...but I sometimes feel bad for Steel Accord being alone in representing Christianity (and religion). I am mostly writing this to explain some of my own thoughts and not to seek a large argument or to convince anyone of anything. Sometimes a conversation is better than a discussion. On reading the Bible: While there certainly are people that believe the Bible should be read and understood literally, many Christians do not and feel that this is troublesome for many reasons. Very few texts, in general in the world, are written in a literal manner. The only real example of those that are would be Scientific articles. Even for those there is a certain amount of interpretation that needs to take place, as ideas are formed into words that then need to be decoded by a second person, for whom the words may be slightly different meaning. Furthermore, there is noone alive in the world today who speak the exact same language as was used when writing the texts. Many people who speak for a literal interpretation also work with a translation, and claiming that a translation should be interpreted literally is... a bit weird if you ask me. Things always get lost in translation and there are even some key concepts that can't be translated properly. The Bible is full of metaphor. Anyone who knows anything about metaphor knows it's not supposed to be taken literal. For some texts it isn't 100% clear if it was meant as a metaphor or not and there's no way we can ask the writer of the intent. By using a bit of science it is quite possible to figure out some of these things though, and reach the conclusion that yes, the story of creation was with 98% certainty meant to be a metaphor. Or possibly a poem? Many Christians would say that the only way to properly read and interpret the Bible is through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible can help you begin your spiritual journey but you will never understand its meaning if you read it as a cold hard book. Only by opening yourself up to the Divine and read with guide of the Holy Spirit can you understand the intent and meaning. On rationality and MLPs: Rationality and Logic is dfferent from the Scientific method. You can be highly rational and logical and completely reject Science. Do I think you should reject it? I'd be in the wrong field if that was the case. In part it is true that the "MLP" Smokeskin describes applies the scientific method subjectively. This can still be rational to do (if my understanding of rationality is correct), as long as the reasons and beliefs that guide when it should be used (and when it shouldn't) are clear and followed in a non-contradictory manner. For example, if belief in God is based on personal experiences with the Divine, is it rational to reject and disbelieve those experiences when approached with evidence that the very same experience could be induced through other means? Only if one [i]also[/i] by the same logic rejects and disbelieves reality. Illusions are a thing, but their presence does not mean that everything is. Just becuase there are fake experiences doesn't mean every experience is. Now if you believed that [i]everything[/i] you hold for true has to have a certain amount of objectively measured evidence for it, then I suppose it isn't rational to believe in God. I find the conclusions listed by Smokeskin to be fairly accurate actually. I've often been of the belief that all religions are true after a fashion. I do believe in God, and I do accept that I can not show his existence to you in any reliable manner. I also believe in that the Scientific method can show us what is untrue in the world (again the only thing it ever does is disprove things) and so if there were evidence that would disprove the existence of God I would have to re-evaluate that belief (or throw away my belief in Science). Since no such evidence has been shown, it is still possible for me to adhere to both beliefs and retain rationality. However, I have often entertained the thought that the same God is behind most religions (at least the major ones). I think God wants to reach out to us, inspire us to spirituality and help us get in contact with him. Since everyone is different it is quite logical to assume that God chose many different methods and religions in order to reach as many people as possible. In many ways, the core of Hinduism for example, is very close to the core of Christianity. Different fluff but similar path to spirituality. I do acknowledge that my belief in God is different than my belief in the Scientific method. That doesn't mean I can't use reason and logic to evaluate various claims made by my religion. For example, some Christians would say "Christ died so that we could get forgiveness for our sins" with one breath and "God is almighty" with the other. These are two claims that quite logically are mutually exclusive as an almighty God could've just forgiven us anyway. So I've rejected one of the claims (the one that Christ HAD to die). I do believe that he was the son of God and that he did die so that we could more easily get closer to God, but I think the truth of the events are more complicated than "it had to happen". To me, it seems that God made a claim of what people should do and when he realised it didn't quite work out for many people decided that instead of backing on the original claim (thus abandoning his word) he chose to create a loophole. Sort of when I wanted to avoid military service and the guy told me that "we don't let people avoid it just because they don't [i]want[/i] to" and then followed up with "but if you say that you have to do it weapons-free we don't have any positions so I'd have to put you in the education reserve". He wanted to follow the rules but was also kind enough to offer me a loophole. Wow, this got very long-winded. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say and find that I'm at least not a crazy-person. I don't think I am but then that's what most people who are crazy would say.

Lorsa wrote:

Rationality and Logic is dfferent from the Scientific method. You can be highly rational and logical and completely reject Science. Do I think you should reject it? I'd be in the wrong field if that was the case.

