Religion IS crazy!

[pavilion103]

+1

I've got no problem in people believing whatever they want to, regardless of how ridiculous it seems. If a book about sorcery gets you out of bed in the mornings then there's nothing wrong with that, just keep it to yourself. And spare the rest of the lectures.

Sooner or later, religion today will be viewed in the same way as we view the Druids worshiping the Sun.

This is how evolution will be viewed. It will probably go down as the biggest con in history and will look embarrassing.

We've taken natural selection (the loss of genetic information) which is obvious and then somehow invented the idea of a macro evolution which is the complete opposite of anything observed (increase in genetic information) and then by faith extrapolated it backwards by millions of years!

Science is observable and repeatable. This however is a complete faith position. People creating a story about the past based on current observable things.

Even Darwin admitted that if the cell was shown to be irreducible complex his theory would be cast into doubt. A lack of transitory fossils is also admitted. There are zero examples of life coming from non life and given that the world is not eternal how can something come from nothing?

I've given this a try. But I'm sorry this is beyond laughable. I cannot take it seriously. It reminds me of people buying at the height of the property bubble when more and more evidence emerged that it was a completely stupid thing to do. But then again people aren't rational!!!

 

[pavilion103]

As have many other religious figures before and after Jesus.

No others have risen from the dead and backed up their claims.

Have you ever examined the evidence for the resurrection?

- doubting disciples scared and in hiding after Jesus death. Then something happens and they are prepared to go to death fearlessly for what they knew 100% to either be truth or a lie.
-empty tomb guarded by Roman soldiers who would be put to death if the body went missing
- appearances to over 500 eye witnesses
- also on a separate note, the Bible doesn't give a generic tomb that no one can research. It gives a very specific location that can be verified with history. Not that this proves anything but the writers certainly aren't being vauge about any of the details
- Also why would the writers have women as the first eye witnesses? Therir testimony held no weight in that culture. If they were trying to convince people they would certainly use men. Once again, not that this proves anything but again, but making the story convincing isn't their number 1 goal. They are recording the facts.


The biggest one for me is the disciples. What accounts for this bold compelte transformation? Thinking Jesus has let them down, was defeated and in hiding, denied him. And then something happens and they are fearless, they will not deny that Christ (who they thought let them down) is the Lord and rose from the dead. They go to death for it. They wouldn't die for something they know 100% to be a lie.

There is much more evidence...... look it up (and this is for the resurrection alone).

There are many atheists who have gone on a mission to research and disprove the resurrection and have ended up becoming believers because the evidence is undeniable.

I am not forcing my view on anyone, I am just after the truth, whatever it is. I wonder if everyone else is too.

Look into the resurrection.

 

[boofis]

No others have risen from the dead and backed up their claims.

Have you ever examined the evidence for the resurrection?

- doubting disciples scared and in hiding after Jesus death. Then something happens and they are prepared to go to death fearlessly for what they knew 100% to either be truth or a lie.
-empty tomb guarded by Roman soldiers who would be put to death if the body went missing
- appearances to over 500 eye witnesses
- also on a separate note, the Bible doesn't give a generic tomb that no one can research. It gives a very specific location that can be verified with history. Not that this proves anything but the writers certainly aren't being vauge about any of the details
- Also why would the writers have women as the first eye witnesses? Therir testimony held no weight in that culture. If they were trying to convince people they would certainly use men. Once again, not that this proves anything but again, but making the story convincing isn't their number 1 goal. They are recording the facts.


The biggest one for me is the disciples. What accounts for this bold compelte transformation? Thinking Jesus has let them down, was defeated and in hiding, denied him. And then something happens and they are fearless, they will not deny that Christ (who they thought let them down) is the Lord and rose from the dead. They go to death for it. They wouldn't die for something they know 100% to be a lie.

There is much more evidence...... look it up (and this is for the resurrection alone).

There are many atheists who have gone on a mission to research and disprove the resurrection and have ended up becoming believers because the evidence is undeniable.

I am not forcing my view on anyone, I am just after the truth, whatever it is. I wonder if everyone else is too.

Look into the resurrection.

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

I dare say resurrection doesn't appear as unique given that many people jumped up from their slumber around the same weekend!

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Look into the resurrection.

It's quite possible that 'resurrection' is a metaphor for death of the self and rebirth into a new consciousness (literally, ego death). Many commentators have successfully argued this in the past. Adam and Eve is a metaphor - an excellent one. Being a metaphor (and not literal truth) does not in any way diminish its usefulness. Most religious texts involve metaphor and poetry because it's one of the best ways to convey what is very hard to describe literally. How can one possibly describe the ineffable in ordinary words?

You put a heck of a lot of blind faith in a book that was written a long time ago by ordinary followers of an extraordinary man. Say I lived back in Einstein's day. I recognize there is something very special about him, even though I only have a basic science degree. I follow him everywhere and document his every move and everything he says, all his insights, formulas and wisdom... and I put it into book form. What are the chances this would be an accurate representation of Einstein's work? He would likely read my book and say "that's not what I said! That's not what I meant! This is all wrong!". The gulf between me and Einstein is so large that despite my best efforts I just couldn't capture what he was on about. Those who wrote the Bible would be in the same boat - individuals writing about a man who has no individuality....impossible!!

 

[McLovin]

This is how evolution will be viewed. It will probably go down as the biggest con in history and will look embarrassing.

We've taken natural selection (the loss of genetic information) which is obvious and then somehow invented the idea of a macro evolution which is the complete opposite of anything observed (increase in genetic information) and then by faith extrapolated it backwards by millions of years!

Science is observable and repeatable. This however is a complete faith position. People creating a story about the past based on current observable things.

Even Darwin admitted that if the cell was shown to be irreducible complex his theory would be cast into doubt. A lack of transitory fossils is also admitted. There are zero examples of life coming from non life and given that the world is not eternal how can something come from nothing?

I've given this a try. But I'm sorry this is beyond laughable. I cannot take it seriously. It reminds me of people buying at the height of the property bubble when more and more evidence emerged that it was a completely stupid thing to do. But then again people aren't rational!!!

Oh the irony.

No others have risen from the dead and backed up their claims.

I've given this a try. But I'm sorry this is beyond laughable. I cannot take it seriously. It reminds me of people buying at the height of the property bubble when more and more evidence emerged that it was a completely stupid thing to do. But then again people aren't rational!!!

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Oh the irony.

Oh the ironing. Must get onto that today. Piling up a bit.

 

[bunyip]

Thanks for your reply Bunyip.Your subscription to the "treat others the way you'd like to be treated" philosophy is exemplified by the courteous and non-judgmental tone of your many posts on this forum.

Before giving my response to your question, I would like to state for the record that I do not claim to be able to reconcile every written account of the actions and words of Christ with my understanding of the key teaching/s that many have come to describe as Christianity. Things like the cursing of a barren tree, bouts of rage at the temple and calling a woman a dog are a few of the things that lead me to wonder whether the masters might be capable of having bad halo days. (It is, of course, entirely possible that there was a higher purpose behind these actions which continues to elude me.)

Having said that, I do not currently subscribe to the view that any of Jesus' teachings require passive submission to the hostile actions of others. I take solace in the fact that items of advice such as "turn the other cheek", and "not forbidding your cloak to those whom take your robe" are given amidst many other items of sage advice (including one of my favourites: "treat others the way you'd like to be treated").

What I do believe is that the advice largely calls on adherents to correct misguided aggressors in the same manner that one would hope to be corrected were one to make a similarly calamitous error.

My current understanding of "...turn the other cheek" and "... do not forbid your cloak" is to maintain one's commitment to a righteous path irrespective of the hostile distractions of others (i.e. not allow the actions of aggressors to tempt descension into the aggressor/victim cycle).

"Sure he slapped your cheek and took your robe!"
"Should one detour from their rightful course only to issue a retaliatory cheekslap and then steal back one's robe?"
"Does one really want to empower misguided thieves and aggressors to entice oneself into becoming the same and thereby granting them an even greater victory?"
"Despite the cheekslap and the stolen robe, one still has another good cheek and a warm cloak also! There's no reason that the show cannot continue!"
"Would this not be preferable to the needless perpetuation of a violent cycle?"

