Originally posted by MF DELPH
For JesusIsAlive.With love.
http://faithinterrupted.blogspot.com/2013/11/top-seven-things-people-think-are-in.html
This is a wonderful critical look at many concepts that people seem to think are Biblically justified. I don't imagine that it ends the conversation; some Biblical scholars may take issue with some of the assertions. But it's a different take on many ideas that we take for granted.
Among the ideas debunked:
[list]- "God helps those who help themselves" (a quote attributed to Shaespeare, not scripture);
- That we must accept Jesus into our hearts as our personal Lord and Savior (a Western Enlightenment development as we placed more emphasis on the individual, not necessarily a requirement for salvation);
- The Rapture (loosely pulled together from wildly varying passages in different Bible verses, and mostly inherited from fictitious works of the past century);
- And, that "everything happens for a reason," a plague of an idea that infects more than just Christianity these days.[/list]
To be clear, these ideas themselves aren't necessarily harmful (though they all can be). But turning a critical eye to them to see where their justification lies - and if it is credibly backed - should be a prerequisite for any major religious idea.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Digi, why do you care enough about what some Christian believes to post the above? Also, do you feel the same about any other religion?
A good question. It's not about the beliefs themselves. A common response to atheist debating is to question motives...to advocate Christianity, you think you're saving an individual's soul. It's an act of good to debate against things you think aren't the Truth. But to promote atheism, you're...what, exactly?
Which then leads people to claim other motives, and also where a lot of the stereotype behind the "angry atheist" comes from. They see an attack, or perhaps not an attack but a position, but they don't see the purpose behind it.
For me, it has to do with the sociological implications. I see (Western) religion as a whole to be a net negative in the world, but that's a different discussion entirely. But let's look at these particular beliefs.
...
A belief in the Rapture within one's lifetime can cause a short-sightedness that on a societal and/or political level can harm our attitudes toward the environment and social ills. Rather than working to correct them, those believing in the Rapture can bury their head in the sand, and any environmental or societal crises that happen are just evidence for their belief, not problems to be solved or challenges to overcome.
A belief that "everything happens for a reason" can be harmful on several levels, not the least of which being a diffusion of responsibility for one's situation in life. "God's Plan" seems an awful lot like regular life just happening when you strip it of its magical terminology. And it's also part of the larger pattern-seeking mentality that leads many people to other erroneous beliefs.
Those are two examples. You can see the larger point.
On a larger level, people who simply accept these ideas without critical thought are guilty of intellectual laziness. It's this laziness that allows for all kinds of false and unjustified beliefs to creep into the cultural zeitgeist...and rarely are those ideas without some measure of malice. It's also the laziness that allows con men and hucksters to take advantage of the ignorance and gullibility of people. So, like, a belief in psychics isn't harmful in and of itself...but the multi-million dollar psychic industry of people preying on believers for their money IS harmful and evil.
Lastly, I think the truth is its own reward. Living in an uncertain universe with your eyes open to its true nature is better to me than living in a magical lie. And maybe I'm not right about everything I believe or say, in fact I'm certainly not right about everything. But we don't approach the truth without critical analysis and skepticism of ideas that aren't properly founded.
Originally posted by Digi
A good question. It's not about the beliefs themselves. A common response to atheist debating is to question motives...to advocate Christianity, you think you're saving an individual's soul. It's an act of good to debate against things you think aren't the Truth. But to promote atheism, you're...what, exactly?
I know you are not an "angry atheists", and like me, you used to be a Christian (at least that is what you told me). Do you think you are "saving" anyone?
Originally posted by Digi
Which then leads people to claim other motives, and also where a lot of the stereotype behind the "angry atheist" comes from. They see an attack, or perhaps not an attack but a position, but they don't see the purpose behind it.
There are "angry atheists" out there, and I have met more then one. However, I realize that some Christians like to piss off atheists with that label.
Originally posted by Digi
For me, it has to do with the sociological implications. I see (Western) religion as a whole to be a net negative in the world, but that's a different discussion entirely. But let's look at these particular beliefs.
I agree! However, I believe we need a better religion, not a void of no religion. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who need a religion of some kind. So, unless you want to make atheism into a religion, some religions must exist. I know for one, without Buddhism I would be lost.
Originally posted by Digi
A belief in the Rapture within one's lifetime can cause a short-sightedness that on a societal and/or political level can harm our attitudes toward the environment and social ills. Rather than working to correct them, those believing in the Rapture can bury their head in the sand, and any environmental or societal crises that happen are just evidence for their belief, not problems to be solved or challenges to overcome.
Delusion is a constant human effort. Hee hee
Originally posted by Digi
A belief that "everything happens for a reason" can be harmful on several levels, not the least of which being a diffusion of responsibility for one's situation in life. "God's Plan" seems an awful lot like regular life just happening when you strip it of its magical terminology. And it's also part of the larger pattern-seeking mentality that leads many people to other erroneous beliefs.
That can be bad, but when your life sucks beyond believe, "everything happens for a reason" can save your life.
Originally posted by Digi
Those are two examples. You can see the larger point.
I do understand.
Originally posted by Digi
On a larger level, people who simply accept these ideas without critical thought are guilty of intellectual laziness. It's this laziness that allows for all kinds of false and unjustified beliefs to creep into the cultural zeitgeist...and rarely are those ideas without some measure of malice. It's also the laziness that allows con men and hucksters to take advantage of the ignorance and gullibility of people. So, like, a belief in psychics isn't harmful in and of itself...but the multi-million dollar psychic industry of people preying on believers for their money IS harmful and evil.
Critical thinking is very important. As Buddha said (paraphrased) do not believe me, find your own path.
Originally posted by Digi
Lastly, I think the truth is its own reward. Living in an uncertain universe with your eyes open to its true nature is better to me than living in a magical lie. And maybe I'm not right about everything I believe or say, in fact I'm certainly not right about everything. But we don't approach the truth without critical analysis and skepticism of ideas that aren't properly founded.
Not all religions are "magical lies". Like I said, we need a better religion, not a world without religion.
I believe that evolution created religion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know you are not an "angry atheists", and like me, you used to be a Christian (at least that is what you told me). Do you think you are "saving" anyone?
Not in a religious sense, no. What would I be saving them from or for?
That said, fighting against evils perpetrated by supernatural beliefs IS a form of saving, but not in the way Christians would use the term. To use an earlier example, outing a phony psychic that told falsehoods would save people from spending money on worthless crap, and likely save them mental and emotional trauma if the lies are discovered, while also allowing for more tested and permanent forms of advice or therapy.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are "angry atheists" out there, and I have met more then one. However, I realize that some Christians like to piss off atheists with that label.
Outside of a couple horribly cliche videos on Youtube, I've never actually seen an angry atheist anywhere in the media. This includes any polarizing figure you can think of. Not pulling intellectual punches /= angry.
It's not hard to understand, though. Atheists are, what, 1-15% of the population, depending on country (3-4% aggregate). And this is the first era where it's been generally acceptable to "come out," and where we have the requisite knowledge to fully combat religious thinking. It's the baby steps of a new cultural group. There's backlash, hatred, anger and misunderstanding on both sides. The 'angry atheist' meme is a wailing toddler rebelling against mom and dad for the first time.
They also, if they do exist in any numbers, represent a hilariously small portion of atheists. No one points to the Westboro Baptists and says "Yup, there's what Christianity is." And it's the same thing.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree! However, I believe we need a better religion, not a void of no religion. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who need a religion of some kind. So, unless you want to make atheism into a religion, some religions must exist. I know for one, without Buddhism I would be lost.
You can see through time to see alternate outcomes then? You'll have to teach me that trick some time.
Kidding, but the point stands. Saying Buddhism stopped you from being lost isn't the same as saying nothing else would have been able to do that. I'd contend that YOU stopped yourself from being lost. The fact that you used Buddhism as a means for it is just a convenient tool, but not the only one that could have done it. The power is intrinsic, not in any belief or institution. People have loads of inner strength. God is just one way they trick themselves into thinking they're getting strength from afar.
That said, we can't debate in a vacuum. Of course some people need it; and if taken away, they'd shrivel as human beings. But those are the ones for whom religion is entrenched in their being already. I'd argue that no one is biologically predestined to "need" religion or be lost without it. We're all quite capable of being without it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That can be bad, but when your life sucks beyond believe, "everything happens for a reason" can save your life.
Perhaps. Pointing to the good a belief can do isn't enough to justify it though.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Critical thinking is very important. As Buddha said (paraphrased) do not believe me, find your own path.
Blind faith is the worst perpetrator of, well, most of this. So in that, I and your Buddha agree.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not all religions are "magical lies". Like I said, we need a better religion, not a world without religion.
Anything that wouldn't classify as a magical lie to me almost can't be considered a religion. Even Buddhism ascribes to some supernatural ideas like reincarnation and karma. I think what you might be talking about is a philosophy, which is the line that things like Buddhism and Taoism straddle.
And for the record, I've seen reincarnation and karma packaged as, say, matter transfer and determinism, respectively. But then you're just dressing up scientific ideas as religion, and likely muddying the ideas for many in the process. One only needs to look at how many interpretations of reincarnation and karma there are to see the proof. It's another magical lie, another unnecessary level of confusion, albeit a far lesser one than some others.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that evolution created religion.
There is evidence to support this belief. However, we're not bound by our evolutionary tendencies, and the fact that it's wired into us isn't automatic justification for its superiority. It was - and likely no longer is in most parts of the world - a survival mechanism, or a byproduct of instincts that were amenable for survival. But it has ceased its use as such.
Hi Digi
Sorry, but I am not going to reply to everything in your post.
Originally posted by Digi
Not in a religious sense, no. What would I be saving them from or for?
Originally posted by Digi
That said, fighting against evils perpetrated by supernatural beliefs IS a form of saving, but not in the way Christians would use the term.
Originally posted by Digi
It's not hard to understand, though. Atheists are, what, 1-15% of the population, depending on country (3-4% aggregate). And this is the first era where it's been generally acceptable to "come out," and where we have the requisite knowledge to fully combat religious thinking. It's the baby steps of a new cultural group. There's backlash, hatred, anger and misunderstanding on both sides. The 'angry atheist' meme is a wailing toddler rebelling against mom and dad for the first time.
Originally posted by Digi
No one points to the Westboro Baptists and says "Yup, there's what Christianity is."
Originally posted by Digi
You can see through time to see alternate outcomes then? You'll have to teach me that trick some time.
Originally posted by Digi
Blind faith…
Originally posted by Digi
…But then you're just dressing up scientific ideas as religion,…
Originally posted by Digi
And this is the first era where it's been generally acceptable to "come out," and where we have the requisite knowledge to fully combat religious thinking. It's the baby steps of a new cultural group.
To be honest, I believe that you only have a superficial understanding of Buddhism, and no knowledge of Nichiren Buddhism. Nothing you said above is even remotely similar to Buddhism. Please study my religion first before you mischaracterize it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea. I was hoping you could tell me.
Tell you what? What atheists save people for? They don't. By and large, they're speaking against what they perceive to be evils in the world. But there's no inherent benefit in 'converting' anyone like there is in some religions. It's working toward a common good, but not based on a specific dogma.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a very active imagination. I could hear a marching took and banners blowing in the breeze.
Your talk of cults and banners is all a bit much, but I see the point you're making. You see it as eventually becoming its own "religion."
I don't. For one, one of the primary ideas behind (most) atheists is that they are free-thinkers. It kind of negates the possibility of a institutional structure. Some will try to form groups, sure, but because of the ideological underpinnings, it will likely never reach the level you think it will. There will be growing pains - to stick with my earlier toddler analogy - but the prerequisites for being classified a cult are the antithesis of what most modern atheism purports to be.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do! All the time!
Really? You think that the Westboro Baptists are representative of Christians? They're a form of Christianity, but nothing close to representing a majority. Saying that they represent Christianity is the same as saying a Youtube rant represents atheism. That was my point.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are taking the path that every young cult takes before it becomes a religion.
I'm curious about this response, because it responds to a line that I specifically said I was kidding about. Even the larger point of the paragraph you said this in response to...the main point was that the power we have to pull ourselves up is intrinsic. No religion needed. No institution needed. How is that cult-like? Or did you just quote the wrong section?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Science came from religion. And please don’t be just talking about Christianity.
Nah, scientific methods exist independent of any other institution. Something is empirically true regardless of religious context. If the world came to an end and we lost all civilized knowledge but survived, new religions would form. But the same scientific principles would be discovered over and over again.
True, some early religious leaders helped lay the groundwork for science as it exists today. Others have embraced scientific progress. But scientific oppression is just as rampant in religious history. And even outside of those things, it's just a different enterprise altogether. Science didn't come from religion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To be honest, I believe that you only have a superficial understanding of Buddhism, and no knowledge of Nichiren Buddhism. Nothing you said above is even remotely similar to Buddhism. Please study my religion first before you mischaracterize it.
Heh. Ok. Just, ya know, realize the context. We started this discussion over a critical look at some common Christian ideas. Since you engaged me, and wanted to steer it away from Christianity, I tried to meet you halfway by working in some Buddhist references, and how others have tried to justify the beliefs to me.
It's not my intent to mischaracterize anything. But it's also impossible to be versed on every sect of every religion. I've studied Buddhism. Not at length, but I understand the basic tenets and teachings. I have a twice-read copy of "What the Buddha Taught" on my bookshelf next to the Tao Te Ching, and I've engaged Buddhists and Buddhist ideas on several occasions both online and in 'real life.' There's a lot I enjoy (and agree with) about Buddhism, but I would never claim to be an adherent. So if you think I'm misrepresenting your beliefs, explain why. I'm not going to waste my time groping for your personal understanding of a religion without an idea of what I even messed up according to you.
But anyway, we're having a discussion here and have nothing but time. And nearly any idea is explainable. I'm wrong about Buddhism, apparently. So enlighten me. I'm doing my damnedest to explain my position to you. Extend the same courtesy. I'm happy to hear your take on these things, but I'd rather hear it from you than be told "go read about this before talking to me again."
Originally posted by Digi
Tell you what? What atheists save people for? They don't. By and large, they're speaking against what they perceive to be evils in the world. But there's no inherent benefit in 'converting' anyone like there is in some religions. It's working toward a common good, but not based on a specific dogma.
But you don't have to be an atheist to do that. Christians, Islamists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Atheists can all work together on such a worthy cause.
Originally posted by Digi
Your talk of cults and banners is all a bit much, but I see the point you're making. You see it as eventually becoming its own "religion."
I don't think atheism is a religion on its own. I see people making it into a religion. Or spinning off to make their own religion.
Originally posted by Digi
Really? You think that the Westboro Baptists are representative of Christians? They're [b]a form of Christianity, but nothing close to representing a majority. Saying that they represent Christianity is the same as saying a Youtube rant represents atheism. That was my point. [/B]
That kind of Christianity is what I was raised in. Those people might as well be my relatives. Christians that are different from them is something new to me.
Originally posted by Digi
I'm curious about this response, because it responds to a line that I specifically said I was kidding about. Even the larger point of the paragraph you said this in response to...the main point was that the power we have to pull ourselves up is intrinsic. No religion needed. No institution needed. How is that cult-like? Or did you just quote the wrong section?
I didn't see any indication you were joking. I am glad you where not telling me that you know the future better then I do.
Originally posted by Digi
Nah, scientific methods exist independent of any other institution. Something is empirically true regardless of religious context. If the world came to an end and we lost all civilized knowledge but survived, new religions would form. But the same scientific principles would be discovered over and over again.
Here we have a fundamental disagreement. I believe that the scientific method is not independent of humans. Sure humans will invent it again in the future, but an alien race will most likely have a completely different method (that might even be better).
Originally posted by Digi
Science didn't come from religion.
This is contrary to everything I have learned about science history. I simple think you are misguided here.
