Facts!!!

[Rasta]

Many people would assert that the culture and country you live in is part of the vindication of the RCC.

On what grounds?

The rest of your question regards truth itself.

Right. They claim truth, I want to know how you know they are right.

One can logically prove a great many things, but when sciences come together, psychology, sociology and so forth, we learn more and more which one thing is true or... best for society.

How does this apply to religious claims?

We don't need to force everyone to do the best thing, but certainly we restrict things that are bad for society and encourage those that are good.

Like birth control?

Religions contain within themselves much of this knowledge, and with it they are vindicated.

How do you know this is true?

This in no way asserts that an individual, using their own faculties cannot determine these values themselves, for they are in the nature of most of mankind, or all of mankind, (I would have to think about that, but it is not pertinent here). Such as the evil of murder, or how allowing murder in society deteriorates society. Most of these things are fairly straightforward.

If everybody has this regardless of faith, how can faith take credit for it?

Many theologians assert that atheism is a religion with the individual or science as god. This wouldn't be a completely wrong perspective, but is certainly a dangerous one.

Of course that depends on your definition of god. Given the definition of atheism, I would say this is totally incorrect.

The fact is, that most western atheists appear to have consciences that are formed well enough to keep them out of danger and away from the "business end" of the legal system.

What does this mean?

With atheists, then, we have theology "born anew" with each mind, rather than, building upon the foundation of what has come before.

Ok, I think this is an explanation for my previous question.

We are, even now, walking down a path that has been traversed a great number of times by philosophers and theologians.

What is truth? Truth is like freedom, peace, and justice working together.

So good intentions are truth?

 

[fated]

On what grounds?



Right. They claim truth, I want to know how you know they are right.



How does this apply to religious claims?



Like birth control?



How do you know this is true?



If everybody has this regardless of faith, how can faith take credit for it?



Of course that depends on your definition of god. Given the definition of atheism, I would say this is totally incorrect.



What does this mean?



Ok, I think this is an explanation for my previous question.



So good intentions are truth?

The RCC is a massive part of what is good in the culture we exist in today. We could call that vindication. Catholic values are also time tested, that is vindicating. Catholicism is vindicated by history, and will continue to be vindicated. There is no reason to believe that it will cease in its persistence.

Birth control:
Now we have a moral disagreement involved. That makes it much simpler.

Birth control lures people into having sexual relations they might not otherwise have and deceives them into thinking that they can't get pregnant. This causes all kinds of societal unrest, and from many perspectives.

Now, God is a good thing to discuss, even for an atheist... why? Because God is persistent in the cultures of mankind.

What should God be like? If he exists what is He not?

Religions almost unerring contain criminal law for societal peace based on the culture in which they persisted. From these and other personal moral teachings we can determine laws which contribute to peace.

 

[samiam]

2)if the question was of intellectual debate, he never answered.

Not true. He did engage in debate, especially when he was in the temple before his crucification.

Luke 20:2-8; 20:20-26; and 20:27-40, to name three examples of Jesus debating others.

Miracles, signs, supernatural effects, these can *never* prove anything, and will *never* change someone's beliefs.

Interesting thought. There are many miracles God could have done that would have proven his nature as being one where only one religion is right and all other religions are wrong.

For example, God could have designed the world to be the same one a literal reading of Genesis 1 gives: A flat Earth, where the sky is a dome, and where the sun and stars are small lights in this dome.

Or, to quote Richard Carrier, another miracle God could have done to prove that everyone should believe in the risen Jesus:

A "god of the universe" could have even rearranged the stars to spell "Jesus Lives"--the sort of feat that can never be replicated by technology and which would demonstrate a truly universal power over all of nature.
​

But, yes, God didn't do this. Why? Well, because I think God wants to give us freedom whether to have faith in Him.

And, no, torturing people of other faiths is not giving people freedom; that is sadism. Any God that claims to torture people for their beliefs is not God, but Satan masquerading as an angel of light.

 

[Rasta]

The RCC is a massive part of what is good in the culture we exist in today. We could call that vindication. Catholic values are also time tested, that is vindicating. Catholicism is vindicated by history, and will continue to be vindicated. There is no reason to believe that it will cease in its persistence.

So, this is based on no objective methodology, but merely because you (among others) say so?

Birth control:
Now we have a moral disagreement involved. That makes it much simpler.

Birth control lures people into having sexual relations they might not otherwise have and deceives them into thinking that they can't get pregnant. This causes all kinds of societal unrest, and from many perspectives.

I doubt that. Have abortian rates gone up or down since the invention of contraception? What else would you be basing this conclusion off of? Cuz someone told you so? Is this a fact? If so, I would like to see this fact.

Now, God is a good thing to discuss, even for an atheist... why? Because God is persistent in the cultures of mankind.

What should God be like? If he exists what is He not?

Murder, rape, and molestation are also persistant in man's cultures.

I have my own idea of what god should be like. My guess is that this differs from person to person because it is entierly subjective.

Religions almost unerring contain criminal law for societal peace based on the culture in which they persisted. From these and other personal moral teachings we can determine laws which contribute to peace.

Well, I would say it is the culture wich influences practises rather than the other way around. This is why Christianity has changed so much in the last 100 years. Why? Because our culture has changed SO much in the last 100 years.

I stand by my claim that religion has ADDED nothing to our knowledge. They only take credit for what is already there.

 

[fated]

So, this is based on no objective methodology, but merely because you (among others) say so?



I doubt that. Have abortian rates gone up or down since the invention of contraception? What else would you be basing this conclusion off of? Cuz someone told you so? Is this a fact? If so, I would like to see this fact.



Murder, rape, and molestation are also persistant in man's cultures.

I have my own idea of what god should be like. My guess is that this differs from person to person because it is entierly subjective.



Well, I would say it is the culture wich influences practises rather than the other way around. This is why Christianity has changed so much in the last 100 years. Why? Because our culture has changed SO much in the last 100 years.

I stand by my claim that religion has ADDED nothing to our knowledge. They only take credit for what is already there.

Abortion rates have greatly increased with the legalization/decriminalization of abortion in the western world.

Some of the moral teachings were pretty profound long ago, some would say that they continue to be so. The RCC, I object, has not had the radical moral change in character of the rest of the culture, though it certainly has not taken care to protect its members as it could have.

 

[Rasta]

Abortion rates have greatly increased with the legalization/decriminalization of abortion in the western world.

You said it was because of contraceptives. Do you now withdraw that claim?

What about STD's? Condoms work great against spreading these.

Some of the moral teachings were pretty profound long ago, some would say that they continue to be so.

I know what people claim. I'm more concerned with facts than heresay.

The RCC, I object, has not had the radical moral change in character of the rest of the culture, though it certainly has not taken care to protect its members as it could have.

Do demonstrate this for me.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste SiderealExalt,

thank you for the post.

I think this confusion comes up often because people such as the one you quoted do not understand any concept of deities beyond the 3 big monotheisms.

oh, i agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly!

for monotheists deity=Creator Deity and only Creator Deity.

not to mention the overwhelming view that Buddhism is a monolithic whole with regards to it's philosophies when, in fact, we have four distinct schools

metta,

~v

 

[randomman]

Does any religion have any facts that prove it the true faith?

It is my claim that NO faith can substantuate a single supernatural claim with facts.

what is fact for you ? science ? seeing God with eyes for instance ?

 

[Rasta]

what is fact for you ? science ? seeing God with eyes for instance ?

For me, a fact would be the common definition of the word. So a fact is undisputible evidence. That simple.

 

[fated]

For me, a fact would be the common definition of the word. So a fact is undisputible evidence. That simple.

Which do you "prefer" Creationism or Evolution? I am not talking about radical creationism here, like that taken literalistically from the Bible or Koran or whatever other religious philosophy. Is it not possible that some things simply came to exist? Isn't that where Evolution stands today, and only in (very strong) theory at that.

 

[fated]

Namaste SiderealExalt,

thank you for the post.



oh, i agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly!

for monotheists deity=Creator Deity and only Creator Deity.

not to mention the overwhelming view that Buddhism is a monolithic whole with regards to it's philosophies when, in fact, we have four distinct schools

metta,

~v

Where did Buddha address the question of "whether God?" I believe he pointed to his teaching...

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Fated,

thank you for the post.

Where did Buddha address the question of "whether God?" I believe he pointed to his teaching...

in the Suttas.... but i'm not sure what you are asking, can you elaborate a bit?

are you asking where the Buddha denied that he was a god or are you asking about where the Buddha taught that there is nothing which can be considered the source of everything?

metta,

~v

 

[fated]

Namaste Fated,

thank you for the post.



in the Suttas.... but i'm not sure what you are asking, can you elaborate a bit?

are you asking where the Buddha denied that he was a god or are you asking about where the Buddha taught that there is nothing which can be considered the source of everything?

metta,

~v

We seem to be missing each other... Buddha didn't claim to be God or even "sent by God." Did he?

Explaining my perspective further:
His teachings, or more accurately, the way he "came to enlightenment" certainly point toward some spiritual existence, but other that I don't believe he really elaborated on "Mystic" Theology; He never elaborated on the being or nature of God.

Thus, I can conclude that the religion is "agnostic" at least as it regards a "personal god" and I would conclude that the agnosticism goes much further.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste fated,

thank you for the post.

We seem to be missing each other... Buddha didn't claim to be God or even "sent by God." Did he?

correct.

Explaining my perspective further:
His teachings, or more accurately, the way he "came to enlightenment" certainly point toward some spiritual existence, but other that I don't believe he really elaborated on "Mystic" Theology; He never elaborated on the being or nature of God.

then you would be incorrect for not only does the Buddha talk about deity in general he talks about the being that thinks it is the creator being in particular. the Buddha elaborates, in several Suttas, the nature of deities, how they come to rise and how they come to cease and are reborn...even the being that considers itself the creator.

of course it wouldn't be "mystic theology" so you are quite right about that.

Thus, I can conclude that the religion is "agnostic" at least as it regards a "personal god" and I would conclude that the agnosticism goes much further.

sure, you can conclude that and many theists do make this very same conclusion. i cannot, however, determine why that is since the Buddhas teachings on this were quite clear.

i have a feeling that it's the whole "Noble Silence" thing which you are on about and, if that is so, i can help explain that particular teaching.

most beings do not realize that the Buddhas teachings were tailored specifically to the audience to whom he was speaking. thus, for us to know if the teaching is applicable for our practice we need to know the beings to whom the teaching was given and the circumstances behind it.

i'm happy to talk about it in more depth though i have covered it previously in the Ask the Buddhist thread which you may find of some interest here: http://christianforums.com/t996060-ask-the-buddhist.html

metta,

~v

 

[fated]

Namaste fated,

thank you for the post.



correct.



then you would be incorrect for not only does the Buddha talk about deity in general he talks about the being that thinks it is the creator being in particular. the Buddha elaborates, in several Suttas, the nature of deities, how they come to rise and how they come to cease and are reborn...even the being that considers itself the creator.

of course it wouldn't be "mystic theology" so you are quite right about that.



sure, you can conclude that and many theists do make this very same conclusion. i cannot, however, determine why that is since the Buddhas teachings on this were quite clear.

i have a feeling that it's the whole "Noble Silence" thing which you are on about and, if that is so, i can help explain that particular teaching.

most beings do not realize that the Buddhas teachings were tailored specifically to the audience to whom he was speaking. thus, for us to know if the teaching is applicable for our practice we need to know the beings to whom the teaching was given and the circumstances behind it.

i'm happy to talk about it in more depth though i have covered it previously in the Ask the Buddhist thread which you may find of some interest here: http://christianforums.com/t996060-ask-the-buddhist.html

metta,

~v

All that you are saying is that we must literally interpret Buddha.

And, if I understand you correctly, the interpretation therein, regards not Buddha particular beliefs, but rather, his philosophical viewpoint on the nature of the divine and its application.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste fated,

thank you for the post.

All that you are saying is that we must literally interpret Buddha.

are you sure that is all i am saying? i think that i'm saying something more than this.

And, if I understand you correctly, the interpretation therein, regards not Buddha particular beliefs, but rather, his philosophical viewpoint on the nature of the divine and its application.

it is quite correct that we must have a valid cognition of the reasons for what the Buddha taught his philosophy so to speak. of course there are four schools of Buddhist philosophy so we are being a bit general in such a declaration.

metta,

~v

 

[Rasta]

Which do you "prefer" Creationism or Evolution? I am not talking about radical creationism here, like that taken literalistically from the Bible or Koran or whatever other religious philosophy. Is it not possible that some things simply came to exist? Isn't that where Evolution stands today, and only in (very strong) theory at that.

What I prefer is not necessarily what I believe. If it was up to me, I would rather that I be a special creation for some grand purpose. I would prefer that there is a supernatural entity who is watching over me, protecting me, guiding me, and desires to be in a relationship with me. I like the idea of an afterlife too. That would be so cool.

I don't believe this though.

Yes, it's entierly possible. I don't base belief off of possibility, and neither do you.

It's possible that the Greek gods are true.

 

[fated]

Namaste fated,

thank you for the post.



are you sure that is all i am saying? i think that i'm saying something more than this.



it is quite correct that we must have a valid cognition of the reasons for what the Buddha taught his philosophy so to speak. of course there are four schools of Buddhist philosophy so we are being a bit general in such a declaration.

metta,

~v

...agreed?...

 

[fated]

What I prefer is not necessarily what I believe. If it was up to me, I would rather that I be a special creation for some grand purpose. I would prefer that there is a supernatural entity who is watching over me, protecting me, guiding me, and desires to be in a relationship with me. I like the idea of an afterlife too. That would be so cool.

I don't believe this though.

Yes, it's entierly possible. I don't base belief off of possibility, and neither do you.

It's possible that the Greek gods are true.

Which do you "believe" Creationism or Evolution? I am not talking about radical creationism here, like that taken literalistically from the Bible or Koran or whatever other religious philosophy. Is it not possible that some things simply came to exist? Isn't that where Evolution stands today, and only in (very strong) theory at that.

In other words: What about vestigial limbs?

 

[Rasta]

Which do you "believe" Creationism or Evolution?

I wasn't aware that the exsistence of one of these would necessarily negate the other. Isn't that what the literalists say?

If you are asking, which one do I say is fact? Neither. If you are asking me which one is more likely true? I would say the one that is based on facts.

Is it not possible that some things simply came to exist?

Entierly possible.

Isn't that where Evolution stands today, and only in (very strong) theory at that.

Not enterly. The scientific theory of evolution is based on facts.

In other words: What about vestigial limbs?

These were one of the foundations that lead Charles D. to make his theory of evolution.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs.html