Argue that it's true

[_JAK]

One of my last posts at Mormon "apologetics" was about how people defend religion in three ways.

One of those is arguing that it's true. Anyone think it's still possible to argue that religion is literally true?

“Religion” is a far broader term than most recognize. The answer to the question as you state is no.

Some world religions today:

Christianity
• Roman Catholic
• Eastern Orthodox
• Protestant - which includes more than 1,000, groups making claims.

Islam
Hinduism
Buddhism
Confucianism
Shinto
Taoism
Judaism

All have different doctrines and do not agree.

However, religion has been the springboard for magnificent art, music and architecture. Those stand as artifacts from religion. The great cathedrals (generally built with slave labor in Europe) and cathedrals in other parts of the world including America are what they are. The many musical scores composed for especially Christianity from the 1500s exist. Art and architecture can be viewed as those works are still accessible.

Of course, they are not “religion” as you posed the question. They are products of religion in the concrete. Many religious artifacts have been destroyed by those taking over the culture of another and destroying their cultural artifacts. Nevertheless, many remain.

In the USA, for example we have The Cathedral of Saint John the Devine in New York City. We have the National Cathedral in Washington DC which took 100 years to complete. There are many others spectacular examples of architecture in the USA as well. They exist.

As for your question as stated, of course the answer is no if you refer to one of many hundreds of religious doctrines or dogmas.

JAK

[_LCD2YOU]

The begining premise from GoodK is at the heart of many religious debates. To many religions, it is "us, God and angels" vs "them, the devil and demons". Those who believe in that do so because they live in a dichotomous world. Things are "black/white", "right/wrong", "good/evil" in this world view.

This leads to extreme views to sustain it. What it also does is make them realize that the more they make the other "prove" their PoV, the less likely they have to face their own inconsistoncies in their religious viewpoint.

A good example of this is Creationism. In the mind of a creationist, it is either "Evolution" or it is "Creationism".

What they don't understand is even if Evolution is dead wrong, it doesn't mean their version of creation is right. There is Hindu Creation, Creation stories from all over the world that has nothing to do with Abraham and more.

But as long as they make Evolution "prove itself" then they don't have to look at the glaring and gaping holes in "Special Creation".

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, I haven't seen you attack atheism. You know you're not the only one on these boards. ;)

I'm just saying it's a little disconcerting to have to repeatedly tell people that I do care about my fellow man. I am charitable. I do find meaning in my life. I have a sense of eternal (that is in the way of my children, grandchildren that I may have one day, etc.. and humanity in general), and that I find joy, wonder, and awe in life.

Do you not read the threads on MAD where the pigeonholes are often put? And this is in the community at large (where I live) that atheists are nuts and are lunatics that want to destroy society and strip away all morality.

There's a cultural war being waged right now in our country. Where have you been? ;)

And, gotta say, I'm JUST as irritated by those that are atheists attacking theists as if they're all nasty, irrational idiots as well. The intolerance can be seen in both camps.

I think the main axis of the attack on atheism in that area comes from atheists having no rational basis for charity and meaning. While there is some truth to this argument...

Well can you make that argument? ;)

Why don't I have a rational basis for charity? Why do I give to my community? Why do I volunteer my time and money to efforts to right social injustice and help those in need? Why do I assist my neighbors in time of hardships? Why do I help when needed? Why am I involved heavily in my community?

Rationale:
Charity: It feels good to do it. I derive benefit from helping others and the community become a better place and in doing so create a better place for myself, my family, and the rest of humanity. Empathy is natural for most humans -- with or without religion. I have a great deal of empathy and moral outrage at certain things and these traits (not indoctrinated in me by religion) cause me to react when I feel that I can be of assistance to my fellow man.

Meaning: My children give me meaning to life. When I take a walk in the woods and lay down with the sunlight filtering through the trees towering above me I feel a sense of awe and wonder that brings me meaning. When I travel and learn about and explore new cultures and reacquaint myself familiar places I find interest and a great deal of excitement from the experience. I read a book and my mind is stimulated and I find a new topic to explore -- I find that meaningful. I listen to my daughter play her guitar and it brings tears to my eyes -- there is meaning there. Intimate moments with a man I love is meaningful to me. Laughter and finding humor in life brings me meaning! I sit down and play the piano and feel at one with the music while I become entranced. My meaning of life: To enjoy it. Seek the wonder, the beauty, and the sublime. THAT is the meaning of life -- for me.

theists have no rational reason to prefer heaven over hell either. Yet they do. It's something in the makeup of our species that in my opinion defies logic. And as I said, humans are not rational or logical creatures.

Why don't theists have a rational reason to prefer heaven over hell? I'm not following you! If I believed in either of those I sure as hell would prefer heaven over hell! It seems pretty rational to me to choose a comfy cloud over the brimstones of misery and eternal wailing.

I just said there might be something to that argument. I wouldn't try to make it myself. I'm not smart enough and I don't know enough.