Originally posted by Digi
Heh. Ok. Just, ya know, realize the context. We started this discussion over a critical look at some common Christian ideas. Since you engaged me, and wanted to steer it away from Christianity, I tried to meet you halfway by working in some Buddhist references, and how others have tried to justify the beliefs to me.
I wasn't upset or anything like that. Nichiren Buddhism has a large population of atheists within our membership. People like myself are in the minority. Also, Nichiren Buddhism teaches nothing about a god or any afterlife. The most you will find is that Nichiren believed in reincarnation, but that is just a fact about a person. So, you can see why some of the things you were saying just didn't make sense.
Originally posted by Digi
But anyway, we're having a discussion here and have nothing but time. And nearly any idea is explainable. I'm wrong about Buddhism, apparently. So enlighten me. I'm doing my damnedest to explain my position to you. Extend the same courtesy. I'm happy to hear your take on these things, but I'd rather hear it from you than be told "go read about this before talking to me again."
I'm sorry, but I wasn't trying to tell you to go read something. I was frustrated because it seemed that you believe that all religions worship a god of some kind. That is not true. So, I do want you to learn this. There are religions in the world that agree with science and do not involve a god. The fact I personally believe in a natural God, has no barring on my religion. In my religion, people are free. I see Christians and Atheists chanting together for world peace.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you don't have to be an atheist to do that. Christians, Islamists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Atheists can all work together on such a worthy cause.
Fair point. But that's kind of the point. You don't need religion to do good. Atheists aren't fighting evils that they perceive because they're atheists, but because they're human.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think atheism is a religion on its own. I see people making it into a religion. Or spinning off to make their own religion.
Some. Not many, or a majority. Like I said, kind of hard to establish massive institutions when free-thinking is perhaps the only identifiable common trait among most atheists.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That kind of Christianity is what I was raised in. Those people might as well be my relatives. Christians that are different from them is something new to me.
Fair enough. it's hard to extricate personal experience from the larger picture. The majority of any religion's adherents - I would say - are loving and essentially good. The exceptions prove the rule, in this case.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I didn't see any indication you were joking. I am glad you where not telling me that you know the future better then I do.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Here we have a fundamental disagreement. I believe that the scientific method is not independent of humans. Sure humans will invent it again in the future, but an alien race will most likely have a completely different method (that might even be better).
What does "independent of humans" mean? Because that isn't what I said. Fusion happens the same way for an alien as it does for us. Gravity has the same properties. 2 + 2 won't stop equaling 4. These are empirical truths. It's why science is independent of religion, even if, on occasion, religious individuals are the ones who make scientific discoveries.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is contrary to everything I have learned about science history. I simple think you are misguided here.
Again, enlighten me. At least provide a synopsis of your reasoning. Because I can't respond to this. There's nothing to work with.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wasn't upset or anything like that. Nichiren Buddhism has a large population of atheists within our membership. People like myself are in the minority. Also, Nichiren Buddhism teaches nothing about a god or any afterlife. The most you will find is that Nichiren believed in reincarnation, but that is just a fact about a person. So, you can see why some of the things you were saying just didn't make sense.
How is reincarnation a fact? I'm curious.
But my issue is that, if a "religion" is entirely congruent with science, reason, the natural world, etc. why are we calling it a religion? What's the point of dressing ideas in philosophical or spiritual garb when a less fancy understanding of the ideas will bring more clarity. How is it different than an entirely secular self-help book that says things like "Do good, be loving, find peace, use reason, pursue happiness" and similar common sense advice?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, but I wasn't trying to tell you to go read something. I was frustrated because it seemed that you believe that all religions worship a god of some kind. That is not true. So, I do want you to learn this. There are religions in the world that agree with science and do not involve a god. The fact I personally believe in a natural God, has no barring on my religion. In my religion, people are free. I see Christians and Atheists chanting together for world peace.
Well, of course not all religions believe in a god. But we're speaking in generalities sometimes here. If I'm making a point about religion, I can't cater it to just your religion. I'm glad we're more on the same page now, though.