze aged texts that have been translated and corrupted and revised countless times?  If god truly loves and wants to save us, why does he not show himself (or at least do great wonders) as he did throughout the bible to clear up all the religious decisiveness and get people on the right path?

My conclusion is that your Christian god is just a myth that managed to grow and propagate though our culture due to quirks in how the human mind works.  Sorry if that offends you, please feel free to critique my atheism, I will not be offended.

Somehow the quoting got messed up in my post so you are attributing a comment made by someone to me.

[Beridian]

So sorry Gin1984, I fixed the error.  The quoting and replying on this forum is a bit confusing.

[mikefixac]

Sol is my new favorite mustachian. That was awesome.

I'm sure it made me some people's least favorite mustachian, too.  So it goes.

No Sol, your mine too. I've always liked your comments. Thanks for sharing. I must say it's a bit eye opening to read some of the other comments.

[2Cent]

*Sigh...

Why is it that people feel the need to argue about things as though they know what they are talking about, when in fact they really don't. This is the thing that has led divided humanity and caused so much trouble. One of the mayor tenets of Christianity is that your mind is to small to comprehend God. So then why fight over what you think God means.

Saying "I don't know" is seen as a sign of intellectual weakness, and used against people, but really it is often the wisest and the only true answer you can give. Imagine theist and atheist alike would admit they don't have all the definite answers, but only working assumptions. Dialog could be much more friendly and productive.

Another thing that I see in this and so many other discussions is the association of the idea with its proponents. So many people blame the idea of Christianity for the misbehavior of several of it's proponents. Even though the teachings of Christianity clearly condemn those practices. Maybe some priest assaulted an alter boy. That priest was also a man, white, also american, also gay. People would not even think to blame all men, white people or american culture, and there would be mobs if you blame it on him being gay or use his behavior to characterize all gays, Americans or white people.

In the case of prosperity gospel, it is the same thing. If bad people hijack a religion for their own purposes doesn't mean the religion is bad. Just the people.

[Gin1984]

*Sigh...

Why is it that people feel the need to argue about things as though they know what they are talking about, when in fact they really don't. This is the thing that has led divided humanity and caused so much trouble. One of the mayor tenets of Christianity is that your mind is to small to comprehend God. So then why fight over what you think God means.

Saying "I don't know" is seen as a sign of intellectual weakness, and used against people, but really it is often the wisest and the only true answer you can give. Imagine theist and atheist alike would admit they don't have all the definite answers, but only working assumptions. Dialog could be much more friendly and productive.

Another thing that I see in this and so many other discussions is the association of the idea with its proponents. So many people blame the idea of Christianity for the misbehavior of several of it's proponents. Even though the teachings of Christianity clearly condemn those practices. Maybe some priest assaulted an alter boy. That priest was also a man, white, also american, also gay. People would not even think to blame all men, white people or american culture, and there would be mobs if you blame it on him being gay or use his behavior to characterize all gays, Americans or white people.

In the case of prosperity gospel, it is the same thing. If bad people hijack a religion for their own purposes doesn't mean the religion is bad. Just the people.

Actually, many pedophiles which can go after both genders of children (because often before puberty they are sexually similar), are not attracted men therefore cannot be classified as homosexual.

[sol]

One of the mayor tenets of Christianity is that your mind is to small to comprehend God. So then why fight over what you think God means.

One of the major criticisms off Christianity, and religion in general, has been that God has always been defined by the unknown.  Sunrises were a miracle of God, until they weren't anymore.  Human conception was a miracle of God, until it wasn't anymore.  The cosmos was a miracle of God... you get the idea.

In every case, the "because of God" explanation for something was used to offer people a comforting solution to a scary unknown about the natural world.  In every case, as humanity grows and learns, we find the real answers to these questions and God's domain recedes a little further.  This is the so-called "god of the gaps" theory wherein God always lives beyond the frontiers of current human knowledge.  But since that frontier is always moving, where will God hide next?  Why does he keep relocating as we learn more? 

Any justification for supernatural magic that depends on the limits of human knowledge will eventually be disproven as our knowledge grows.  History is pretty clear on this one.

Saying "I don't know" is seen as a sign of intellectual weakness,

Quite the contrary, "I don't know" is the foundation of all scientific inquiry.  Only faith claims to have all the answers.

That priest was also a man, white, also american, also gay. People would not even think to blame all men, white people or american culture, and there would be mobs if you blame it on him being gay or use his behavior to characterize all gays, Americans or white people.

