Argue that it's true

[_Imwashingmypirate]

In order to argue or debate on any topic one must back up every claim they make with quotes or evidence.

[_GoodK]

Dude, I think you understood what I intended in my post pretty well but still I thought I might try to clarify a bit. I mentioned two things which I thought would show I thought we had some limited knowledge and that portion though limited has importance. I noted that faith can be distorted into ways opening doors to evil and I noted some descriptions of the divine are to my view better than others.

If I find myself discussing faith with others whose shape of faith is different than mine I think I remember that we share things that are important. Yet I may say I think this or that is wrong. There may be occasions when damn wrong might seem a possiblity to my mind. (Mr god hates fags comes to my mind first)

If I say I believe in Zeus it is the essential idea of which Zeus is a form of which I believe in. I do not believe much of the stories about him or that there is a special palace on Olympus. There is some similarity to the fact that there are stories in the Bible I do not believe happened in a literal form as well. The flood is to my mind the clearest example. Yet I do believe the central story there actually is true. Jesus born lived teaching crucified and raised from the dead. My beliefs are not so general as to have no form despite the fact that I see our knowledge as quite limited. I think the historical evidence points to the Jesus story as true. At the same time I understand well that there are other ways of putting the historical information together without finding a divine Jesus.

Do I imagine all believers see these questions like me? Well I have already strongly implied that I see believers as a very diverse lot. I have seen a variety of believers make claims about evidence which to my mind are indefensible. I have seen people claim the evidence for Jesus is much more a lock than I can see. (I see substantial elbow room for skeptical views) I have even seen Christians claim the flood clearly is true because of evidence. I think that is fantasy land evidence. Yet there is a wide spread of understandings about this in the world. There are even people who hold to faith who see less history and certainty than I do.

Do I agree with Allusion on the proofs? You may be correct that if there is a difference in our view it is difficult to tease out. An approach to the question I sometimes consider is the one Paul Tillich used. The traditional proof point to the idea that God is the fundamental ground of being. Such an observation means that god exists is a given. However both Tillich and past comments from Allusion both observe that such a god may be quite remote from theism. Tillich also proposes that God is our ultimate concern. How those two ideas relate or fail to relate becomes the basis of how we think about God.

Tillich of course represents a small minority view, one I only partly share.I am more orthodox in my views. I actually like the comments in the Catholic Catachism. I am not RC but respect the care the keep toward such questions. Just so I do not feel all alone I will offer quote from cc, Professions fo Faith,sec 33,34,35

33 The human person: With his openness to truth and beauty , his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about Gods existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul , the seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material, can have its origin only in God.

34 The world , and man attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather tat they participate in Bing intsef which alone is without origin or end. Thus in differnet ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things a reality that "everyone calls God."

35 Mans faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence however,can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

Huckelberry continues, as a strenght of proof, showing something is not opposed to reason is distincly shy of the top of the stength scale. At the same time this statement indicates that it is normal for believers to be that way due to various things converging to a point of belief. The converging considerations are not individually certain nor is certain knowledge the result of this convergence, instead something called faith (in a sense of a working hypothesis which continues to function for the believer harmoniously with the rest of reality)

Dude, I get it:

In confessing ones atheism in respect to Zeus, one would have to confront the notion that a belief in Yaweh is equal in it's lack of reason and evidence. Unfortunately, there are thousands of "gods" that lay upon the scrap heap known as mythology. You have just failed to admit yours belongs there as well.

Religious moderates try and blur the lines like this all the time, The Bible really doesn't mean to say homosexuality is evil, The Bible really doesn't mean to be racist, The Bible really doesn't mean god created Eve from some of Adam's spare parts... The problem is - while I agree and applaud the moral decision to disregard The Bible's council on homosexuality, it is not the Bible that tells us to behave this way. The Bible is either true, or it isn't. There is either a God, or there isn't. Either religion is true, or it isn't. Cherry picking the Bible and defending the good parts only gives shelter to religious fundamentalists - those who do condemn homosexuality, who do anxiously await armageddon, who do believe that evolution should not be taught in schools - from public scrutiny.

[_huckelberry]

Goodk, I have as little belief in or support for the proposition that evolution should not be taught is school as I have for the equally mindnumbingly wrong view that the Bible is either true or it is not. None.

There is a sort of fundamentalist propaganda device which teaches the world is two catagories. First there is the right view,held by every propagandist, and then there is the temptation of diverse outside thought using ambiguity to lead people into the devils lair.

Should I be sympathetic thinking you have only partly escaped whatever fundamentalist concentration camp has been teaching you or are you just using easy polemic devices?

[_solomarineris]

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?

Have u ever been in LDS ward on a Fast&testimony meeting?
What is there to argue when a member says " I know this church is true, Joseph Smith is the Prophet" ?

[_GoodK]

Goodk, I have as little belief in or support for the proposition that evolution should not be taught is school as I have for the equally mindnumbingly wrong view that the Bible is either true or it is not. None.

There is a sort of fundamentalist propaganda device which teaches the world is two catagories. First there is the right view,held by every propagandist, and then there is the temptation of diverse outside thought using ambiguity to lead people into the devils lair.

