Do you believe in GOD?

Post Reply New Topic

Those magic books is evidence for people holding beliefs, but poor evidence for those beliefs being true. If you think New Age, Wicca, neo-paganism are true because there are texts, then you need to re-consider your Christianity. I simply don't believe any of them being more reliable than the others.

Now wait a minute... YOU are the one who said you only believe things that are "well-documented." That means YOU have to believe such texts as the Bible, etc. The Bible, in fact, is one of the RARE examples of ancient texts that have been transmitted throughout millennia relatively unchanged--perhaps the ONLY such text. Not only has it been well-written, well-copied, and well-preserved, it has been THOROUGHLY discussed, interpreted, and debated. At one point a single institution claimed sole rights to it before a few brave souls took it and made up their OWN minds about it. You have NOTHING to fear from Biblical study.

Like I said, YOU are the one who only believes everything that is well-documented, which includes the entire realm of religious writings. I have no such restrictions on my faith. The Bible alone will suffice as a foundational scriptural determinant of my belief.

Where did I say I believe in all well preserved documents? Indeed, I believe in NONE of the mythologies. Your faith in one of them while disbelieving other equally (un)convincing materials only demonstrates the irrationality of your world view.

There is more to some of the philosophers than that. Aristotle codified logic and wrote a passable description of animals and plants, as good as could be done without microscopes and chemistry (which had not been invented in the time of Aristotle). The Ionian philosophers where trying to get rid of gods and demons and replace Divine Whim with natural laws and principles. You have completely underestimated what the Ionians did with our without help from people from another place or time. Greek philosophy was dedicated to undoing astrology, not affirming it. They Greeks did not fully succeed nor have modern philosophers. Many people still believe in astrology even at this late date.

ruveyn

Binary: RIGHT HERE:

You require documented evidence. Religious texts ARE documents. So if you want documented evidence of anything, you need look no further than your favorite library or bookstore.

well documented observation = any 'documented evidence'? Are you just pretending you don't understand English?

Anyone can write a book put what ever info they want in it. Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin are not infallible. Atheism is viewed as correct simply because it is popular. The atheism view today simply uses bias to declare all contradictions to their views as heresy despite any evidence that is given.

In other words to you any documents that is considered heresy to atheism is false.

Well, yes, Darwin and Dawkins are not infallible and nobody attributes this to them. I think Orwell has claimed multiple times that modern evolutionary biology has proven Darwin's first conceptions incorrect on a few details. The fact that anybody can write a book and put whatever info they want in it is a good reason not to trust any religious text, as each of them is going to claim things that promote the religion, even if they are of questionable truth. Just think about Scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard, they end up being complete fictions disagreeing with well-documented history. Just think about Rastafarian claims, as those attribute Messianic characteristics to a living figure who denied that he was a Messiah, even regarding the religion as insane. As such, the documents have good reason to question them.

Atheism is actually generally unpopular, except on the internet, so I really can't say that this is a matter of popularity. I suppose we might say "popular among elites" and this could have some validity. I would really tend to think that atheism tends to be viewed as correct for the following reasons though:
1) Science and history are uncovering facts that leave religions little wiggle room where they meaningfully explain things, and even uncovering facts that are uncomfortable to people of religion.
2) Religions tend to take stances that go against policies that make sense to people's desire for progress or their perceptions on ethics.
3) Religions don't tend to present themselves as credible intellectual authorities any more. (perhaps even are unable to do so)
4) Many of the counter-apologetics against religion tend to be perceived as relatively effective, such as the problem of evil.
5) Religious texts are often considered problematic, and many people cite these texts in arguing against religion because these texts go against what seems rational, and what seems ethical.

Perhaps many more other reasons.

I don't think that the matter is heresy on the part of atheists. I mean, one can say that the rejection of miraculous evidence is questionable, but the problem is that there is good reason to believe that many miracles are more matters of people's credulity than what really happened. I mean, any person who wants to point to any miracle claim needs to question why the claims of witchcraft declined in the West when a more scientific/rationalist perspective became more prevalent, and one of the simplest explanations is that this mindset reduced the credulity of people to this kind of nonsense.



No, just that historical documents are very very questionable. Most historians don't take many parts of those documents entirely seriously simply because the precision and care that many modern historians take did not exist as much at the time. Binary isn't dishonest to reject these texts as well-documented cases of supernatural happenings because these texts are not well-documented, and some, such as the Christian New Testament, disagree with other historical texts to a significant extent, even with events that many historians believe were completely confabulated by Christian authors rather than authentic.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/ ... index.html

According to Zuckermann, atheism is popular among the professional (upper middle) class and rich in America, because they have access to informational resources and less need for religious support networks. In countries with a low gini index (high income equality) atheism is high and more uniformly distributed (Sweden is the world's most atheistic country).

I was merely thinking about the popularity among the educational elites, such as professors, and the higher rate of atheism among intelligent and educated individuals.

Well, yes, Darwin and Dawkins are not infallible and nobody attributes this to them. I think Orwell has claimed multiple times that modern evolutionary biology has proven Darwin's first conceptions incorrect on a few details. The fact that anybody can write a book and put whatever info they want in it is a good reason not to trust any religious text, as each of them is going to claim things that promote the religion, even if they are of questionable truth. Just think about Scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard, they end up being complete fictions disagreeing with well-documented history. Just think about Rastafarian claims, as those attribute Messianic characteristics to a living figure who denied that he was a Messiah, even regarding the religion as insane. As such, the documents have good reason to question them.

Atheism is actually generally unpopular, except on the internet, so I really can't say that this is a matter of popularity. I suppose we might say "popular among elites" and this could have some validity. I would really tend to think that atheism tends to be viewed as correct for the following reasons though:
1) Science and history are uncovering facts that leave religions little wiggle room where they meaningfully explain things, and even uncovering facts that are uncomfortable to people of religion.
2) Religions tend to take stances that go against policies that make sense to people's desire for progress or their perceptions on ethics.
3) Religions don't tend to present themselves as credible intellectual authorities any more. (perhaps even are unable to do so)
4) Many of the counter-apologetic s against religion tend to be perceived as relatively effective, such as the problem of evil.
5) Religious texts are often considered problematic, and many people cite these texts in arguing against religion because these texts go against what seems rational, and what seems ethical.

Perhaps many more other reasons.

I don't think that the matter is heresy on the part of atheists. I mean, one can say that the rejection of miraculous evidence is questionable, but the problem is that there is good reason to believe that many miracles are more matters of people's credulity than what really happened. I mean, any person who wants to point to any miracle claim needs to question why the claims of witchcraft declined in the West when a more scientific/rationalist perspective became more prevalent, and one of the simplest explanations is that this mindset reduced the credulity of people to this kind of nonsense.

1.Science and history are discovering many things that remove the credibility of Monotheism however they are uncovering much that puts deep validity to many polytheistic views.

2.Again there is a deep distinction between polytheistic ethics and monotheistic ones. Monotheists have a historical love of anti-hedonistic values(in other words disdain for life here on earth)

3. Polytheism still has intellectual credibility (albeit limited) monotheism to me is a distorted concept of what religion is supposed to be. Polytheism practices such as meditation, yoga, and pranyama are religious practices that have a deep basis in science. Christianity declared all polytheistic values evil (polytheism had a deep acceptance of science).

4. I do not care for the concepts of good and evil.

5. Modern religion suffers from the concept of stagnant scripture. What seems rational can be absurd a century later. Scientific theories are often replaced with more realistic ones. Polytheism generally had a similar practice. Greek Philosophers were living in a polytheistic culture.

Professors (on the basis of the nature of their work, certainly not the pathetic pay they get) tend to be classified professional class, so my statement holds.

Well, good, I wasn't disagreeing with it.

Not really, no. The fact that you brought up polytheism, a view often considered defunct by most people though, is interesting. The very spiritual realm is under question though.


Polytheists don't represent any mainstream established religion that anybody pays attention to, so talking about polytheist vs monotheist ethics is pointless. I could invoke as many humanist Deist gods as I felt like.


Polytheism actually has no intellectual credibility in the West, even compared to Christianity. Christians often do academic work, and popular intellectual work, but polytheists are almost nonexistent. Even in standard philosophy of religion, there is only basic discussion going towards the basic monotheist God. I suppose one could invoke Hinduism, as a polytheist religion, but it still has no Western credibility, and some readings of it are pantheist.

That being said, "polytheist practices" is a difficult issue, as meditation and yoga are not specifically polytheist, as Christians and atheists can practice them without or with a different religious component.


They've run the standards of Western ethical discourse for a very long time.


Trying to say "polytheism is more like science" also doesn't get us anywhere, as science has a test and reject mentality, with strong regard for actual truth components. Even further, the issue isn't "modern religion". Christianity might as well be the only religion to many Western minds, as only oddballs even look further than some branch of Christianity. Most people, rationally, reject non-Christian religions, they just have a special place in their hearts for Christians and belonging with their fellows, so the Christian faith naturally is something they cling to. Really though, as it stands, at best any religion is just an ontologically overcomplicated explanation of reality, and at worst actually contradictory, and because of that, there is really no reason to take it seriously.

Polytheism was an accurate form of religion it is only viewed as having "no-credibility" due to the actions taken by monotheists (particularly Christianity) to demonize and murder the practitioners of other beliefs (albeit after Christianity lost combination of church and state their pyromania genocide has been put to a halt). Polytheism is a completely credible belief system however due to many practitioners attributing monotheistic standards and the "educated" community assuming that all religions work in monotheistic format its no wonder why society is in such a religious and philosophical tizzy that were in now.