People aren't outraged at the church because priests have molested children.  People are outraged because the church has known about active pedophile priests, covered up their crimes, and relocated them to other areas where they can continue to offend free of consequences, sometimes many times over, without ever reporting them to any authorities or making any amends to the victims.

Pedophile priests aren't really the problem, because there are pedophiles in every large enough group of people.  The Catholic Church's active cover-up, which deliberately puts more kids alone with known pedophiles, is the problem.  That's why people are upset.

In the case of prosperity gospel, it is the same thing. If bad people hijack a religion for their own purposes doesn't mean the religion is bad. Just the people.

In this case, a whole doctrine of Christianity exists for no other reason than cheating poor people out of their last dollar.  How can you not blame the doctrine?  That's like saying the local nambla pedophilia club is totally fine, it's just the pedophiles who are the problem.

[2Cent]

One of the mayor tenets of Christianity is that your mind is to small to comprehend God. So then why fight over what you think God means.

One of the major criticisms off Christianity, and religion in general, has been that God has always been defined by the unknown.  Sunrises were a miracle of God, until they weren't anymore.  Human conception was a miracle of God, until it wasn't anymore.  The cosmos was a miracle of God... you get the idea.

In every case, the "because of God" explanation for something was used to offer people a comforting solution to a scary unknown about the natural world.  In every case, as humanity grows and learns, we find the real answers to these questions and God's domain recedes a little further.  This is the so-called "god of the gaps" theory wherein God always lives beyond the frontiers of current human knowledge.  But since that frontier is always moving, where will God hide next?  Why does he keep relocating as we learn more? 

Any justification for supernatural magic that depends on the limits of human knowledge will eventually be disproven as our knowledge grows.  History is pretty clear on this one.

Saying "I don't know" is seen as a sign of intellectual weakness,

Quite the contrary, "I don't know" is the foundation of all scientific inquiry.  Only faith claims to have all the answers.

You're missing the point entirely. I was not saying that God is the solution to questions we don't have answers for. I was talking about Christians feeling forced to give a definite answer to questions which they don't have an answer for. That is exactly how you end up with a God of the gaps. Like you say, science hasn't advanced enough to answer a question, Christians should answer, theology hasn't advanced far enough to give an answer.

The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)

[2Cent]

People aren't outraged at the church because priests have molested children.  People are outraged because the church has known about active pedophile priests, covered up their crimes, and relocated them to other areas where they can continue to offend free of consequences, sometimes many times over, without ever reporting them to any authorities or making any amends to the victims.

Pedophile priests aren't really the problem, because there are pedophiles in every large enough group of people.  The Catholic Church's active cover-up, which deliberately puts more kids alone with known pedophiles, is the problem.  That's why people are upset.

No, people are also outraged when the church denounces the person right away. In my experience if any Christian slips up in any moral area it is held as an example why those people and the entire Christian faith is a fraud.

In this case, a whole doctrine of Christianity exists for no other reason than cheating poor people out of their last dollar.  How can you not blame the doctrine?  That's like saying the local nambla pedophilia club is totally fine, it's just the pedophiles who are the problem.

I don't think that is the reason for the doctrine. The concept that giving leads to receiving more is actually true in my experience. That some people make that into "give to ME to receive more MONEY" is a side track I think nearly all theologians will reject.

[Beridian]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

I could claim that the Greek gods are real and that we should worship them.  I could claim that the the very existence of modern Greece proves that Greek fables are true.   I could point out numerous Greek fables that teach lessons in morality, so much so that I could further claim that Greek mythology is the foundation of all morals, and that apart from Greek fables you are morally un-grounded.  When you then ask me why Zeus and Poseidon do not show themselves or perform miracles I'll just claim "it is beyond our understanding".  Using such logic you can defend any bizarre absurdity.

[Gin1984]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

I could claim that the Greek gods are real and that we should worship them.  I could claim that the the very existence of modern Greece proves that Greek fables are true.   I could point out numerous Greek fables that teach lessons in morality, so much so that I could further claim that Greek mythology is the foundation of all morals, and that apart from Greek fables you are morally un-grounded.  When you then ask me why Zeus and Poseidon do not show themselves or perform miracles I'll just claim "it is beyond our understanding".  Using such logic you can defend any bizarre absurdity.

And, here a perfect example of someone "insulting" pagan religions without a thought.  There was an implied assumption that worshiping the Greek Gods is absurd yet people do.  Sorry for using you as an example Beridian but it was too perfect.  Mrs. Pete, by being the majority religion you get to avoid this normally.  I get why you are upset, but please don't say that minority religions don't this because we get it so often it is normal.  You get it once in a blue moon, in comparison.

