why are the same religious arguments made over and over again?

uruk said:
Well, you can't predict the future. I'm just saying that a possibilty exists where one might not have otherwise.

My only point was that knowledge and intelligence were different things. Knowing things is great. Using that knowledge is even better.

Would you do agree that poverty, starvation, bigotry and war can be detrimantal to you?

Would you not say that being smarter than someone else may provide you with the abilty to figure out a way to avoid something that is detrimental to you better than the one who is not as smart?
Click to expand...

Yeah... this is why I never, ever post in this forum. Eventually becomes a debate on the meaning of words. I shall bow out, I think. Have fun.
 
joobz said:
Disclaimer: Out of fear that I may be repeating another established concept already, I apoligize from the start.

-------
Why are the same arguments made again and again?
"You need religion for morality"
"What if you're wrong?"
"Couldn't have just happened"
plus many others.

All of these have been debated and addressed. There exists standard replies, counters to these arguments, which are all readily available upon a quick google search. Yet, it seems that the same argument will come up again by someone else with the same "Ah ha! I've proved religion and god. I win," attitude. And almost always, they completely ignore or pretend to ignore that these rebutals exist.

It isn't that these people are stupid. We may call them lazy for not looking into the sources more. But we do not know how much work they have to put into such endeavors, so I do not like to make that claim either.

My thought is, perhaps it stems from some built-in assumption that we are original beings. That if we have an idea, it is highly unlikely that anyone else had ever had that same idea before. If it is new to the person, that means it is reflexively new to the world.

Yes, it is obvious that such a view is easily proven wrong. Look at the common conflicts that exist in stories people right. But it doesn't change the fact that this attitude exists. You can see it with each generation's attitudes toward music. That every generation acts as though they invented or improved sex (in some way or another). That we repeat the mistakes made in history.

It takes a good couple of cold realizations in a person's life to come to understand that 1.) your generation didn't make "Better" music than the last and 2.)your parents had lots of freaky sex and 3.) we aren't any smarter than people 200-10,000 years ago.

I'm just wondering if there is a way to apply this principle in dealing with the repeated arguments. Or is it something that there is no solution.
Click to expand...

religious arguments are repeated because religious people don't evolve.
 
The reason why experiences alone are not usefull for validation of truths is that experiences are colored, filtered, shaped and molded by the ideas, prenotions, beliefs, convictions, fears, preferences, biases etc. of the person having the experience.
 
plumjam said:
If you take a loony and put him in a laboratory to do experiments, then put him in a monastery to pray and meditate, the results are likely to be of pretty equal uselessness
That doesn't invalidate science, nor spiritual practice.
Click to expand...

At least the looney can cause some damage in a labratory. If you put him in a monestary he'll just go to sleep.
 
plumjam said:
Well, let's face it, we're on a forum. So, here, there's no alternative to expressing things in language.. making propositions, arguments.
But experiencing this forum exists prior to, and independent of, actually writing a post and engaging in argument.
Lurkers can be sure this forum exists, from their experience, without ever having to post anything. So experience is more primary than argument.
Click to expand...
yes, but the moment you communicate that experience, you have argument.

The concept of christ was taught to people and is passed down knowledge. It isn't experienced, it's taught via argument. The moment you stop teaching it, christianity would no longer exist. As such, it, as a religion, is dependant upon argument.

Your entire premise is wrong.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Sort of shoots down the whole "experience is the only valid way to truth" argument, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
which I've never made

It seems experience is the only valid way to truth that we approve of.
Click to expand...
it often works like this, though it shouldn't.. an example of experience only being seen as valid when we approve of it is people dismissing experiential evidence as 'anecdotal' or 'woo' just because they don't approve of that particular subject matter being treated seriously

So the first four still pose a problem to your definition of god. Which leads back to the problem that people have had many contradictory internal experiences of god, including gods that exist in a particular space/time coordinate.
Click to expand...
flying spaghetti monsters, being made of spaghetti, would normally be understood to exist within the realm of space, time, matter, energy.. if anyone would want to propose a spaghetti monster existing independently of time and space, they are free to do so.
unfortunately there isn't thousands of years of accumulated evidence of people experiencing a spaghetti monster external to space and time.. but there is for God.

But it is also true that you can experience the lack of something that has never existed, such as the Easter Bunny.
Click to expand...
maybe, but I don't see what this has to do with God.

How should I differentiate between your experience of god talking to you and a thousand other people's contradictory claims?
Click to expand...

I never said God spoke to me. If a thousand people went to the Himalayas and had to describe Mount Everest, in some regards their descriptions could be contradictory. This wouldn't mean Everest doesn't exist.
Most descriptions would be broadly similar, with a lot of commonalities, as are descriptions of experiences of the divine.
 
Last edited:
plumjam said:
.
well you're providing a case in point. You're just flatly stating that experience is of no use in the theistic realm. You aren't explaining why. . . . .
Click to expand...


No, you are incorrect. I think experience is of great use in the theistic realm. In fact, it could be argued that without tradition and fear of mortality, experience is the the sole force that keeps religion alive.

But the OP presumes a discussion about the validity of religion where arguments are being made. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I assume these religious arguments implied by the OP are presented when there is opposition. Why would any group of like-minded people need to present arguments among themselves?

Now if the opposition is a skeptic, or an atheist, or a good scientist, or anyone who holds no religious belief, the argument falls outside the theistic realm. It's moved into the philosophical and/or scientific realm. In which case, the professions of experience are going to be heard and maybe even appreciated, but ultimately dismissed when assigning any validity to the arguments in favor of the mystical. Simply because one experiences something that to them seems magical doesn't make it so.

plumjam said:
. . . .
If many sane, moral, intelligent people throughout history have experienced the "supernatural bossman" and describe the experience similarly, why, in this example is experience seen of no value? . . . .
Click to expand...


It has some value in your "theistic realm". It bolsters the notion that there is something intangible that ties us all together.

But in our implied discussion, one would have to then ask how the experiencers know the experience constitutes something intangible and not simply a reaction we are all capable of because of similar brain structure or emotional capacity; something very tangible.

Outside of the theistic realm, the experience itself does not provide the validity. Only the source or the processes do.


plumjam said:
. . . . When many sane, moral, intelligent people throughout history experience a particular scientific experiment and describe the experience similarly, why, here, is experience suddenly of such high value? . . . .
Click to expand...

I think you're taking liberties with the word "experience" here. These people are describing the processes of the experiment and the outcomes, not the overall experience of running the experiment.


plumjam said:
. . . . Do you know what empiricism is? It is the view that experience is a highly valid way of knowing about reality. Empirical science is based on experience.
Click to expand...


Sure, but in the case of religion, are we experiencing something divine, or something with a more natural explanation.
 
joobz said:
yes, but the moment you communicate that experience, you have argument.

The concept of christ was taught to people and is passed down knowledge. It isn't experienced, it's taught via argument. The moment you stop teaching it, christianity would no longer exist. As such, it, as a religion, is dependant upon argument.

Your entire premise is wrong.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the concept of Christ as 'the anointed one' ?
Or the concept of Christ as applying to the person Jesus Christ?
 
plumjam said:
Are you talking about the concept of Christ as 'the anointed one' ?
Or the concept of Christ as applying to the person Jesus Christ?
Click to expand...
I'm refering to christ figure in the religion, christianity. it is entirely irrelevant to this disucssion, if he was a real person or not.
 
Phil said:
No, you are incorrect. I think experience is of great use in the theistic realm. In fact, it could be argued that without tradition and fear of mortality, experience is the the sole force that keeps religion alive.

But the OP presumes a discussion about the validity of religion where arguments are being made. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I assume these religious arguments implied by the OP are presented when there is opposition. Why would any group of like-minded people need to present arguments among themselves?
Click to expand...
What I'm most interested in knowing is if there are any
"Outstanding" debate points that have been made from a theistic view.
 
joobz said:
What I'm most interested in knowing is if there are any
"Outstanding" debate points that have been made from a theistic view.
Click to expand...


Outstanding as in "not yet addressed" or as in "magnificent"?


Either way, I'd say no.
 
joobz said:
yes, but the moment you communicate that experience, you have argument.

The concept of christ was taught to people and is passed down knowledge. It isn't experienced, it's taught via argument. The moment you stop teaching it, christianity would no longer exist. As such, it, as a religion, is dependant upon argument.

Your entire premise is wrong.
Click to expand...

You are right to some extent. Christianity, as a religion, indeed uses words, descriptions, stories, sometimes arguments. But Christianity would say that behind all these words, arguments etc.. lies a spiritual reality that can be experienced by the individual. Commonly, in religions, experiencing the spiritual reality behind the words is viewed as of much more value than indulging in argumentation. The Buddha said when the finger is pointing to the moon look at the moon, not the finger (the religion, words, and arguments of Buddhism being the finger)

Christianity says that Christ can be experienced independent of arguments. This indeed is confirmed by saints and mystics in Christianity, and even some mystics and saints from other religious backgrounds (e.g. Ramakrishna).
So it's not impossible that Christianity could die out and be forgotten completely, but for Christ to be experienced spiritually subsequently by someone who'd never heard of Christianity.

This, I guess, would be unlikely, though.
My understanding is that God is beyond name and form, and is capable of presenting himself in whatever form he deems appropriate to the situation. Thus to a Hindu he might present himself in the form of Krishna, Siva etc.. because this is culturally meaningful to, and thus could be understood by, the hindu.
If Christianity ceased to exist I imagine God would present himself in a different form that would be understandable and culturally appropriate to the experiencer.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Why is 'He' a 'He' then?
Click to expand...

God, being beyond name and form, is in essence neither he nor she, being free of the limitation of gender.
When God presents himself/herself/itself in a form, it is often in a human form in order to make sense to the experiencer.. so that the experiencer can relate to the experience in some understandable meaningful way.
Sometimes it's in a he-form, such as Vishnu, sometimes it's in a she-form, such as Kali.
 
Foster Zygote said:
I think Wolfman's point is that science leads to a general consensus of explanations while religion only leads to numerous contradictory explanations.
Click to expand...

What really needs explaining is why this still has to be said in this day and age. And no doubt well into the future.

Same old same old in response to same old same old. Of course, nowadays we can do it over the internet instead of in print. Thank god for progress ...:rolleyes:
 
plumjam said:
God, being beyond name and form, is in essence neither he nor she, being free of the limitation of gender.
When God presents himself/herself/itself in a form, it is often in a human form in order to make sense to the experiencer.. so that the experiencer can relate to the experience in some understandable meaningful way.
Sometimes it's in a he-form, such as Vishnu, sometimes it's in a she-form, such as Kali.
Click to expand...

Why can't God be called an 'It' then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom