Balancing Skepticism and Faith

llwyd said:
Well, the Christian God is an idea of perfection. We can aim for that - though of course never absolutely attaining it - even without some mythical empirical creature. I don't find such a being's existence as very central for religion, fundamentally it's more a metaphor than a decription of reality. Obviously most believers (and sceptics) disagree, but they don't own any universal copyright of interpretation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to respond the OP and share your thoughts llwyd. Both are apprecaited and I'm glad you did. Certainly you qualify to comment and, like the other ideas presented here, yours are unique and (in my opinion at least) interesting and valuable.
 
Thor 2 said:
Like to see some examples of this. Religion generally just says "this is truth and don't question it".
Click to expand...

Well, I think there has been a lot of discourse in the christian church about to what degree the bible should be considered literal vs metaphorical, which I think is a pretty core idea. Certainly many of the practices that are more peripheral have been questioned and adapted over time (e.g., printing and circulating translated versions of the bible, the role of clergy vs. laypeople, the roles of women in leadership).
 
attempt5001 said:
Well, I think there has been a lot of discourse in the christian church about to what degree the bible should be considered literal vs metaphorical, which I think is a pretty core idea. Certainly many of the practices that are more peripheral have been questioned and adapted over time (e.g., printing and circulating translated versions of the bible, the role of clergy vs. laypeople, the roles of women in leadership).
Click to expand...
Unless a god actually exists all the babble-books in the world are irrelevant. Unless and until it has been established that a god actually exists (or even could or should exist), an adult believing in a god is essentially no different than an adult believing in a Santa or Tooth Fairy.

The only relevant “core” of all religions is that a god or gods actually exist. How many theists actively and honestly question this, and does their hierarchy encourage them to do so?
 
Last edited:
llwyd said:
Well, the Christian God is an idea of perfection. We can aim for that - though of course never absolutely attaining it - even without some mythical empirical creature. I don't find such a being's existence as very central for religion, fundamentally it's more a metaphor than a decription of reality. Obviously most believers (and sceptics) disagree, but they don't own any universal copyright of interpretation.
Click to expand...

attempt5001 said:
Thanks for taking the time to respond the OP and share your thoughts llwyd. Both are apprecaited and I'm glad you did. Certainly you qualify to comment and, like the other ideas presented here, yours are unique and (in my opinion at least) interesting and valuable.
Click to expand...

+1 And yes your input is welcome llwyd.

Sorry about my previous aggressive post, I have to remind myself that some relative newcomers here have not been part of the wrangling that has got on previously.:)
 
Thor 2 said:
+1 And yes your input is welcome llwyd.

Sorry about my previous aggressive post, I have to remind myself that some relative newcomers here have not been part of the wrangling that has got on previously.:)
Click to expand...
Please provide a link to your "previous aggressive post", I can't find it.

If you mean this post . . .
Thor 2 said:
Well that's a new one. Have you read any of the stuff written about this god in his special book?

Society as a whole owns the right to describe something or someone, with a term the accurately reflects what that thing or person is. Otherwise you will get people calling a bicycle a bus or a ditch digger a doctor. How useful is that?

This is ground that has been covered many times already. The central theme of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of and part of God. You can't throw that out and call yourself a Christian. Well you can but you can't expect others to recognise you as such.
Click to expand...
. . . please point out where the aggressive bits are - thanks.
 
Last edited:
attempt5001 said:
Well, I think there has been a lot of discourse in the christian church about to what degree the bible should be considered literal vs metaphorical, which I think is a pretty core idea. Certainly many of the practices that are more peripheral have been questioned and adapted over time (e.g., printing and circulating translated versions of the bible, the role of clergy vs. laypeople, the roles of women in leadership).
Click to expand...

ynot said:
Unless a god actually exists all the babble-books in the world are irrelevant. Unless and until it has been established that a god actually does exist (or even could or should exist), an adult believing in a god is essentially no different than an adult believing in a Santa or Tooth Fairy.

The only relevant “core” of all religions is that a god or gods actually exist. How many theists actively and honestly question this, and does their hierarchy encourage them to do so?
Click to expand...


Well I agree with ynot here (no great surprise I assume :)).

You have to have something to hang the shingle "Christianity" on. A lot of stuff about "Christian values" ect just doesn't cut it. There are lots of other belief structures that have this same stuff and some do it much better than Christianity.
 
ynot said:
Please provide a link to your "previous aggressive post", I can't find it.

If you mean this post . . .

. . . please point out anything that's aggressive - thanks.
Click to expand...


Well I suppose the line - "This is ground that has been covered many times already."

Not super aggressive I suppose.
 
Thor 2 said:
Well I suppose the line - "This is ground that has been covered many times already."

Not super aggressive I suppose.
Click to expand...
Not even mildly aggressive! Hope we're not going to "respect them" so much that we "disrespect us". The slippery slope toward not being able to draw cartoon characters?
 
Thor 2 said:
Well I agree with ynot here (no great surprise I assume :)).

You have to have something to hang the shingle "Christianity" on. A lot of stuff about "Christian values" ect just doesn't cut it. There are lots of other belief structures that have this same stuff and some do it much better than Christianity.
Click to expand...
Phew!!! Though you'd gone soft in the head for a sec.

Yep, you can't have "Son of God" if you don't first have "God".
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Again we have an atheist telling a Christian that they're doing Christianity wrong.
Click to expand...