[Beridian]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

I could claim that the Greek gods are real and that we should worship them.  I could claim that the the very existence of modern Greece proves that Greek fables are true.   I could point out numerous Greek fables that teach lessons in morality, so much so that I could further claim that Greek mythology is the foundation of all morals, and that apart from Greek fables you are morally un-grounded.  When you then ask me why Zeus and Poseidon do not show themselves or perform miracles I'll just claim "it is beyond our understanding".  Using such logic you can defend any bizarre absurdity.

And, here a perfect example of someone "insulting" pagan religions without a thought.  There was an implied assumption that worshiping the Greek Gods is absurd yet people do.  Sorry for using you as an example Beridian but it was too perfect.  Mrs. Pete, by being the majority religion you get to avoid this normally.  I get why you are upset, but please don't say that minority religions don't this because we get it so often it is normal.  You get it once in a blue moon, in comparison.

Forgive me Zeus for my blasphemy!  I'll go outside and roll a boulder uphill for a few hours as a penance for my sins.

[Gin1984]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

I could claim that the Greek gods are real and that we should worship them.  I could claim that the the very existence of modern Greece proves that Greek fables are true.   I could point out numerous Greek fables that teach lessons in morality, so much so that I could further claim that Greek mythology is the foundation of all morals, and that apart from Greek fables you are morally un-grounded.  When you then ask me why Zeus and Poseidon do not show themselves or perform miracles I'll just claim "it is beyond our understanding".  Using such logic you can defend any bizarre absurdity.

And, here a perfect example of someone "insulting" pagan religions without a thought.  There was an implied assumption that worshiping the Greek Gods is absurd yet people do.  Sorry for using you as an example Beridian but it was too perfect.  Mrs. Pete, by being the majority religion you get to avoid this normally.  I get why you are upset, but please don't say that minority religions don't this because we get it so often it is normal.  You get it once in a blue moon, in comparison.

Forgive me Zeus for my blasphemy!  I'll go outside and roll a boulder uphill for a few hours as a penance for my sins.

ROFL. I seriously laughed out loud and my coworkers are confused.  You are great.  :D

[2Cent]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

You quote me, but don't really respond to what i'm saying.
You do however provide a perfect example of what is the cause for most religious disagreements. Saying "I don't know" is not copping out if it is true. Forcing someone to either take a stand on details or give up the entire theory to whom ever challenges it does not lead to healthy debate.

There are also contradictions in different models of physics. We accept that these models work even though we don't fully understand them. If I apply your reasoning we should discard every theory which is not fully correct. In fact Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong on most assertions. The current theory was simply adapted to fit with the evidence.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

Contradictions in the bible are there when you go looking for them and take things out of context. The message in the bible and the character of God are quite constant though. Those things that you point out are very generic statements that I believe are true in general, but are not universal laws that motivate every aspect of God. So if something doesn't conform to these assertions that is not a reason to discard the whole faith. It is simply a model of God which is true overall but reality is more complex. We can adapt our understanding of God only to a limit. Some things we just can't know. If that is the case, it should be acceptable to say "I don't know".  The consequence should be that you build your life mainly around the clear bits, and keep an open mind regarding the unclear bits.

[Gin1984]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

You quote me, but don't really respond to what i'm saying.
You do however provide a perfect example of what is the cause for most religious disagreements. Saying "I don't know" is not copping out if it is true. Forcing someone to either take a stand on details or give up the entire theory to whom ever challenges it does not lead to healthy debate.

There are also contradictions in different models of physics. We accept that these models work even though we don't fully understand them. If I apply your reasoning we should discard every theory which is not fully correct. In fact Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong on most assertions. The current theory was simply adapted to fit with the evidence.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

Contradictions in the bible are there when you go looking for them and take things out of context. The message in the bible and the character of God are quite constant though. Those things that you point out are very generic statements that I believe are true in general, but are not universal laws that motivate every aspect of God. So if something doesn't conform to these assertions that is not a reason to discard the whole faith. It is simply a model of God which is true overall but reality is more complex. We can adapt our understanding of God only to a limit. Some things we just can't know. If that is the case, it should be acceptable to say "I don't know".  The consequence should be that you build your life mainly around the clear bits, and keep an open mind regarding the unclear bits.

Really it is not.  The old testament and the new are not consistent in their characterization of God and Paul's message is in no way consistent with Jesus' message. 

[wenchsenior]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

You quote me, but don't really respond to what i'm saying.
You do however provide a perfect example of what is the cause for most religious disagreements. Saying "I don't know" is not copping out if it is true. Forcing someone to either take a stand on details or give up the entire theory to whom ever challenges it does not lead to healthy debate.

There are also contradictions in different models of physics. We accept that these models work even though we don't fully understand them. If I apply your reasoning we should discard every theory which is not fully correct. In fact Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong on most assertions. The current theory was simply adapted to fit with the evidence.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

Contradictions in the bible are there when you go looking for them and take things out of context. The message in the bible and the character of God are quite constant though. Those things that you point out are very generic statements that I believe are true in general, but are not universal laws that motivate every aspect of God. So if something doesn't conform to these assertions that is not a reason to discard the whole faith. It is simply a model of God which is true overall but reality is more complex. We can adapt our understanding of God only to a limit. Some things we just can't know. If that is the case, it should be acceptable to say "I don't know".  The consequence should be that you build your life mainly around the clear bits, and keep an open mind regarding the unclear bits.

Really it is not.  The old testament and the new are not consistent in their characterization of God and Paul's message is in no way consistent with Jesus' message.

I literally guffawed out loud when I read that line you bolded.

[Beridian]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

You quote me, but don't really respond to what i'm saying.
You do however provide a perfect example of what is the cause for most religious disagreements. Saying "I don't know" is not copping out if it is true. Forcing someone to either take a stand on details or give up the entire theory to whom ever challenges it does not lead to healthy debate.

There are also contradictions in different models of physics. We accept that these models work even though we don't fully understand them. If I apply your reasoning we should discard every theory which is not fully correct. In fact Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong on most assertions. The current theory was simply adapted to fit with the evidence.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

Contradictions in the bible are there when you go looking for them and take things out of context. The message in the bible and the character of God are quite constant though. Those things that you point out are very generic statements that I believe are true in general, but are not universal laws that motivate every aspect of God. So if something doesn't conform to these assertions that is not a reason to discard the whole faith. It is simply a model of God which is true overall but reality is more complex. We can adapt our understanding of God only to a limit. Some things we just can't know. If that is the case, it should be acceptable to say "I don't know".  The consequence should be that you build your life mainly around the clear bits, and keep an open mind regarding the unclear bits.

But our understanding of the science of physics does not call on us to believe in invisible spirits or embrace magical assertions regarding the properties of the universe (the Genesis account of creation for example).  When science has an unanswered question it remains just that and people seek out an answer.  When religious belief has an unanswered question an invisible, unknowable, mystical spirit creature is inserted as the answer.

Regarding contradictions and taking things out of context, that is a straw man argument unless we want to delve into specific bible errors and contradictions in which case we can add dozens of pages to this thread debating them.  Two of the most prominent contradictions are the difference in the geologies of Jesus and the varying accounts of the the resurrection morning in the four gospels.  I do not see how you can read these biblical passages (entire chapters) and say that I am taking them out of context.

You may not be a bible believer and I can accept that.  Lately I have been encountering more than a few Christians who now begrudgingly accept that maybe the bible is flawed at least in places.  My father is a devout bible believer and he states that once you question the accuracy of even one word of the bible you are kicking out one leg of a three leg stool and the whole thing topples.  I agree with him, but not in the way that he imagines. 

[Beridian]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

You quote me, but don't really respond to what i'm saying.
You do however provide a perfect example of what is the cause for most religious disagreements. Saying "I don't know" is not copping out if it is true. Forcing someone to either take a stand on details or give up the entire theory to whom ever challenges it does not lead to healthy debate.

There are also contradictions in different models of physics. We accept that these models work even though we don't fully understand them. If I apply your reasoning we should discard every theory which is not fully correct. In fact Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong on most assertions. The current theory was simply adapted to fit with the evidence.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

Contradictions in the bible are there when you go looking for them and take things out of context. The message in the bible and the character of God are quite constant though. Those things that you point out are very generic statements that I believe are true in general, but are not universal laws that motivate every aspect of God. So if something doesn't conform to these assertions that is not a reason to discard the whole faith. It is simply a model of God which is true overall but reality is more complex. We can adapt our understanding of God only to a limit. Some things we just can't know. If that is the case, it should be acceptable to say "I don't know".  The consequence should be that you build your life mainly around the clear bits, and keep an open mind regarding the unclear bits.

I have to throw the bullshit flag on your claim that most of Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong.  As I have read and understood Darwin his general premises were spot-on, it was only in his speculations regarding details of some particular species where he was later shown to be incorrect.  Darwin's great insight regarding the natural selection of species is perhaps the most brilliant and accurate scientific breakthrough in the modern history of biological science and I would challenge you to expose any flaws in it.

[Gin1984]

2Cent:

"The problem with your reasoning is that you take the position that you already know there is no God or "supernatural" even though you don't know how things work. You say without a doubt science could answer all questions eventually, and you know those answers will not point to a God. That kind of bias makes science say things it really doesn't say. Science should indeed start from an objective stance of "I don't know", but that is not the reality. It is usually "Lets find see if I am right". The same can of course also be applied to people taking the position of Theism. Especially for non-scientists arguing on a forum. ;-)"

In reality religion does not even try to answer the hard questions, they just claim that "it is beyond our understanding".   Science at least tries to answer the hard questions.

The other problem with playing the "it is beyond our understanding" card is that it is essentially a cop out for evading the difficult questions that expose religion as fantasy.  For example, in my earlier post I questioned why miracles were so important in the bible but similar miracles do not happen today.   Answering "it is beyond our understanding" ignores the point that there is already a clearly defined precedent for miracles and the reason that god used them (to promote faith).  There are countless contradictions in the bible as well, a text that many people believe is in-errant and authored (or at least guided) directly by the hand of god.  So if I point out a biblical contradiction and you say "it is beyond our understanding" you are copping out on defending your stance.

You quote me, but don't really respond to what i'm saying.
You do however provide a perfect example of what is the cause for most religious disagreements. Saying "I don't know" is not copping out if it is true. Forcing someone to either take a stand on details or give up the entire theory to whom ever challenges it does not lead to healthy debate.

There are also contradictions in different models of physics. We accept that these models work even though we don't fully understand them. If I apply your reasoning we should discard every theory which is not fully correct. In fact Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong on most assertions. The current theory was simply adapted to fit with the evidence.

It is the bible that proclaims that god loves us and wants to save us.  It is the bible that claims that miracles serve to enhance faith.  It is the bible that claims if two people pray for the same thing it will be granted.  In other words, your faith begins by making many clearly defined assertions.  Then when we ask reasonable questions your faith retreats into the stance of "it is beyond our understanding".  How can this be when so many of the other tenets of Christianity are so plainly spelled out?

Contradictions in the bible are there when you go looking for them and take things out of context. The message in the bible and the character of God are quite constant though. Those things that you point out are very generic statements that I believe are true in general, but are not universal laws that motivate every aspect of God. So if something doesn't conform to these assertions that is not a reason to discard the whole faith. It is simply a model of God which is true overall but reality is more complex. We can adapt our understanding of God only to a limit. Some things we just can't know. If that is the case, it should be acceptable to say "I don't know".  The consequence should be that you build your life mainly around the clear bits, and keep an open mind regarding the unclear bits.

I have to throw the bullshit flag on your claim that most of Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong.  As I have read and understood Darwin his general premises were spot-on, it was only in his speculations regarding details of some particular species where he was later shown to be incorrect.  Darwin's great insight regarding the natural selection of species is perhaps the most brilliant and accurate scientific breakthrough in the modern history of biological science and I would challenge you to expose any flaws in it.

Beridian, thank you for posting that, I somehow missed it.  First correction Darwin had a evolutionary hypothesis not theory.  It became a theory once work had been done, over and over again in the field.  Second correction, his hypothesis of natural selection was correct which is why it developed into a theory and his data to develop that hypothesis was quite interesting and correctly gathered.

[2Cent]

Lets not quote the entire conversation each time...

I have to throw the bullshit flag on your claim that most of Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong.  As I have read and understood Darwin his general premises were spot-on, it was only in his speculations regarding details of some particular species where he was later shown to be incorrect.  Darwin's great insight regarding the natural selection of species is perhaps the most brilliant and accurate scientific breakthrough in the modern history of biological science and I would challenge you to expose any flaws in it.

Wait... Are you saying that while his speculations where found to be different than Darwin predicted (a.k.a. wrong) the general idea holds true and was later adjusted to accurately match the findings. That is exactly what I was trying to say...

But again you guys are missing the point. I'm not arguing evolution here. I'm arguing the idea that we can accept a theory and refine it, based on findings. That is how we build our understanding. Why can't we accept the same for Theology. Why do we need to have answers for every question in theology but not in other fields? I say we don't and we can use it, as long as we treat the unclear parts with care.