Maybe it's just me but I disconnect logic and rationality from desires. I want to be happy. That this body and spirit I am happens to like being happy is not in itself rational.

[_The Nehor]

The begining premise from GoodK is at the heart of many religious debates. To many religions, it is "us, God and angels" vs "them, the devil and demons". Those who believe in that do so because they live in a dichotomous world. Things are "black/white", "right/wrong", "good/evil" in this world view.

This leads to extreme views to sustain it. What it also does is make them realize that the more they make the other "prove" their PoV, the less likely they have to face their own inconsistoncies in their religious viewpoint.

A good example of this is Creationism. In the mind of a creationist, it is either "Evolution" or it is "Creationism".

What they don't understand is even if Evolution is dead wrong, it doesn't mean their version of creation is right. There is Hindu Creation, Creation stories from all over the world that has nothing to do with Abraham and more.

But as long as they make Evolution "prove itself" then they don't have to look at the glaring and gaping holes in "Special Creation".

I would say that we do live in a largely dichotomous world but the battle lines are always drawn wrong. As long as affiliation with something makes you right you will have a warped view of right.

[_LCD2YOU]

The begining premise from GoodK is at the heart of many religious debates. To many religions, it is "us, God and angels" vs "them, the devil and demons". Those who believe in that do so because they live in a dichotomous world. Things are "black/white", "right/wrong", "good/evil" in this world view.

This leads to extreme views to sustain it. What it also does is make them realize that the more they make the other "prove" their PoV, the less likely they have to face their own inconsistancies in their religious viewpoint.

A good example of this is Creationism. In the mind of a creationist, it is either "Evolution" or it is "Creationism".

What they don't understand is even if Evolution is dead wrong, it doesn't mean their version of creation is right. There is Hindu Creation, Creation stories from all over the world that has nothing to do with Abraham and more.

But as long as they make Evolution "prove itself" then they don't have to look at the glaring and gaping holes in "Special Creation".

I would say that we do live in a largely dichotomous world but the battle lines are always drawn wrong. As long as affiliation with something makes you right you will have a warped view of right.

True, I should have stated "inconsistancies in their own personal viewpoint. I stand corrected. Even "non-religious" people can be myopic in this way.

[_Moniker]

How could a lack of belief in something then become a belief in something? I'm not following you. I think you can make the case that there are atheists with agendas, but you can't say that all atheists have a set of beliefs that they prescribe to.

I'm referring to those who have what I consider to be a negative belief system tied to their real belief system and the negative overcomes the real one.

I have no idea what you're attempting to say to me! haha! Sorry! Can you try again. Can you actually tell me what a "negative belief system is" and how it is tied to their "real belief system" and how the negative overcomes the "real one"? Can you actually use examples for me?

I looked at the below examples and I'm not quite sure how that ties into religion or lack of religion? Are you saying that since people can be lazy that this becomes a "negative" behavior and this is a detriment to their "real belief system"? I don't geddit. Sorry! :(

Imagine a voracious reader who loves to read. As an aside to his hobby he starts to collect signed first editions. This becomes more and more important until he's lost the ability to enjoy his books as he is out hunting more.


Same with the person who believes in a religious belief system but spends all their time attacking atheism and worldliness to the detriment of escaping worldliness.

Same with the atheist who seeks freedom outside of religion but instead of spending time searching for meaning and joy spends their time fixated on religion.

Most people know people who collect movies they never watch, books they never read, and fight for causes that are negative because the 'enemy' must be beaten. Turns you into a monster.

I like the story C.S. Lewis mentioned about the man who went to hell. Upon arrival he said, "I did neither the things I ought to have done nor the things I wanted to do." Whether you believe in hell or not I think we can agree that there is lot of wasted life going on.

I think these examples illustrate people being wasteful with their time -- yet if they derive benefit from it (in some way or another as in a hobby or it gives them pleasure) is it really wasteful?

[_Moniker]

I would say that we do live in a largely dichotomous world but the battle lines are always drawn wrong. As long as affiliation with something makes you right you will have a warped view of right.

Ack! Sorry to do it to you again. :)

What do you mean a "warped view of right"?

Do you mean within groups that there is expected behavior and norms placed upon those within the group and the group has little tolerance for deviance?
Are you suggesting that if you belong to a group that you perceive as "right" that then all others, that are deviant or outside the group, are essentially perceived as being "wrong"?

[_The Nehor]

How could a lack of belief in something then become a belief in something? I'm not following you. I think you can make the case that there are atheists with agendas, but you can't say that all atheists have a set of beliefs that they prescribe to.

I'm referring to those who have what I consider to be a negative belief system tied to their real belief system and the negative overcomes the real one.

I have no idea what you're attempting to say to me! haha! Sorry! Can you try again. Can you actually tell me what a "negative belief system is" and how it is tied to their "real belief system" and how the negative overcomes the "real one"? Can you actually use examples for me?