Should I be sympathetic thinking you have only partly escaped whatever fundamentalist concentration camp has been teaching you or are you just using easy polemic devices?

I don't think this constitutes an adequate response to my assertion that:
1. Yaweh belongs with Zeus in the scrap heap of mythology
2. You are just as much of an atheist as I am, with one exception
3. The Bible (or Christianity) is either true or false
4. Religious moderation shelters and supports fundamentalism



You've said that the Bible is neither right nor wrong -- and yes, it's mind-numbing :(

[_Ray A]

1. Yaweh belongs with Zeus in the scrap heap of mythology

Do California Kid, Roger Morrison and CKSalmon agree with this?

2. You are just as much of an atheist as I am, with one exception

Do California Kid, Roger Morrison and CKSalmon agree with this?

3. The Bible (or Christianity) is either true or false

Do California Kid, Roger Morrison and CKSalmon agree with this?

4. Religious moderation shelters and supports fundamentalism

Do California Kid, Roger Morrison and CKSalmon agree with this?

You've said that the Bible is neither right nor wrong -- and yes, it's mind-numbing : (

Do California Kid, Roger Morrison and CKSalmon agree with this?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Didn't expect anyone to know what Deuteronomy 23:1 says, did you? I'll have you know, I almost choked to death because of you.

My heart goes out to the 9 or 10 souls that will be denied the privilege of inheriting your manly facial hair.

I feel bad for poor Mr. Bobbit [sp?].

[_The Nehor]

In order to argue or debate on any topic one must back up every claim they make with quotes or evidence.

CFR

[_The Nehor]

Goodk, I have as little belief in or support for the proposition that evolution should not be taught is school as I have for the equally mindnumbingly wrong view that the Bible is either true or it is not. None.

There is a sort of fundamentalist propaganda device which teaches the world is two catagories. First there is the right view,held by every propagandist, and then there is the temptation of diverse outside thought using ambiguity to lead people into the devils lair.

Should I be sympathetic thinking you have only partly escaped whatever fundamentalist concentration camp has been teaching you or are you just using easy polemic devices?

I don't think this constitutes an adequate response to my assertion that:
1. Yaweh belongs with Zeus in the scrap heap of mythology
2. You are just as much of an atheist as I am, with one exception
3. The Bible (or Christianity) is either true or false
4. Religious moderation shelters and supports fundamentalism



You've said that the Bible is neither right nor wrong -- and yes, it's mind-numbing :(

1. I don't think either deserves the scrap heap and I think mythology has value.

3. I can't believe this and except for biblical fundamentalists I don't think anyone would agree with you. Parts of the Bible are true. Parts are probably false. Some of these truths probably came from men. Some of them may have come from God.

4. If we chuck every concept in which there is potential for abuse human society will have nothing left.

[_GoodK]

Goodk, I have as little belief in or support for the proposition that evolution should not be taught is school as I have for the equally mindnumbingly wrong view that the Bible is either true or it is not. None.

There is a sort of fundamentalist propaganda device which teaches the world is two catagories. First there is the right view,held by every propagandist, and then there is the temptation of diverse outside thought using ambiguity to lead people into the devils lair.

Should I be sympathetic thinking you have only partly escaped whatever fundamentalist concentration camp has been teaching you or are you just using easy polemic devices?

I don't think this constitutes an adequate response to my assertion that:
1. Yaweh belongs with Zeus in the scrap heap of mythology
2. You are just as much of an atheist as I am, with one exception
3. The Bible (or Christianity) is either true or false
4. Religious moderation shelters and supports fundamentalism



You've said that the Bible is neither right nor wrong -- and yes, it's mind-numbing :(

1. I don't think either deserves the scrap heap and I think mythology has value.

Mythology certainly does have value. No disagreement there. But I find absolutely no value - maybe you do - in a literal belief in Zeus. I simply hope that intelligent believers like yourself will someday realize that as a species we have outgrown our need for belief in mythical gods.

3. I can't believe this and except for biblical fundamentalists I don't think anyone would agree with you. Parts of the Bible are true. Parts are probably false. Some of these truths probably came from men. Some of them may have come from God.

I highly doubt that only biblical fundamentalists have decided that the Bible is either true or false. Granted, the Bible is a collection of books, and Latter Day Saints believe that some of the Bible is not divinely inspired or has been "tampered" with by ordinary men. Fine. Latter Day Saints must subscribe to many other, seemingly less harmful, claims in the Bible.
The problem with a moderate view of the Bible is:

1. Virgin birth's do not occur (for humans at least).
2. People do not come back from the dead three days later.
3. Jesus Christ was likely not even crucified.

I believe Christianity in general - and thus Mormonism - cannot survive without a contradictory belief in all of the above. This isn't useful.

4. If we chuck every concept in which there is potential for abuse human society will have nothing left.

This is merely an example of someone using the second tactic in the list I posted earlier stating the 3 things that people do to defend religion:

1. Argue that it's true
2. Argue that it's useful
3. Attack atheism as if it were a religion or otherwise worthy of contempt

Needless to say, it does not stand as a defense for a literal belief in Yaweh.