What do you mean by this? From what I have read on decision theory and rationality, the scientific method is nothing more than a special case. With probabilistic inference if you're making strong, precise predictions that would be proven wrong if you were anything but correct, you can effectively go from weak priors to very strong posteriors (that is your beliefs about the subject respectively before and after the evidence). This is the reason science relies on the falsification principle, since the likelihood of failure is directly proportional to how strongly you can update your belief after the experiment if it is a success. How can you untwine science from rationality when this is the case? In the opposite direction, we have beliefs that do not make predictions at all (unfalsifiable claims). No matter what happens you can't update your priors based on this. They have zero truth value and from a rational viewpoint you would regard them as irrelevant.

Quote:

In part it is true that the "MLP" Smokeskin describes applies the scientific method subjectively. This can still be rational to do (if my understanding of rationality is correct), as long as the reasons and beliefs that guide when it should be used (and when it shouldn't) are clear and followed in a non-contradictory manner. For example, if belief in God is based on personal experiences with the Divine, is it rational to reject and disbelieve those experiences when approached with evidence that the very same experience could be induced through other means? Only if one [i]also[/i] by the same logic rejects and disbelieves reality. Illusions are a thing, but their presence does not mean that everything is. Just becuase there are fake experiences doesn't mean every experience is.

From a rational point of view, isn't such a feeling irrelevant if it makes no predictions that you can test? For example, if a voice in my head tells me the result of my next dice throw, I can see how often the voice is correct. If it actually predicts the result, then there is something to it - psychic powers, amazing ability to control the throw and make it land on the right number, god whispering in my ear - but we know something extraordinary is at play. If they do not match, it could be anything from just random thoughts and hallucinations to god, and I'd have no way of knowing which it is, at all. Isn't it the same with feelings of the divine? If we're to be rational and believe there's something special about it, it would have provide predictions that we can test. Just having a feeling of divinity, how does that tell us anything if we can't test it? Especially these days were you can make people feel that way by inducing strong magnetic currents in certain parts of the brain. And how many random ideas and feelings do we get all the time? When you play dice, or buy a lottery ticket, or your favorite team does a penalty kick, or you're waiting for some news, don't you often get this idea you can predict or even affect the future outcome? Do you trust those feelings?

Quote:

Now if you believed that [i]everything[/i] you hold for true has to have a certain amount of objectively measured evidence for it, then I suppose it isn't rational to believe in God.

Most religious people I've talked to fall in one of three types: people who believe there is actual proof of god, people who don't really think about it, and people who say their belief isn't rational but they've taken the leap of faith. I won't try to guess on the distribution, but it is at least not uncommon for religious people to say their belief isn't rational. Many even go so far as to scorn the idea of only holding rational beliefs. I'm not sure where you fall on the issue, but if we leave god out of it for a minute, are there other things you hold true without a certain amount of evidence?

Quote:

However, I have often entertained the thought that the same God is behind most religions (at least the major ones). I think God wants to reach out to us, inspire us to spirituality and help us get in contact with him. Since everyone is different it is quite logical to assume that God chose many different methods and religions in order to reach as many people as possible. In many ways, the core of Hinduism for example, is very close to the core of Christianity. Different fluff but similar path to spirituality.

That doesn't seem to conform very well to the evidence, though. Most religions tend to put a lot of emphasis on killing those of other religions. Even what to the outside seems like minor differences can cause otherwise civilized people to be horrible to eachother. For example the conflict in Ireland, this happened in a western country in modern times and without a religious motivation it is hard to imagine the same level of widespread hatred and brutality. And if we leave the modern western world, there are far, far worse examples. If this is god's master plan, what sort of human behaviors are important to him outside of belief and zeal?

Quote:

I hope you can understand what I am trying to say and find that I'm at least not a crazy-person. I don't think I am but then that's what most people who are crazy would say.

Anyone who says all religious people are crazy and truly means it is ignorant. It might fit some limited, technical definition (in the same that you can look in medical website and see that you have the symptoms of a dozen diseases), but clearly religious people aren't actually crazy.

You kind of have that backwards, don't you? There are plenty of things you 'cannot test for' - including that bloody teapot. Science has plenty to say on that subject though. You are giving god special treatment because lots of people believe very passionately about it. But as far as I can tell, there's no rational reason to do so.

Smokeskin wrote:

What do you mean by this? From what I have read on decision theory and rationality, the scientific method is nothing more than a special case. With probabilistic inference if you're making strong, precise predictions that would be proven wrong if you were anything but correct, you can effectively go from weak priors to very strong posteriors (that is your beliefs about the subject respectively before and after the evidence). This is the reason science relies on the falsification principle, since the likelihood of failure is directly proportional to how strongly you can update your belief after the experiment if it is a success. How can you untwine science from rationality when this is the case? In the opposite direction, we have beliefs that do not make predictions at all (unfalsifiable claims). No matter what happens you can't update your priors based on this. They have zero truth value and from a rational viewpoint you would regard them as irrelevant.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality]Rationality[/url] is a tricky thing. It deals more with actually following through with ones beliefs or reasons for believing, being consistent in action and thought. Logic is closely tied to being rational, and is also the only way to state objectively if a thing is true or not. With logic, one kind find contradictions within ones thoughts or beliefs and if such contradictions are found, the rational thing to do is to re-evaluate them. For example, if you believe that cocaine should be illegal because it causes harm to the person and can lead to behavior that harms both the individuals themselves and the people around them then the rational thing to do is also to believe that alcohol should be illegal as the exact same claim can be made for that. If you do not believe that alcohol should be illegal then you need to re-evaluate your belief as it refers to cocaine into something else. It could be that "cocaine causes an [i]unacceptable[/i] amount of harm" but then you have to define where the limit of unacceptable is and it is then possible to test that limit against other substances as well. Rationality is very important for the Scientific method, but adhereing to Science isn't the only way to be rational. Beliefs that make no predictions or unfalsifiable claims do indeed have zero truth value based off a [i]scientific[/i] viewpoint. They can still very much be part of a rational mind and absolutely of a logical one.

Smokeskin wrote:

I'm not sure where you fall on the issue, but if we leave god out of it for a minute, are there other things you hold true without a certain amount of evidence?

Yes. The existence of an objective universe that is outside of my own perception of such. That acting in a moral way holds value in and of itself. My ability to make decisions. Those are a few examples.

Smokeskin wrote:

That doesn't seem to conform very well to the evidence, though. Most religions tend to put a lot of emphasis on killing those of other religions. Even what to the outside seems like minor differences can cause otherwise civilized people to be horrible to eachother. For example the conflict in Ireland, this happened in a western country in modern times and without a religious motivation it is hard to imagine the same level of widespread hatred and brutality. And if we leave the modern western world, there are far, far worse examples. If this is god's master plan, what sort of human behaviors are important to him outside of belief and zeal?

The age-old argument against religion. Just look at how much war it has caused? Religion in itself never cause war. There is absoluely nothing in Christinanity that endorses war in any way. People create wars and if it isn't using religion as an excuse, it will use something else. War in religion's name is a rationalisation or pretense more than it is an inevitable end of being religious. Wars are caused by the negative parts of human nature. Tribalism, greed, anger. Considering how many wars has been made in the name of making money, the [i]rational[/i] conclusion to rejecting religion due it causing war would be to [i]also[/i] reject money. And politics. And nations. I do not believe it has ever been, nor will it ever be, God's master plan that we wage war upon each other. Most religions are NOT about war, in fact it is the opposite. Any Christian who is waging war is not being rational (that is, is not actually following through on the beliefs that Christianity is based on). You can't blame religion for people acting in an irrational way. Or well, you CAN, but then you also have to blame basically all other beliefs as well, because there are irrational people claiming to hold all sorts of beliefs.

It's all over the bloody (literally) old testament. God kills everybody he doesn't like much, children included. Do I have to remind you about the prophet who had a bunch of kids eaten by bears because they made fun of his lack of hair? You can say that these are all just things that people made up. But if you cannot trust the friggin book about the parts you don't like, why are you trusting the bits you do?

Right, I'm out. Steel, you're not a christian. I don't know WHAT you believe, but it's apparently infinitely flexible, and doesn't require a perfect being to be perfect. You take bits of doctrine that you like and leave the rest behind. You claim that you doing this cannot be analysed in any kind of scientific manner, and that you can be rational without being scientific. How the hell that's supposed to work still hasn't been made clear. Basically, you have faith that cannot be changed or challenged. THAT is the antitheses of science. THAT is why atheists dislike religious folks. And the worst of it is, you feel that's a virtue, not a vice.

And there you go again, MAD, saying that [i]Steel is not christian[/i] because he does not conform to your expectations of christians. [i]You do not get to define someone's religious identity for them[/i]. If Steel says he's a christian, he's a christian.

Quote:

Basically, you have faith that cannot be changed or challenged. THAT is the antitheses of science. THAT is why atheists dislike religious folks. And the worst of it is, you feel that's a virtue, not a vice.

Having a belief that cannot be tested or refuted scientifically is unscientific, ie completely separate from science, ie [i]exactly what we've been saying religion is this whole time[/i]. What is so offensive to you about someone holding a belief which cannot be tested? (Which, hey, [i]so is your belief in the nonexistence of God[/i]. If you were an agnostic this point might hold water.) Does Steel's faith harm you in any way? (Besides you finding it annoying) If not, why does it make you so angry?

Just a reminder to keep it on the topic not the person, gentle-forumites.... I've got water pistols and I'm not afraid to use em. ;) @Steel - Looks like your original post has long since been answered, is the thread now moving into the direction of helping you resolve your current crisis? If so - I'd honestly suggest opening a PM with some of the folks on the thread interested in helping you with that. Cause trying to do that sort of personal therapy via the open-internet seems unwise.