I looked at the below examples and I'm not quite sure how that ties into religion or lack of religion? Are you saying that since people can be lazy that this becomes a "negative" behavior and this is a detriment to their "real belief system"? I don't geddit. Sorry! :(

Imagine a voracious reader who loves to read. As an aside to his hobby he starts to collect signed first editions. This becomes more and more important until he's lost the ability to enjoy his books as he is out hunting more.


Same with the person who believes in a religious belief system but spends all their time attacking atheism and worldliness to the detriment of escaping worldliness.

Same with the atheist who seeks freedom outside of religion but instead of spending time searching for meaning and joy spends their time fixated on religion.

Most people know people who collect movies they never watch, books they never read, and fight for causes that are negative because the 'enemy' must be beaten. Turns you into a monster.

I like the story C.S. Lewis mentioned about the man who went to hell. Upon arrival he said, "I did neither the things I ought to have done nor the things I wanted to do." Whether you believe in hell or not I think we can agree that there is lot of wasted life going on.

I think these examples illustrate people being wasteful with their time -- yet if they derive benefit from it (in some way or another as in a hobby or it gives them pleasure) is it really wasteful?

I'm saying that some people take what they want to do or feel they should do and put it off while they toil away at something irrelevant. Not laziness, just mistargeting. If it was giving them pleasure I don't think it fits my description.

[_JAK]

Nehor, I haven't seen you attack atheism. You know you're not the only one on these boards. ;)

I'm just saying it's a little disconcerting to have to repeatedly tell people that I do care about my fellow man. I am charitable. I do find meaning in my life. I have a sense of eternal (that is in the way of my children, grandchildren that I may have one day, etc.. and humanity in general), and that I find joy, wonder, and awe in life.

Do you not read the threads on MAD where the pigeonholes are often put? And this is in the community at large (where I live) that atheists are nuts and are lunatics that want to destroy society and strip away all morality.

There's a cultural war being waged right now in our country. Where have you been? ;)

And, gotta say, I'm JUST as irritated by those that are atheists attacking theists as if they're all nasty, irrational idiots as well. The intolerance can be seen in both camps.

I think the main axis of the attack on atheism in that area comes from atheists having no rational basis for charity and meaning. While there is some truth to this argument, theists have no rational reason to prefer heaven over hell either. Yet they do. It's something in the makeup of our species that in my opinion defies logic. And as I said, humans are not rational or logical creatures.

--------------------

Your claim here is so ridiculous as to be laughable. It is exactly a “rational basis” for charity to observe human misery and tragedy with a desire to alleviate that misery and tragedy. Atheists or agnostics can see suffering as it is presented to them (documented). And the desire of atheists/agnostics to mitigate and ameliorate that situation is demonstrated by works.

On the other hand, religious pundits appear to be more concerned about their selfish ends. It may be their fear of hell that motivates their good works. Or, they may be out trying to proselytize others trying to enrich their own religious denomination. The appeal for money from religious groups is generally quite self-serving. It is not generally out of “charity” for others. A food basket to the poor once a year (Thanksgiving) is hardly sincere “charity.” While some religious groups do much more than that, others do just about that much.

As for “humans are not rational or logical creatures;” there is irrefutable evidence for that and especially in religious groups. Religion is irrational. Medical science, on the other hand, is based on rational (reasoned) discovery and application of reasoned conclusion.

“Charity” for one’s fellow humans can be well founded outside religion. Medical science is, at a practical level, about “charity.” And medical science is generally atheistic nor agnostic as it pursues truth entirely outside God boxes of religion.

Your argument that atheists have no rational basis for charity is wrong. There is rational basis for “charity.” Historically, religion has not been much on “charity.” It has been big on punishment and sin and irrational beliefs (as particular religions make claims which are irrational).

JAK

[_Some Schmo]

It seems to me that by using the label "atheist" one gives religious people the right to misunderstand what a person is all about. Atheists could learn a thing or two about labels from vegetarians, for example.

Some people think vegetarians are people who don't eat meat, but that's not really what the label indicates. It sounds like a vegetarian is someone who eats vegetables. Of course, they eat other things as well; they just avoid meat. If they took the same labeling route as a self-proclaimed atheist, they might call themselves "ameatists" or something along those lines. But their name is more positive; it speaks to what they do eat rather than what they don't.

Although what I believe fits the definition of atheist, it's not entirely accurate or enlightening to call me that. Just because my diet doesn't include any god doesn't mean I am defined by it. Naturalist or rationalist would be far more descriptive and accurate. There's no point in giving religious types any reason to believe that not accepting the existence of a supreme being is a belief system, any more than encouraging the idea that not believing in Santa Claus is a belief system.

There will always be those who think that way just like there are those who cling to the notion that vegetarianism is all about meat avoidance, but at least the label "vegetarian" does not contribute to that error.