Cynic

I’m very impressed by your post, and I say that with complete sincerity.
Your clarity of thought is pleasing to see. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[pavilion103]

It's quite possible that 'resurrection' is a metaphor for death of the self and rebirth into a new consciousness (literally, ego death). Many commentators have successfully argued this in the past. Adam and Eve is a metaphor - an excellent one. Being a metaphor (and not literal truth) does not in any way diminish its usefulness. Most religious texts involve metaphor and poetry because it's one of the best ways to convey what is very hard to describe literally. How can one possibly describe the ineffable in ordinary words?

You put a heck of a lot of blind faith in a book that was written a long time ago by ordinary followers of an extraordinary man. Say I lived back in Einstein's day. I recognize there is something very special about him, even though I only have a basic science degree. I follow him everywhere and document his every move and everything he says, all his insights, formulas and wisdom... and I put it into book form. What are the chances this would be an accurate representation of Einstein's work? He would likely read my book and say "that's not what I said! That's not what I meant! This is all wrong!". The gulf between me and Einstein is so large that despite my best efforts I just couldn't capture what he was on about. Those who wrote the Bible would be in the same boat - individuals writing about a man who has no individuality....impossible!!

History records the disciples going to a physical death for their faith in which they declared that Jesus was divine.
We know for a fact that Jesus suffered physical death and the disciples claimed he rose again. They were claiming historical events. And were willing to die for it.

Even after Jesus death they were in hiding, terrified and felt let down. Nek minnit they are going to death for the belief that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead and appeared to them.

The metaphysical interpretation has no basis. There is no evidence for it.

That would also beg he question:

So your willing to believe some events in the noble and not others? Which ones? So you pick and choose? So it is a reliable historical document

It's a contradiction to accept it as historical and some event so occurring and then calling he same document unreliable when relating to others.

You can't apply a different standard to the same document because "you want to"


given that.

 

[pavilion103]

What about the concerns I addressed with evolution.

ANYONE brave enough to explain them to me?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

History records the disciples going to a physical death for their faith in which they declared that Jesus was divine.
We know for a fact that Jesus suffered physical death and the disciples claimed he rose again. They were claiming historical events. And were willing to die for it.

Even after Jesus death they were in hiding, terrified and felt let down. Nek minnit they are going to death for the belief that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead and appeared to them.

The metaphysical interpretation has no basis. There is no evidence for it.

That would also beg he question:

So your willing to believe some events in the noble and not others? Which ones? So you pick and choose? So it is a reliable historical document

It's a contradiction to accept it as historical and some event so occurring and then calling he same document unreliable when relating to others.

You can't apply a different standard to the same document because "you want to"


given that.

I'm not saying categorically he didn't die and get resurrected. No one can know that. I'm saying it's quite possible it was a metaphor, similar to the story of Adam and Eve. The science of the Big Bang shows us that Adam and Eve was a metaphor. As I said, I think it's one of the best metaphoric descriptions of the human condition there is available.

If the Bible was written by "God", then we could read it literally...but it wasn't. If it was written by a Truth-realized man such as Jesus, then I would give it more credibility. But it was written largely by ordinary men like you and me, guys who followed Jesus around and had no idea what he was on about most of the time. All they knew was that he was special somehow - one out of the box. They just did their best to scribble it all down as it happened. It would have been a fascinating time, no doubt. But men are highly fallible in their recounting of stories. Chinese whispers and all that. If Jesus came back today, I suspect he would take one look at the Bible and suggest it be re-written in its entirety! And he'd probably recoil in horror at the way the most churches preach his stuff.

But to answer your question, it's not so much that i pick and choose, but more that I evaluate, just as I would any scientific material I might come across.

Some of the greatest spiritually-inspired books are 90% fiction. For me that's not a problem, because it's a fiction that points to a deeper truth.

 

[boofis]

We've taken natural selection (the loss of genetic information) which is obvious and then somehow invented the idea of a macro evolution which is the complete opposite of anything observed (increase in genetic information) and then by faith extrapolated it backwards by millions of years!

Science is observable and repeatable. This however is a complete faith position. People creating a story about the past based on current observable things.

Even Darwin admitted that if the cell was shown to be irreducible complex his theory would be cast into doubt. A lack of transitory fossils is also admitted. There are zero examples of life coming from non life and given that the world is not eternal how can something come from nothing?

Multiple new flu virus's each year = ID? Or evolution?

"People creating a story about the past based on current observable things", is there any other option? We can't base it on future things and apparently the past things (fossils) we base it on are seemingly current in your opinion?

Something from nothing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY0EHI3Hg_Q
Read the book, it's well worth it.

Is 'the cell' irreducibly complex? ....

 

[McLovin]

What about the concerns I addressed with evolution.

ANYONE brave enough to explain them to me?

You keep trying to drag evolution into it. Whether the theory of evolution is wrong or right it does not invalidate the title of the thread. To the unindoctrinated, religion, does indeed, seem crazy.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

What about the concerns I addressed with evolution.

ANYONE brave enough to explain them to me?

This is compelling evidence. Human skeleton next to chimp.

 

[pavilion103]

This is compelling evidence. Human skeleton next to chimp.

What? Because two animals are similar it means one evolved into another?

I'm not sure how that photo is evidence. And it doesn't address any of the points I've made.

 

[pavilion103]

You keep trying to drag evolution into it. Whether the theory of evolution is wrong or right it does not invalidate the title of the thread. To the unindoctrinated, religion, does indeed, seem crazy.

Agree. This is not an evolution thread. Maybe another place for it.

The last point I will make though is that you say religion does seen crazy to the un indoctrinated. I'd say the same of evolution as being crazy to the un indoctrinated.

Something comes from nothing. Life then appears from non-life magically. It has no programming and with no instruction at all somehow evolves into a person over millions of years. No transitory fossil evidence, no examples of increases of genetic information anywhere, irreducible complex cells in existence! This just happened from nothing and from no where. Give me a break, it takes a lot to believe that. A lot of stupidity that is.

But I'll leave that alone and let you guys carry on. Hopefully we can have some more agreeable chats on the trading threads

 

[Gringotts Bank]

What? Because two animals are similar it means one evolved into another?

I'm not sure how that photo is evidence. And it doesn't address any of the points I've made.

I probably shouldn't be discussing evolution - not my field. So I'll retract my photo!

Boofis sounds like he might engage you.

 

[dutchie]

I did not realise the extent of the abuse (adult and child) in just the Catholic Church.

No wonder they covered it up as much as possible.

The list on this site is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/

 

[boofis]

Agree. This is not an evolution thread. Maybe another place for it.

The last point I will make though is that you say religion does seen crazy to the un indoctrinated. I'd say the same of evolution as being crazy to the un indoctrinated.

Something comes from nothing. Life then appears from non-life magically. It has no programming and with no instruction at all somehow evolves into a person over millions of years. No transitory fossil evidence, no examples of increases of genetic information anywhere, irreducible complex cells in existence! This just happened from nothing and from no where. Give me a break, it takes a lot to believe that. A lot of stupidity that is.

But I'll leave that alone and let you guys carry on. Hopefully we can have some more agreeable chats on the trading threads

I gave you an intro link from one of the leading experts in this field through which you could've found a text to read which would not only answer alot of your questions but refute alot of your arguments.
But it seems you only took a couple of hrs to have the book delivered, read the entire work which is essentially a summation of one mans life of research AND to review the claims made in the book against other research published.... this is a prime example of religion giving individuals the impression they have found the truth and nothing else need be looked into.

Also re. indoctrination: noone can be indoctrinated into science, the whole concept is that there isn't anyone (anyones research) who is above interrogation and questioning. Pick everything to pieces and see if you can find a better answer.
The same cannot be said of religious indoctrination. I was always told that I'd just thought about things too much when I was in school..

 

[McLovin]

Also re. indoctrination: noone can be indoctrinated into science, the whole concept is that there isn't anyone (anyones research) who is above interrogation and questioning. Pick everything to pieces and see if you can find a better answer.
The same cannot be said of religious indoctrination. I was always told that I'd just thought about things too much when I was in school..

Exactly. One uses observation and reason, the other uses authority.

 

[bellenuit]

What is it with fundamentalist religions and hats? Almost all the different sects of each religion that are normally classified as fundamentalist require their followers to wear silly hats of some sort.