MAD Crab wrote:

It's all over the bloody (literally) old testament. God kills everybody he doesn't like much, children included. Do I have to remind you about the prophet who had a bunch of kids eaten by bears because they made fun of his lack of hair? You can say that these are all just things that people made up. But if you cannot trust the friggin book about the parts you don't like, why are you trusting the bits you do?

Yes you are right. There are deeds commited by God that I do not endorse. The Bible also has stories of people challenging God to change his mind, and stories where God later regretted his doing. I could try and describe the way I look at the old testament if you want but I'll give some reassuring words instead. If for some reason, an angel would appear to me and say that God has commanded me to go out and slaugther all homosexuals I would reply with "No, I am not going to do it, why would God command such a thing?" and if the angel said "Because they're EVIL!" I would say "Ok, obviously I was wrong, fuck you God" and then go burn down some churches. My belief in morality, in love, understanding and respect is more important to me than my belief in following a God (if there is such a thing).

Steel Accord wrote:

He also sent emissaries that told them to repent long before the Israelites marched in, they didn't.

How does that make a difference? Is killing people because they won't convert to your religion much better than just killing them?

Erulastant wrote:

Having a belief that cannot be tested or refuted scientifically is unscientific, ie completely separate from science, ie [i]exactly what we've been saying religion is this whole time[/i]. What is so offensive to you about someone holding a belief which cannot be tested? (Which, hey, [i]so is your belief in the nonexistence of God[/i]. If you were an agnostic this point might hold water.)

Technically, the belief in an untestable hypothesis should be equal to your prior belief, and without anything supporting the hypothesis, you would assign the hypothesis an infinitesimally small probability of being true. When it is said that dealing with untestable hypothesis is unscientific what they mean is that there is no way to update our belief in the hypothesis, not that you can't say anything about the probability of the hypothesis being true. The typical definition of being an atheist includes people like me who say that they can't be 100% sure that god doesn't exist but they'd of course believe in god if evidence presented itself. Agnosticism is different.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ― Epicurus [Note: This is the common translation of Epicurus's statement of the problem of evil. In the original formulation it referenced the Gods instead of a God. That said, it is applicable to any religion.]

Leng Plateau wrote:

“Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. ”

otohime1978 wrote:

The most common response I hear from Christians is, "because he is testing us."

Maybe from a secular ethical framework this looks horrible, but the religious ethics often works quite differently, where it might not place much value on the happiness and suffering of humans in our earthly existance. When Yehova's Witness parents denies their child the blood transfusion that would save the child, the death certainly leads to horrible sorrow, but they have an eternal perspective. They will all live on in heaven, while giving the child the transfusion would give them 50 years more together, but condemn them all to an eternity of torture in hell. The time on earth is just a fraction of the eternal existance of our soul. I do stuff like that to my children all the time. Yeah, when he started on judo he didn't want to go and didn't want to roll, but I forced him (and also motivated him with candy and toys, but it was still very often under strong protest) because of the benefits I believe it will give him in fitness and self discipline. When they begin in school and have to do homework, it's going to get even worse I imagine.

Smokeskin wrote:

I do stuff like that to my children all the time. Yeah, when he started on judo he didn't want to go and didn't want to roll, but I forced him (and also motivated him with candy and toys, but it was still very often under strong protest) because of the benefits I believe it will give him in fitness and self discipline. When they begin in school and have to do homework, it's going to get even worse I imagine.

It's not quite comparable, though, now is it? One has an observable effect. One makes us stronger. Allows us to do greater and greater things and push our limits. The other? It only promotes suffering and blind adherence to rules that don't even apply. I can see the benefits of Judo, self control, and the like. What I cannot see is people adhering to a god whom only punishes his followers while dangling a carrot with vague promises.

Taoism Shit happens. Buddhism If shit happens, it's not really shit. Islam If shit happens, it's the will of Allah. Protestantism Shit happens because you don't work hard enough. Judaism Why does this shit always happen to us? Hinduism This shit happened before. Catholicism Shit happens because you're bad. Hare Krishna Shit happens rama rama. T.V. Evangelism Send more shit. Atheism No shit. Jehova's Witness Knock knock, shit happens. Hedonism There's nothing like a good shit happening. Christian Science Shit happens in your mind. Agnosticism Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't. Rastafarianism Let's smoke this shit. Existentialism What is shit anyway? Stoicism This shit doesn't bother me.

On the question of why evil exists, I look to free will. I believe we were given the ability to choose for some reason, and God ruling as a dictator is not truly free will. Sure, he might be able to smite every thief, mugger, murderer, and rapist,in the world. But would we truly be free if we knew one step over the line meant instant death?