But our understanding of the science of physics does not call on us to believe in invisible spirits or embrace magical assertions regarding the properties of the universe (the Genesis account of creation for example).  When science has an unanswered question it remains just that and people seek out an answer.  When religious belief has an unanswered question an invisible, unknowable, mystical spirit creature is inserted as the answer.

Are you saying "science" is waiting until something is observed before people believe in a certain theory? Really?

Regarding contradictions and taking things out of context, that is a straw man argument unless we want to delve into specific bible errors and contradictions in which case we can add dozens of pages to this thread debating them.  Two of the most prominent contradictions are the difference in the geologies of Jesus and the varying accounts of the the resurrection morning in the four gospels.  I do not see how you can read these biblical passages (entire chapters) and say that I am taking them out of context.

You may not be a bible believer and I can accept that.  Lately I have been encountering more than a few Christians who now begrudgingly accept that maybe the bible is flawed at least in places.  My father is a devout bible believer and he states that once you question the accuracy of even one word of the bible you are kicking out one leg of a three leg stool and the whole thing topples.  I agree with him, but not in the way that he imagines. 

Do you think people have been reading the bible for the last 2000 years and didn't notice this?
My belief is indeed that the bible is not a history book. It is actually a collection of books which all should be read in their own literary style and taken as such. The gospels are witness accounts. That they don't match up on some detail is not a problem. I believe the exact history aspect is not what matters. It is the matter of what it says about who God is today and the way it speaks to me when I read it. Scientists accept a theory if it nicely matches their findings. For me the world view of Christianity matches what I see in the world.

Anyway, lets not get into that whole discussion as it has been done and will take more time than we have and probably end up in copy pasting others who had these discussions before. We can just skip to their conclusion, that the issue will not be resolved in discussion. :)

[Beridian]

Lets not quote the entire conversation each time...

I have to throw the bullshit flag on your claim that most of Darwin's original evolution theory was completely wrong.  As I have read and understood Darwin his general premises were spot-on, it was only in his speculations regarding details of some particular species where he was later shown to be incorrect.  Darwin's great insight regarding the natural selection of species is perhaps the most brilliant and accurate scientific breakthrough in the modern history of biological science and I would challenge you to expose any flaws in it.

Wait... Are you saying that while his speculations where found to be different than Darwin predicted (a.k.a. wrong) the general idea holds true and was later adjusted to accurately match the findings. That is exactly what I was trying to say...

But again you guys are missing the point. I'm not arguing evolution here. I'm arguing the idea that we can accept a theory and refine it, based on findings. That is how we build our understanding. Why can't we accept the same for Theology. Why do we need to have answers for every question in theology but not in other fields? I say we don't and we can use it, as long as we treat the unclear parts with care.

But our understanding of the science of physics does not call on us to believe in invisible spirits or embrace magical assertions regarding the properties of the universe (the Genesis account of creation for example).  When science has an unanswered question it remains just that and people seek out an answer.  When religious belief has an unanswered question an invisible, unknowable, mystical spirit creature is inserted as the answer.

Are you saying "science" is waiting until something is observed before people believe in a certain theory? Really?

Regarding contradictions and taking things out of context, that is a straw man argument unless we want to delve into specific bible errors and contradictions in which case we can add dozens of pages to this thread debating them.  Two of the most prominent contradictions are the difference in the geologies of Jesus and the varying accounts of the the resurrection morning in the four gospels.  I do not see how you can read these biblical passages (entire chapters) and say that I am taking them out of context.

You may not be a bible believer and I can accept that.  Lately I have been encountering more than a few Christians who now begrudgingly accept that maybe the bible is flawed at least in places.  My father is a devout bible believer and he states that once you question the accuracy of even one word of the bible you are kicking out one leg of a three leg stool and the whole thing topples.  I agree with him, but not in the way that he imagines. 

Do you think people have been reading the bible for the last 2000 years and didn't notice this?
My belief is indeed that the bible is not a history book. It is actually a collection of books which all should be read in their own literary style and taken as such. The gospels are witness accounts. That they don't match up on some detail is not a problem. I believe the exact history aspect is not what matters. It is the matter of what it says about who God is today and the way it speaks to me when I read it. Scientists accept a theory if it nicely matches their findings. For me the world view of Christianity matches what I see in the world.

