I apologize Boerseun, as I mentioned earlier, it appears this thread has split three ways. Perhaps the religious posts could be bundled and split off. But with your leave, let me respond to Modest.
===================
Modest,
I am very aware of the teachings and practice of both Christians and Moslem. I can tell you first-hand, that Christains do not do as you project:
Quote:
Originally posted by Modest post 30:
In applying religion to the problem at hand the religious person might choose to have faith in God and to pray—moving the mountain. It says, after all, in his scripture, which we can assume he rightly believes, that having faith means you can tell a mountain to move from here to there and it will move.
|
Huh? No. Haven't you heard of the Protestant work ethic? The Puritans were workaholics.
You’re making stuff up for the convenience of a fanciful projection. Nowhere have I heard of anyone praying to move mountains. The ultimate goals of this whole narrative is to ultimately reach the conclusion that spiritual people a
delusional while atheists are
rational.
Quote:
Originally posted by Modest
“It's easier for a deluded person to find the truth compatible with their delusion (and to use it) than it is for a rational person to find a delusion compatible with their rationality (and to use it). You're spot on.”
|
Bam! That is spot on the argument I was trying to convey on the Dominium threads
http://hypography.com/forums/alterna...tml#post260597
Legacy assumptions have accepted a flawed view of cosmologic data with multiple paradoxes because of a shared baseline (yet unverifiable) story of an all-matter universe. Such an assumption (if incorrect) would, by definition, be a
”delusion’ (Webster’s:
something that is falsely believed, or propagated.) Though I wholeheartedly agree with this statement of yours, it appears that to be an assumption that the only form of delusion is religious and that there are no scientific delusions. but history disproves that assumption. The deluded view of Ptolemy cursed both math and cosmology for centuries.
Later talk is extended at length about some guy, Ussher, who made up his own religion. But what’s the point? The major religions, it stands to reason, are the major religions because they hit closest to the Truth. Personally, I believe that God is so big and complex that none of the religions could possibly have the exact “Truth” crystallized perfectly down. Each possesses certain degrees of truth. The major religions are those long-lived versions of man-gleaned truths of the “Truth.” For example, say hunter-gatherer-dude is walking along and suddenly has a great epiphany and clarity for some aspect of the greater Truth, say of the connectedness of nature. But let’s say he had the epiphany under a gum tree. Hence that valley takes on the gumtree religion. In a neighboring region, a different epiphany for a different aspect of the truth while sitting in a cave to escape the sun, hence the beginning of the religion of the cave. Tribes mixed and so too did the sharing of ideas. The concepts could merge, or one prevail. It is safe to conclude that the religion closest to the Truth would prevail in such a contest. Prophets were people that came into one group of people and who possessed packages of insights of Truth that was especially appealing.
Today we live in a modern world were the religions are quite mature. Therefore, the major religions would
all be expected to have some aspects that are absolutely representative of some aspects of Truth. However, the aspects of Truth represented by one religion need not be the same as the next where both sets are absolute true. Therefore, places were the five great religions all align would be places that would be expected to have the greatest amount of understanding of that Truth. Therefore I am quite intrigued by the challenge issued:
Quote:
originally posted by Modest:
“Do you believe that a concept or claim that is common in those 5 religions must be true? If I show you a specific example of something claimed in all 5 that is demonstrably false would you change your mind?”
|
Hopefully those were not empty words. Must say I am impressed with your understanding of many of many facts of Islam, so I will be interested what commonality between all religions proves the lack of worth of them all.
I believe you misunderstand my meaning when I said, “Cool, I suppose anything is possible when it comes to that and other scriptures.” To that comment of mine, you bring up a specific excerpt, Joshua 10. No, that is not my intent. Please remember that scripture use many literary devices (parable, slimily, metaphor, allegory, myth, mystic, etc) therefore it is very dangerous and misleading to read too literally at all times and without reflection. Personally, I believe it is quite dangerous (metaphysically) to over analyze any scripture. So I will not go down this rabbit-hole. What I was referring actually to was the epiphanies and understandings that one achieves when reading scripture that could apply to “anything is possible.” What I mean is that if someone were quietly reading that scripture, came to Joshua 10, and between the lines epiphany is gained that directly applies to issues/problems in that individual’s life—that gained truth need not literally relate to the sun standing still.
After discussing many aspects of science and religion (with which I agree) you present a very interesting paradox:
Quote:
Originally posted by Modest
“how we are expected to know what is true when any truth is possible. For example: which miracles were divine and really happened? I do not know of a rational way of answering that question.”
|
Cogito ergo sum… that’s a place to start. I know I am real; are you real? Well, I try to be real, at least.
Miracles? What miracles? Who said their needs to be miracles to feel/believe in God? I guess that’s less extreme than demanding a private interview. I don’t know, sir. The miracle, to me, is that “beauty” that is so evident in nature and science. BTW: you have not acknowledged or denied whether you can see (or have seen) that beauty which I am trying to describe. Yes, you said that you once practiced as Baptist, but did you even
see what I’m talking about?
The direct question I posed to you about the Quranic passage was basically asking the same question. Do/did you appreciate the “beauty” of the quranic words… or do you just know facts about interpretations of others, yet no appreciation of your own? Not that it matters. It’s just that I wasn’t sure whether you were atheist or believing. After your attempt this last post to tag believers as
delusional & atheists are
rational, it seems quite certain that you are atheist. That’s cool, your life/fate are of no consequence to mine, and v.v. But that does help explain where you are coming from and trying to go to on this thread.