Again we have arth deliberately misunderstanding (or pretending to) what I said.

Not telling Christians how to be Christians, but telling those who would adopt the label, what is needed for others to recognise them as one.
 
Thor 2 said:
Again we have arth deliberately misunderstanding (or pretending to) what I said.

Not telling Christians how to be Christians, but telling those who would adopt the label, what is needed for others to recognise them as one.
Click to expand...
Why should they care what you, an atheist, think? What makes you think that you, an atheist, can tell them jack about how and why they go about their Christian practice? They don't care whether you recognise their religion as Christianity or not. You're not a Christian. You have no authority.
 
arthwollipot said:
Why should they care what you, an atheist, think? What makes you think that you, an atheist, can tell them jack about how and why they go about their Christian practice? They don't care whether you recognise their religion as Christianity or not. You're not a Christian. You have no authority.
Click to expand...


Another change of tack by arth. Nobody cares about my definition of Christian because I aren't one. Quite right of course, you have to be one to know one. Mind you how do you know if you are one if the definition is so vague?:confused:

Oh I guess a marine biologist can't define different kinds of fish because, well because he isn't one, a fish that is.
 
Thor 2 said:
The central theme of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of and part of God. You can't throw that out and call yourself a Christian. Well you can but you can't expect others to recognise you as such.
Click to expand...
arthwollipot said:
They don't care whether you recognise their religion as Christianity or not. You're not a Christian. You have no authority.
Click to expand...
The conventional definition of "Christian" as indicating somebody who believes that Jesus was the son of God and thus also partially God himself is not dependent on the approval of people who wish to claim the label for themselves, regardless of whether they actually fit the definition or not. The word just means what it means.
 
I find these exchanges between HansMustermann and David Mo on this thread, about epileptic attacks, very interesting.

Might it be that all 'authentic' prophets and mystics and seers -- that is, those who weren't out-and-out frauds and/or lunatics -- were really no more than epileptics? Just epilepsy, no more, and no less?

Can epilepsy really show you burning bushes that talk, and visions of heaven, and other-wordly cosmic visions, and 'bliss'?

Has there been any focused research on this, that anyone is aware of? On actually correlating epilepsy with mystical visions, especially the specific kinds of visions that triggered away our specific religions?

This could be one way of nailing for good -- and with evidence -- the lie on which religions are based. A proving of the negative, as it were.
 
Delvo said:
The conventional definition of "Christian" as indicating somebody who believes that Jesus was the son of God and thus also partially God himself is not dependent on the approval of people who wish to claim the label for themselves, regardless of whether they actually fit the definition or not. The word just means what it means.
Click to expand...
"Conventional" according to whom?
 
ynot said:
Not even mildly aggressive! Hope we're not going to "respect them" so much that we "disrespect us". The slippery slope toward not being able to draw cartoon characters?
Click to expand...

Hi ynot. I assume you are providing contrast here between Thor 2's more mild posts, and this clear example of an aggressive post, which seemingly out of the blue invokes combative (us vs. them) language and allusions to violent oppression (not to mention an exclamation point). If so, I'd say you succeeded.
 
ynot said:
Unless a god actually exists all the babble-books in the world are irrelevant. Unless and until it has been established that a god actually exists (or even could or should exist), an adult believing in a god is essentially no different than an adult believing in a Santa or Tooth Fairy.

The only relevant “core” of all religions is that a god or gods actually exist. How many theists actively and honestly question this, and does their hierarchy encourage them to do so?
Click to expand...

ynot, I appreciate your frankness and our discourses, but I don't find the "mickey mouse" terminology and hyperbole very productive. It seems more designed to "get a rise" out of someone, than to participate in a meaningful discussion. You asked for examples of questioning core beliefs and I gave you what I feel is a pretty significant one, whether you dismiss it as irrelevant or not. God beliefs are demonstrably different than beliefs childhood caricatures simply by the fact that they (very often) endure into adulthood. That may baffle/frustrate/anger you, but the difference is observable and not subject to whether you (or I) like it or can understand why.

In reference to your last (and more reasonably worded point/question). Every theist I have ever known has questioned whether a god or gods actually exist, which is, of course, how they became theists in the first place (i.e., having asked the question and decided to believe the affirmative). And every theist I have ever known has also experienced doubt, often frequently and intensely. And many leaders I have known feel that doubt and questioning is a vital part of exploring faith genuinely. Many christians I know also recognize that they cannot define God effectively and that the words and images they use are just best efforts to articulate something they can't explain. Their core-belief of how they even understand their basic concept of God is frequently revisited. As is mine at present.
 
Thor 2 said:
+1 And yes your input is welcome llwyd.

Sorry about my previous aggressive post, I have to remind myself that some relative newcomers here have not been part of the wrangling that has got on previously.:)
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't mind and I don't think you were aggressive at all. This is a sceptical forum after all. I don't think I'm far removed from liberal Quakers or many Unitarians for example. I know that many would not classify me (or them) as Christian but I don't much care as I find all that rather irrelevant, like the exceedingly unlikely existence of God. And am not interested in converting anyone to my line of thinking, this is just my personal conviction that there are meaningful non-literal interpretations of religion that are rather invulnerable to science and empirism as nothing they claim contradicts natural science. That's how I classify myself as simultaneously Christian (of an esoteric sort), a weak atheist and - wait for it - a sceptic :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom