Happy Easter

[Kidlicious]

And that's how many people feel about your religion... it's silly and a fantasy.

The feeling is mutual.

[Kidlicious]

I'm not claiming you need to prove something to believe it, i am saying you need to have a basis for believing it, otherwise what distinguishes your belief from fantastic imagination.

I have no proof (in the sense of any prior facts to base an opinion) of Russell's teapot. I have no proof of a god. I have no proof of an invisible pink unicorn. I have no proof of a flying spaghetti monster. I have no proof that aliens speak perfect English. Etc. I also have no proof that none of these things are true. You can make any non-falsifiable statement you like - there is no value in it to me, as it's indistinguishable from any objective reality where the exact opposite or absence of it is true.

You can say something is beautiful - i may consider it ugly. The truth is not objective here. You don't have 'faith' that it is beautiful or ugly, it is just a subjective quality that you are ascribing it.

The only way we know what beauty is is subjectively. We know when it is a beautiful day because we are capable of thinking subjectively. We don't need an objective basis to know that it's a beautiful day. You can believe that when someone says that it's a beautiful day that the doesn't really mean anything because it's subjective, but in my opinion that's silliness.

[Kidlicious]

I can only imagine how atheists think when it's a beautiful day. First they think, "Wow, what a beautiful day." But then they think, "No. Some other people don't believe that and there's no objective basis for my opinion."

[Ming]

I can only imagine how atheists think when it's a beautiful day. First they think, "Wow, what a beautiful day." But then they think, "No. Some other people don't believe that and there's no objective basis for my opinion."

Typical Kid... trying to compare an opinion that it is a beautiful day to somebody believing in Gods that throw thunder or make the sun come up every day. Yes it's a belief, but it is also a fantasy. The bible reads like a comic book with talking burning bushes, arks with two of each animal in it, cites turned to salt... pure fantasy.
Feel free to believe in your specific god... but it is not logical.

[Jon Miller]

First the point of religion is not politics and any human endeavor can have fakers/etc (including Science).

I have worshipped with many different Christian groups (I have not been in a Mormon tabernacle, the others I can answer yes). I have also visited some non-Christian groups (Hindu, Sikh, etc)

In a Harari-like view the plethora of variations of a theme in religious or spiritual beliefs are a natural result of human interactions with a space. Harari would probably say that the natural next step is the atheist religions that are arising and that the abrahamic religions would be displaced by it as ideas/etc compete. A liberal Christian humanist would instead say that we are building better and better ideas of God (some in Sweden, who are atheist, also say that the next stage will be atheist).

A more pro-God viewpoint is that of people going into a pitch dark barn and trying to feel an elephant. One person feels the tail, another the trunk, another a tusk, another a foot, and another the hay and another the floor and so on. They come out at various times and with different descriptions and then people have to make sense of them. The sense that various groups make depend on the biases of the people trying to make sense, whose descriptions they believe and how they fit those descriptions together.

Note that for neither of these views does the plethora of religious experience reflect negatively on religion or the religious. It is a result of religion being human as well as (at times, as I and most people believe) divine.

The blanket condemnation of the religious instead reflects on the hypocrisy and misanthropy of those who are condemning.

It has been a while since we have had a religion debate on Apolyton. I missed it.

JM

[Uncle Sparky]

I don't condemn it at all. I'm in the entertainment industry. If believing in fantastical worlds make people think and feel and they are not harming others, why not? But like other fantasy pursuits, if one places themselves above all others, demands their elected leaders place their fantasy belief above all others, then it is corrupt and should be highly regulated.
Do you want to have to learn Harry Potter spells? De you want to have your children dress as Furries? Are you willing to undergo classic Klingon mating practices? Are these religions? Should they be granted the same tax exemptions are 'churches' or 'temples'? What if hundreds (or thousands) of people 'believe'?
I noticed somewhere in an earlier post an exception seemed to be made to exclude Scientology; why?
And just so you know, I just rolled 10 on a d20, so I'm willing to keep going and not admit defeat or victory.

[Ming]

I'm actually not condemning at all... Religion has it's good and bad points. And some people find a real comfort in religion.
Many would argue that Religion is simply man's made up way to explain things that they can't explain. In old times, it was to explain the Sun, the Moon, and other physical or earthly things before science came up with "better answers"... And it was meant to add comfort, such as for those that fear death or who are consumed by there own guilt. And some would argue that religion was then co-opted to keep the masses in line so that the rich and powerful could control them. Now you may object to the term Fantasy... but no matter what you call it... myths, beliefs, a story... it doesn't change the fact there is no proof that there is a god, any god. And to believe all the stories of the Bible is simply silly and not logical.
People are welcome to their beliefs, no matter how illogical they are.

[Kidlicious]

Typical Kid... trying to compare an opinion that it is a beautiful day to somebody believing in Gods that throw thunder or make the sun come up every day. Yes it's a belief, but it is also a fantasy. The bible reads like a comic book with talking burning bushes, arks with two of each animal in it, cites turned to salt... pure fantasy.
Feel free to believe in your specific god... but it is not logical.

You just didn't get it. It's no wonder you think the Bible is a comic book.

[Ming]

It's no wonder you believe that Noah found two of every animal and put them all on an ark. Some of the better written fantasy... but still, fantasy. You have proven you will believe anything... especially Trumps lies, so I guess it's no surprise you would believe that the stories in the Bible are true.

[Kidlicious]

You been looking at the Children's Bible again?

[Ming]

You been looking at the Children's Bible again?

Again a typical Kid response. You must have nothing to actually add to the conversation expect your insults.
I've probably read the bible more than you. I actually studied religions in college, I have a minor in religious studies...
But you must be very familiar with children's bibles if you are bringing them up.

[Kidlicious]

I don't know anyone that has read the Bible more times than Christians and thinks the most significant story is Noah's Ark. I call bs.

[Ming]

As usual... just more BS from Kid. Please post where I ever said it was the "most significant story"... oh that's right, never did.
I guess you don't understand the use of examples... And by the way, you seem to forget I'm a Christian/Catholic.
But you seem to forget everything that doesn't fit all the lies you believe.

[Jon Miller]

Actually Uncle Sparky, I explicitly didn't make an exception to exempt Scientology even though (I think) it is provably wrong (primarily because some of the people who originally started practicing it are still alive). I used Scientology as an example of why I wouldn't call a belief that many people held fantasy even if it was provably wrong. I think that some of the origins of Mormonism is an example of something that is completing or has completed the transformation from being provably wrong/etc to something that is now legend. But it hasn't been fantasy for a long time.

Thankfully many people don't believe in invisible pink unicorns and (that they are really Klingons and that Harry Potter is reality/etc). If something isn't held as true by a large number of people for a significant amount of time, we can step in and cite authority/etc (because authorities don't, or shouldn't, believe in invisible pink unicorns/etc) and keep ideas under control. There are quite a few experts out there who look at the explosion of ideas taking hold, that in the past wouldn't, as being due to the weakness of religion/authority/etc. You and others like you who make illogical arguments of the equivalence of Christianity (or Hinduism) with the belief that Harry Potter is real is some of what is driving this weakness and explosion.

The complain about taxes is a dodge... most religions wouldn't pay taxes in the US to the federal government irregardless of any special exemption on the taxation of religion.

JM

[Uncle Sparky]

So Christianity was provably wrong, but now isn't? So the Nicaean Council made Christianity real by opposing Arianism? (I used to make similar arguments back in the early 80s.) L Ron Hubbard didn't say, "gotcha' on his death bed. And you have absolute proof Scientology is Fake/fantasy, but Mormonism is no longer 'legend', or is legend but not provably wrong.

Enlighten me.

[Jon Miller]

I already pointed out that in how people consider knowledge (group understanding, experts, etc) mature religions like Christianity have the same validity as Science/History/etc.

Yes, there are certain understandings (Noah's ark containing two of every animal) which are inconsistent with other sources of reasoning (And which are all(?) lnot agreed upon by as large a group of the experts/group understanding in Christianity), but you can pull similar examples from History and the soft Sciences (and, at times, even the hard Sciences, although I admit that (hard) Science has a pretty good track record of keeping things clean).

JM

[Dauphin]

I already pointed out that in how people consider knowledge (group understanding, experts, etc) mature religions like Christianity have the same validity as Science/History/etc.

You appear to be saying if enough people believe for long enough, then it's ok, regardless of the merit. That is just a daft argumentum ad populum.

thankfully many people don't believe in invisible pink unicorns and (that they are really Klingons and that Harry Potter is reality/etc). If something isn't held as true by a large number of people for a significant amount of time, we can step in and cite authority/etc (because authorities don't, or shouldn't, believe in invisible pink unicorns/etc) and keep ideas under control.

So why do think killing an idea in a crib is ok to call it a fantasy, but if it takes root it is an acceptable non-fantasy. Sounds like Darwinian evolution of religious belief is the only arbiter of why something is not a fantasy. Selection pressures on popular religions tend to be getting the word out, making people believe it, often by holding political, economic or military power and influence. There is a reason Catholicism is the dominant religion and branch in the world today, compared to say, Catharism. Similar logic for many national churches like Anglicanism.