Noma?

[RandFan]

FTR, I graduated seminary and served a two year mission. I've read the Bible, front to back, took a course in theology at the University and dabbled in mysticism for awhile. I've read C.S. Lewis and St. Augustine (from among many others) and I studied Kant in philosophy.

Once you strip away the ethics, morality and perhaps meditaion there isn't much left but make believe and a bunch of foundation-less facades, IMHO.

One of the best examples is the BS episode of Feung Shui where Penn & Tell demonstrate that every "expert" has a different opinion about what works and why.

The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

 

[This Guy]

While I agree that, for the most part, many religions rely on unsupported and unquestioned assumptions, the characterization in the example you gave is a bit inaccurate. If you're going to critique a theological argument you should atleast educate yourself on it first.

Jesus' statement "love your neighbor as yourself" was directly addressing a question of religious dogma. He was saying that one did not have to strictly follow religious dictates and dogmas to the letter; one need only to follow the simple rule of thumb of treating others in a manner in which you want to be treated. The comment is not a religious dogma or dictate but rudimentary moral philosophy.

Like I said, issues of theology and religious moral philosophy are a bit more nuanced than you portray them to be. Its best to be a bit more knowledgeable of such issues than the average lay fundie atleast for no other reason than to turn their own poor understanding of their religion against them.

I think Jesus disagreed with you on the bolded comment.

Matthew 5 (King James Version)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


All bolding mine.

Just FYI -

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
jot /dʒɒt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, jot·ted, jot·ting, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to write or mark down quickly or briefly (usually fol. by down): Jot down his license number.
–noun 2. the least part of something; a little bit: I don't care a jot.
—Idiom3. not a jot or tittle, not a bit; not at all: The world situation matters not a jot or tittle to him.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1520–30; earlier iot, iote < L iōta < Gk iôta iota]

 

[brodski]

Removing the religion from religion? Is that what you're saying? No removing "fundamentalism" from religion does not remove religion from religion. It injects it with spirituality, removing the fever of fundamentalism. Forcing it back into its own magesterium.

and redefining it so that it it no longer resembles religion, even you said that you wished for religion to transcend religion.
You clearly do not understand what fundamentalism is, nor do you understand religion.

I suppose I shouldn't expect you to understand without some background in comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, comparative religion. Not to mention some mystical experiences under your belt.

stop the patronising nonsense, either make a your case or don't. So far you have talked nothing but incoherent nonsense.

All religions, all mythologies are true...for their time...metaphorically. Grok what the metaphors are saying and you don't need to take them literally.

sop for NOMA to hold the religious must take their holy text to be as true as harry potter or lord of the rings, they must take their holy text to be fiction.

It's happened before...religion is constantly evolving and adapting to the needs of people. Not to the whims of a creator God.

and if evolved to the extent that you wished it to it would no longer be the same species which ti currently is. Again I say that the problem with NOMA is that it holds that if religion wasn't religion there would be no conflict between religion and science.

Oh, and it wouldn't be as unrecognizable as you might think. Have you ever been religious? Or have you always been an atheist?

Irrelevant, I clearly have a better understanding of what it means to be religious than you do.

ETA I'll answer your pointless question, I have been religious-but I have also always been an atheist.

 

[brodski]

You know, its actually kinda ironic. Most of the virulent anti-theists here are about as ignorant concerning the nuances of theology and religious philosophy as the the average bible thumping fundie is about science.

Except that the subtle nuances of theology do not, in the main, represent religion as it is practised, as religion rests on faith, and not logic or evidence, an appeal to the practise religion is the only way to evaluate its essence.

Otherwise one is left with nothing but semantics, and claims of no true Scotsman.

from this point of view It is the theologists who appear to be willfully ignorant of their own religion, not the atheists.

 

[Meadmaker]

If 10% that survive has to do with who was being prayed for, then there should be some correlation between prayer and survival, which would be testable. Even if there is not enough data at this point, it still remains within the magesterium of science.

I think that prooves the point that magesteria overlap. Even if prayer turns out to be fruitful, it is science that will test it. The validity of religious claims is irrelevant to the NOMA principle. If religion makes a claim about the present physical world, it overlaps with science.

Walt

That's a good point. In practice, many believers often make claims that are testable. As an aside, that's why the JREF Challenge exists. If somebody actually makes a positive test, they get a million bucks and a lot of publicity.

What I was trying to note was that, in practice, the specific claims are often not testable. A religious person might say that prayer can heal, but when pressed for a specific example that has no non-prayer explanation, none can be given.

 

[Meadmaker]

exactly, legend, not myth. Ask him about the exhodus some time...

He thinks it is legend. Whatever underlying historical truth there might be has been buried under centuries of myth making. Perhaps there was some Hebrew presence in Egypt. Perhaps they were expelled at some point. Perhaps those expelled resettled in Canaan. Perhaps, during that process, they codified much of their religion. We don't know, and likely never will know. We do know that it didn't happen the way the book says it happened, and my rabbi, at least, doesn't believe that it did.

"god exists" is a claim of material fact, unless the religious person is a dualist, which would also be a claim to material fact.

Sort of. A claim of a deistic God would be a claim of a material fact, but it would be one which could not be tested, even in principle. Thus, it doesn't fall in the magisterium of science.

 

[Meadmaker]

You know, its actually kinda ironic. Most of the virulent anti-theists here are about as ignorant concerning the nuances of theology and religious philosophy as the the average bible thumping fundie is about science.

Not to mention as ignorant as the average Bible thumping fundie is about the Bible.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think NOMA essentially embodies a cautionary insight into the dangers of committing category error with respect to science or religion, and is useful in this respect.

Well put.

 

[brodski]

He thinks it is legend. Whatever underlying historical truth there might be has been buried under centuries of myth making. Perhaps there was some Hebrew presence in Egypt. Perhaps they were expelled at some point. Perhaps those expelled resettled in Canaan. Perhaps, during that process, they codified much of their religion. We don't know, and likely never will know. We do know that it didn't happen the way the book says it happened, and my rabbi, at least, doesn't believe that it did.[/quote then by what process does he determine ti to be legend rather than myth?

Sort of. A claim of a deistic God would be a claim of a material fact, but it would be one which could not be tested, even in principle. Thus, it doesn't fall in the magisterium of science.

A claim of the existence of a deistic god would;d have to stretch the definition of existence so far as to be meaningless.

If something does not interact with the universe, in what way can it be said to exists?
If it does interact with the universe then is is the magisterium of science, even if it is not testable yet.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Except that the subtle nuances of theology do not, in the main, represent religion as it is practised, as religion rests on faith, and not logic or evidence, an appeal to the practise religion is the only way to evaluate its essence.

Otherwise one is left with nothing but semantics, and claims of no true Scotsman.

from this point of view It is the theologists who appear to be willfully ignorant of their own religion, not the atheists.

I agree with you that most fundamentalists [especially laypersons] are also ignorant about about such nuances as is evident by their own behaviors. "Christian" fundamentalists, for instance, who attack homosexuals and bomb abortion clinics exhibit and abyssal lack of understanding concerning the basic philosophies of their own religion. In such instances the practice and interpretation do not follow the point of the doctrine. If the person behaving in such a way does so with fill knowledge and understanding that they act in contradiction of their religion they are not only fools, but hypocrites as well.

 

[Mobyseven]

I agree with you that most fundamentalists [especially laypersons] are also ignorant about about such nuances as is evident by their own behaviors. "Christian" fundamentalists, for instance, who attack homosexuals and bomb abortion clinics exhibit and abyssal lack of understanding concerning the basic philosophies of their own religion. In such instances the practice and interpretation do not follow the point of the doctrine. If the person behaving in such a way does so with fill knowledge and understanding that they act in contradiction of their religion they are not only fools, but hypocrites as well.

Dangnabbit. Now I need a new irony meter.

 

[Limbo]

and redefining it so that it it no longer resembles religion, even you said that you wished for religion to transcend religion.
You clearly do not understand what fundamentalism is, nor do you understand religion.

Lol! I understand it much better than you. I'm talking about a personal religion, not an organized one. A personal spirituality. I'm talking about individuals learning to transcend the borders of orthodoxy, the borders of organized religion, leaving dogma behind. I'm talking about borderless individual esoteric religion, and YOU are talking about bordered organized exoteric religion. You don't see the difference between these, nor do you understand their relationship and history, because you don't understand religion. You think you do, for some reason, but you don't. Ah, atheists. Think they understand everything.

sop for NOMA to hold the religious must take their holy text to be as true as harry potter or lord of the rings, they must take their holy text to be fiction.

No, again I tell you they must take their (and all) holy text as metaphor and symbol. If you think that would not be enough for people, then you clearly don't grok what world myth and religion is really saying through said metaphor and symbol. If you don't grok that to at least some degree, then you can't understand how far modern exoteric religion has strayed from it.

As "true" as LoTR? Ridiculous. How can I take you seriously when you demonstrate again and again how little you understand with your ridiculous statements?

Irrelevant, I clearly have a better understanding of what it means to be religious than you do.

Your understanding is light-years behind mine.

ETA I'll answer your pointless question, I have been religious-but I have also always been an atheist.

You have been religious-but you have also always been an atheist? Explain.

 

[brodski]

Your understanding is light-years behind mine.





You have been religious-but you have also always been an atheist? Explain.

hah, if my understanding of religion is so far behind yours, why is it that you don't know that religion and atheism are not always incompatible?

Instead of insulting me, perhaps you should work on your own understanding of religion and atheism, maybe you should try to be a little less arrogant in your approach, you may learn something.

All your other points do not address religion as it is practised by the religious nor do they address the understanding of religion which NOMA was created to address.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I think Jesus disagreed with you on the bolded comment.

Matthew 5 (King James Version)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


All bolding mine.

Just FYI -

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
jot /dʒɒt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, jot·ted, jot·ting, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to write or mark down quickly or briefly (usually fol. by down): Jot down his license number.
–noun 2. the least part of something; a little bit: I don't care a jot.
—Idiom3. not a jot or tittle, not a bit; not at all: The world situation matters not a jot or tittle to him.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1520–30; earlier iot, iote < L iōta < Gk iôta iota]

At the risk of bogging us both down in a pointless theological quagmire I will attempt to dispute that contention

[Debating theology is like arguing over literary elements in a favored book series; ultimately useless but intellectually stimulating ]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus was declaring himself the [prophetic] culmination of old testament Hebraic law. His teachings weren't meant as a refutation of the law but the next more nuanced step in it's development; comparable to the transition from the era of the Newtonian laws of motion to that of Relativity.

Of course, one could argue that Jesus' statements were the expression of a delusional megalomania -- well, thats another discussion in and of itself...

 

[Limbo]

hah, if my understanding of religion is so far behind yours, why is it that you don't know that religion and atheism are not always incompatible?

Where did I say they are incompatible?

Of course "religion" and "atheism" are not always incompatible. I never said otherwise. What I did was ask you to explain, because such personal journeys of discovery are different for everyone. I'm interested in yours.

I am an atheist mystic, so how could I not know that.

Instead of insulting me, perhaps you should work on your own understanding of religion and atheism, maybe you should try to be a little less arrogant in your approach, you may learn something.

Why do you insist on taking it as an insult?

 

[Mobyseven]

Whoa, let me get this straight: Debating theology is useless (or as useless as literary interpretation), but theology is a complicated and nuanced thing that one should familiarise themselves with completely before criticising?

Holy irreconcilable contradiction, Batman!

 

[brodski]

Where did I say they are incompatible?

Of course "religion" and "atheism" are not always incompatible. I never said otherwise.

you asked

Have you ever been religious? Or have you always been an atheist?

(my bold) you presented it as a choice between two options, and then acted surprised (your emphasis on "always") when I answered in the affirmative for both.

The clear implications that you thought that there was a choice between being religious and being an atheist.

 

[Limbo]

I suppose it depends on how you define "religious" in that context. I was asking have you ever been an official card-carrying member of an organized religion with all that entails. If so, which religion? Which Church did you attend? How often did you attend? How long were you a member?

The clear implications that you thought that there was a choice between being religious and being an atheist.

Your impression is wrong.

I'll tell you what, Brodski. I challenge you to participate in a thread with me about whether there is a choice between being religious and being an atheist, and we'll explore this topic until you realize how wrong you are about me. We can talk about our personal spiritual journeys, and how we each learned that they aren't incompatible, and what this means for religion and atheism.

You up for it big guy?

 

[brodski]

I suppose it depends on how you define "religious" in that context. I was asking have you ever been an official card-carrying member of an organized religion with all that entails.

yes, literally card (or at least certificate) carrying.

If so, which religion?

it is irrelevant.

Which Church did you attend?

no church

How often did you attend?

8-10 times a month

How long were you a member?[/quote a number of years. But in no way is this relevant to any arguments which I am presenting.

Your impression is wrong.

If you failed to communicate your point, the problem is yours, not mine.

I'll tell you what, Brodski. I challenge you to participate in a thread with me about whether there is a choice between being religious and being an atheist, and we'll explore this topic until you realize how wrong you are about me. We can talk about our personal spiritual journeys, and how we each learned that they aren't incompatible, and what this means for religion and atheism.

You up for it big guy?

No, as it appears it would be a complete waste of time- furthermore I am not interested in personalising the issue. Now do you wish to discuss NOMA or not?

 

[Limbo]

yes, literally card (or at least certificate) carrying.

And during all that time you were also an atheist?

it is irrelevant.

It is relevant, why won't you answer the question? I need to understand your perspective on religion. So I need to know your religious background. What are you hiding?

If you failed to communicate your point, the problem is yours, not mine.

I trust I've made myself more clear now? Or are you going to continue insisting that I "think being religious and being an atheist are incompatible"? If you want to continue insisting that, then we have a problem and I'm not going to let it go until we iron it out.

No, as it appears it would be a complete waste of time- furthermore I am not interested in personalising the issue. Now do you wish to discuss NOMA or not?

We ARE discussing NOMA. I'm trying to figure out why you are against it. So I'm trying to understand your background a bit, trying to figure out what goes through your head when the word "religion" is used.

So tell me which "religion" you practiced, why you stopped, and how you came to realize that "atheism" and "religion" are not incompatible.