Anyway, lets not get into that whole discussion as it has been done and will take more time than we have and probably end up in copy pasting others who had these discussions before. We can just skip to their conclusion, that the issue will not be resolved in discussion. :)

What findings have there been regarding religion or the existence of a deity?  That there are countless cultural and historical variations of the one true god?  That bad things often still happen to people who pray?  That history is replete with examples of religious leaders committing unspeakable atrocities?  That firmly held doctrines have been shown to be false (the Earth as the center of the solar system for example)?  I posit that the "findings" regarding religion give strong indication that the deity is fictional.


Regarding your comment on the observations of science, absolutely YES!  In science unless something can be duplicated, measured, and verified, than it cannot be construed to be factual (and it as represented as merely an idea and not a fact).  FWIW natural selection meets the criteria of being a fact.

[jooles]

The IRS has gotten wise to this a long time ago.  A wealthy airline pilot in my childhood neighborhood did this very thing for many years and eventually the Feds took every last thing he owned.

Today you must be holding church services in your home to get that tax free benefit.  The tax-free benefit is meant to be for houses of worship only.  If your home is a house of worship, meaning you actually hold services there, then MAYBE you could take advantage of this.  Consult and advisor and proceed with caution.

[forummm]

Regarding contradictions and taking things out of context, that is a straw man argument unless we want to delve into specific bible errors and contradictions in which case we can add dozens of pages to this thread debating them.  Two of the most prominent contradictions are the difference in the geologies of Jesus and the varying accounts of the the resurrection morning in the four gospels.  I do not see how you can read these biblical passages (entire chapters) and say that I am taking them out of context.

You may not be a bible believer and I can accept that.  Lately I have been encountering more than a few Christians who now begrudgingly accept that maybe the bible is flawed at least in places.  My father is a devout bible believer and he states that once you question the accuracy of even one word of the bible you are kicking out one leg of a three leg stool and the whole thing topples.  I agree with him, but not in the way that he imagines. 

The Bible is full of errors, contradictions, and alterations from the original text. Read any of Bart Ehrman's books. There's a lot of stuff that you can learn in seminary that makes it clear that the version of the Bible we have today is not the same as the version they had back in the day, and that it wasn't written by the people that churches commonly claim. Strangely the churches won't tell you that stuff though. If they will lie to you about the Bible, you really can't trust a word they say.

[wenchsenior]

I think that the main confusion among non scientists about science is that they think of it as a set of beliefs that scientist try to establish and then prove, when in reality, the focus of science is actually on disproof.

Non scientists constantly confuse the mainstream use of 'theory' (meaning any wild-ass idea with or without supporting evidence) with a scientific theory, which is an explanation for some observation or set of observations of the natural world that has been well-tested and found to have voluminous supporting data and no data that disprove it. The bolded info is really crucial. (I think scientists themselves contribute to this confusion sometimes...e.g., String Theory in physics, unless there have been recent developments that I'm unaware of, is actually a set of hypotheses that in no way reach the level of theory because most of them aren't testable for disproof at this time).

The scientific method works both through accumulation of evidence for hypotheses, and more importantly by disproving incorrect hypotheses. Thus, no matter how well supported, all scientific theories/hypotheses remain technically provisional and theoretically subject to revision. The scientific method doesn't 'prove things to be absolutely true' though it can prove things untrue. However, in practice, certain ideas are so well supported that they exist as 'facts' (at least in our known universe/dimension/set of natural laws).

The main difference between religion and science is that religion does not allow for disproof because it doesn't allow established rules for reality, against which its claims might be tested. It's Sagan's dragon-in-the-garage analogy:

Believer: I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage. 
Scientist: Great, lets have a look.
B: It's invisible.
S: Ok, no problem, we'll put down some powder and get some footprints.
B: It's incorporeal.
S: Ok, how about we test for the heat signature of its fire?
B: It has heatless fire.

And on and on and on. Essentially, no concrete evidence for the dragon (only subjective individual testimony), but no allowable way to disprove the existence of the dragon.

A more simple and commonly heard example would be the phrase: "God always answers your prayers, but sometimes he says 'no'."  How would that outcome ever differ from one in which you prayed to a god that doesn't exist? Sometimes things go your way, and sometimes they don't, even when there is no god.

When faced with such bullshit, a scientist eventually says, "Ok, it is still hypothetically POSSIBLE this dragon exists and we just haven't figured out a way to disprove it, and we haven't established any objective evidence that it exists. But if so, then practically speaking, what is the difference between this dragon existing, and no dragon existing at all?" None, except believing in the dragon might affect the believer's behavior or emotional state (which as I've noted in an earlier post, can have very notable behavioral and societal consequences).

I would call myself a scientific atheist, in that there is no evidence for god(s) and no sufficient way to disprove their existence. Although I remain hypothetically open to the possibility that eventually evidence/tests will be discovered, I am not holding my breath and I'm certainly not going to structure my life and decision-making around such a remote possibility. I  provisionally assume that gods don't exist or,  if they do, then they have no practical consequence and thus might as well not exist at all.

[Beridian]

I think that the main confusion among non scientists about science is that they think of it as a set of beliefs that scientist try to establish and then prove, when in reality, the focus of science is actually on disproof.

Non scientists constantly confuse the mainstream use of 'theory' (meaning any wild-ass idea with or without supporting evidence) with a scientific theory, which is an explanation for some observation or set of observations of the natural world that has been well-tested and found to have voluminous supporting data and no data that disprove it. The bolded info is really crucial. (I think scientists themselves contribute to this confusion sometimes...e.g., String Theory in physics, unless there have been recent developments that I'm unaware of, is actually a set of hypotheses that in no way reach the level of theory because most of them aren't testable for disproof at this time).

The scientific method works both through accumulation of evidence for hypotheses, and more importantly by disproving incorrect hypotheses. Thus, no matter how well supported, all scientific theories/hypotheses remain technically provisional and theoretically subject to revision. The scientific method doesn't 'prove things to be absolutely true' though it can prove things untrue. However, in practice, certain ideas are so well supported that they exist as 'facts' (at least in our known universe/dimension/set of natural laws).

The main difference between religion and science is that religion does not allow for disproof because it doesn't allow established rules for reality, against which its claims might be tested. It's Sagan's dragon-in-the-garage analogy:

Believer: I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage. 
Scientist: Great, lets have a look.
B: It's invisible.
S: Ok, no problem, we'll put down some powder and get some footprints.
B: It's incorporeal.
S: Ok, how about we test for the heat signature of its fire?
B: It has heatless fire.

And on and on and on. Essentially, no concrete evidence for the dragon (only subjective individual testimony), but no allowable way to disprove the existence of the dragon.

A more simple and commonly heard example would be the phrase: "God always answers your prayers, but sometimes he says 'no'."  How would that outcome ever differ from one in which you prayed to a god that doesn't exist? Sometimes things go your way, and sometimes they don't, even when there is no god.

When faced with such bullshit, a scientist eventually says, "Ok, it is still hypothetically POSSIBLE this dragon exists and we just haven't figured out a way to disprove it, and we haven't established any objective evidence that it exists. But if so, then practically speaking, what is the difference between this dragon existing, and no dragon existing at all?" None, except believing in the dragon might affect the believer's behavior or emotional state (which as I've noted in an earlier post, can have very notable behavioral and societal consequences).

I would call myself a scientific atheist, in that there is no evidence for god(s) and no sufficient way to disprove their existence. Although I remain hypothetically open to the possibility that eventually evidence/tests will be discovered, I am not holding my breath and I'm certainly not going to structure my life and decision-making around such a remote possibility. I  provisionally assume that gods don't exist or,  if they do, then they have no practical consequence and thus might as well not exist at all.

Very well said!  Thank you for your insight.  Even though I label myself an atheist, I admit that it is impossible for me to know everything that is out there in the universe.  There might be a god who is concerned with my affairs, if so I would love to hear from him (her, it, them).   As such I am open to someone who can show me evidence of a god or evidence that a particular religion is true and valid, but so far nothing has met that standard.  My own observations and experience have however shown me that the earthly religions that I have encountered are almost certainly man made BS.

[Annamal]

In science unless something can be duplicated, measured, and verified, than it cannot be construed to be factual (and it as represented as merely an idea and not a fact).  FWIW natural selection meets the criteria of being a fact.

Just wanted to chime in before anyone seizes on the wording for this, I would agree that something has to be measured and verified to be considered factual but would suggest that duplicated is not quite the most accurate choice of words.

A great deal of science concerns events that span thousands, millions and even billions of years and as such are not open to being duplicated in the extremely small period of time available to the average human scientist.
What they can do is provide predictions which can be proved wrong, i.e. the Precambrian rabbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

[okonumiyaki]

To be fair the Catholic Church is much more rigorous & intelligent in it's theology than evangelical churches such as the one in the OP.  So to become a saint, there is a process to determine if or not miracles have occurred, witnesses required, a devil's advocate to challenge (Christopher Hitchens acted as DA vs Mother Theresa)

So, according to the Catholic Church at least, miracles do still happen.  They are normally of the form of inexplicable reversals of disease.