List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

[PierreGringoire]

Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?

First of all, there are different degrees one can take in every single one of those commandments. From there, a leader can use many tactics to scare his "flock."
Three words: Pope Innocent III.
They may not be negative in nature, but I would agree that they are vague in nature.
I like you defence of religion, I think you do a very good job of it.

However, if I were to discredit Bible based religions I would have to start with the Bible. I believe I can discredit it a great deal. I would gladly elaborate on how much of the Old Testament is a derivative of the Mesopotamian religion which the Sumerians practiced before the Israelites even had a relgion.

Then, I would talk about the Council of Nicea in 400 CE. Which banned certain books from the Bible in order to make Christianity more appealing for the declaration that Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. This declaration was made sometime after Constantine died.

Next, I would explain why the Middle East needed a national identity. Historically before the coming of the Prophet Muhammed in 650 CE (I might be a little off here) they had been pushed around by whatever empire occupied the region, and needed a solid unifying religon. Isllam provided that. (I would go into more detail).

I couldn't forget to mention the 4th lateran council called into session in the 13th century by Pope Inncent III. Which I would highly urge you to wikipedia if nothing else. Here is where Christianity first got its notion of transubstantiation (the wine transforming into blood). And many other silly (I need to use this word in order for emphasis, I greatly apologize if anyone here is offended) technicalities. You must be aware that Innocent III was a mad man and was in desperate straits to sustain the power of the church. He did it through (yes it was him who delcared it) the Inquisition and the Albergincian Crusade.

I could go into even more detail. But I don't know if it calls for it.
I brought this to your attention because I know your sick of baseless attacks on Christianity specifically. I just thought I'd provide a historical backbone and as scholarly an argument I can put fourth.

[Petronius]

don't steal

Define theft. We steal inadvertently, through inequities in distribution of value. Wealth by merit is little different than taking what you can.

don't lie

But we are often asked to lie when the truth hurts.

don't sleep with your neighbor's wife

There is nothing moral in this, even if we ignore the misogyny. What if the neighbor likes to watch?

give to charity

And allow the money to be used for what, exactly? The state should offer support for disadvantaged classes in professional and equitable ways, with the goal of bridging the social gap, not doing good deeds.

take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned

In particular cases, such responses are natural, we would help those we care about, but generally... see previous point.

lay down your life for your fellow man

...and he would do the same, not letting me sacrifice my life for his. Where does that lead? Coin flipping?

[Redzeppelin]

Define theft. We steal inadvertently, through inequities in distribution of value. Wealth by merit is little different than taking what you can.

But we are often asked to lie when the truth hurts.

There is nothing moral in this, even if we ignore the misogyny. What if the neighbor likes to watch?

And allow the money to be used for what, exactly? The state should offer support for disadvantaged classes in professional and equitable ways, with the goal of bridging the social gap, not doing good deeds.

In particular cases, such responses are natural, we would help those we care about, but generally... see previous point.

...and he would do the same, not letting me sacrifice my life for his. Where does that lead? Coin flipping?

Do you just wish to argue for the sake of arguing? What exactly is your list of objections supposed to do? Suggest that the commands of scripture aren't good? That you can create exceptions only proves that exceptions exist - but they don't negate one bit the positive aspects of the scriptural injunctions to act in a way that benefits one's community - which all of these commands, obeyed, do. Could you please find a point worth protesting?

[planet earth]

Tell me, if someone is mentality retarded, that is, has an IQ of, lets say, 50. Does that mean in heaven he has the same IQ?

What if someone is Blind in the real life? Can he see in heaven?

What if I have a wife, and I die, and she remarries? Do I get to be with her in heaven, or the other guy?

What about age? Does a dead infant ever grow up in heaven?

The concept of heaven is a little vague. It logically makes no sense, and I think most of us get our idea of it in one way or another from Dante. But what of the real questions?
Is a crippled person crippled in heaven? Is a person in pain his whole life in pain in heaven?

The theological oneness offers no real explanation. The oblivion I will end up in sounds more reasonable.

But I guess you can pray for an afterlife, though I guess one you cannot really understand. I'd rather sleep in on Sundays.

Paradise or heaven has its different rules. We are judged by the deeds of heart, not by the color not by age. Hearts are the only means of judgement. Hearts who manage to see God here, will see Him there, if the Heart is blind here it will be blind there and so on.

As for marriage, everyone will be given the choice who to marry, you will not just bump into anyone.

Oblivion is not much more reasonable, because, you cannot bear the heat of a hot day, how will you ever bear the heat of hell, or of a volcano or of the sun that does not rise, but emerges or let me translate to you Quranically. In Arabic the sun(rise) is called shoroq and sun(set) means ghorob, and very very precisely that would be translate, the sun easts and the sun wests if I would change the east and west into verbs.

when the sun comes from the east then, it appears, and when it goes to the west in disappears, but still exists somewhere else.

THis was a very important point and you asserted to me how accurate Quranic terminolgy is.

Back to Paradise, it is the eternal final phase of our life. Before we came here we were in our mom's wombs where we lived another phase and had other characteristics as well, like swimming not breathing and so on. Before delivery we did not know how we would live with lungs and breathe and so on. But when we arrived we knew how it works.

THere are mysterious facts about heaven, but that is what it makes it very appealing. It is the place of ecstacy, and the utmost is that we will be meeting our Creator, and only and only then will we understand what everything was all about.

[Petronius]

...all of these commands, obeyed...

Thank you for making weltanschauung's point. Ask yourself if such a thing is possible and what it would imply.

[Redzeppelin]

Thank you for making weltanschauung's point. Ask yourself if such a thing is possible and what it would imply.

1. What point?
2. If what "thing" is possible?

Might you be a little bit more forthcoming with your points?

[Pendragon]

1. What point?
2. If what "thing" is possible?

Might you be a little bit more forthcoming with your points?

I think he is asking, fairly enough, if these commandments can be obeyed. Without question, we all break many if not all of them on a daily basis. Refer to the Sermon on the Mount for how Jesus explained the way people break the adultery commandment all of the time. Ask yourself if you are doing all these things or simply endeavoring to do so. A hard check-up never hurt anyone who really has Faith. Honesty is better than anything when dealing with God and/or religion.

God Bless

Pen

[Petronius]

Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects.

[NikolaiI]

Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects.

If I tell you "Brush your teeth- it is good for you", then you might or might not brush your teeth... you only get the good benefit from brushing if you do brush, however. The same thing with the commandments. Of course you don't get the benefit of following the commandments if you don't follow them. Or am I missing something here?

[weltanschauung]

Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?

well, i see it as this, man:
if i have to explain it to you, its simply because you will never get it.
the kings will always be kings, the slaves shall serve. and as long as there is a throne, there will be people fighting to sit on it and order everyone else around. all rules are arbitrary and manipulative.

i'll tell you this: rules are negative in nature simply because it denies the right of behaving as you wish, and giving your right to decide to third parties who will forever control your thoughts. this is not even a problem for the most part of humankind, since everyone simply dreads thinking for themselves.

[Petronius]

If I tell you "Brush your teeth- it is good for you", then you might or might not brush your teeth... you only get the good benefit from brushing if you do brush, however. The same thing with the commandments. Of course you don't get the benefit of following the commandments if you don't follow them. Or am I missing something here?

You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) community benefit. Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical.

Commandments on sexuality are particularly weak, because psychological consequences to sexual acts come from the involved parts' view on sexuality, not from the acts themselves.

[NikolaiI]

You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) community benefit. Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical.

Commandments on sexuality are particularly weak, because psychological consequences to sexual acts come from the involved parts' view on sexuality, not from the acts themselves.

There is individual benefit to be gained from not stealing.

There is spiritual benefit to be gained from following some rules. And great individual benefit to be gained from things like not smoking. That was my take on the issue. Of course there's community benefit from some of these as well, but individual was my first gist of it.

[Redzeppelin]

I think he is asking, fairly enough, if these commandments can be obeyed. Without question, we all break many if not all of them on a daily basis. Refer to the Sermon on the Mount for how Jesus explained the way people break the adultery commandment all of the time. Ask yourself if you are doing all these things or simply endeavoring to do so. A hard check-up never hurt anyone who really has Faith. Honesty is better than anything when dealing with God and/or religion.

God Bless

Pen

Of course they can be obeyed - perhaps not consistently, but God does not ask us for what we cannot do - especially if we ask Him to help us do them. The question is whether or not we wish to obey them. The discussion wasn't how feasible the Bible's injunctions are - it's about questioning the moral value of the things the Bible commands us to do. They're all feasible because many people manage to follow them - not perfectly, but a willing heart is what pleases God - not perfect moral performance.

Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects.

That all people wouldn't obey the scriptural guidelines doesn't negate their value - that's like saying if nobody wanted to eat vegetables that they wouldn't be healthy food. The thing has value whether or not people choose to think so.

You're shifting ground here; the assertion was made that churches merely attempt to "manipulate" the flock, but I asked if the moral precepts of the Bible are not worth following; now you've changed the position to say that the moral precepts aren't valid because people won't follow them. That's a different argument. How is it manipulation to tell people that behaving in "x" ways will benefit the world around them? If the statement is true, how is it manipulation?

If you think the church's message is just a manipulative tool, then tell me what it should be preaching that you would approve of.

I'm sorry - but I couldn't understand your third sentence above.

well, i see it as this, man:
if i have to explain it to you, its simply because you will never get it.

A stunningly arrogant statement - one that can only be made by one who assumes his/her clarity to be beyond question. Might you condescend to make yourself clear instead of assuming that you are - since there is a chance [if only a slight one] that you think you're clear and really aren't?

the kings will always be kings, the slaves shall serve. and as long as there is a throne, there will be people fighting to sit on it and order everyone else around. all rules are arbitrary and manipulative.

A cynical assertion that sounds poetic and visionary but is merely cynicism. All rules are not arbitrary. All societies the world around accept certain values (courage, loyalty, generosity, love) and reject others (murder, lying, cowardice, rape). Laws are only arbitrary if they are based upon nothing higher than human will.

Saying all rules are arbitrary simply means that no law has any meaning whatsoever. Sounds cooly nihilist, but essentially such statements themselves become meaningless.

i'll tell you this: rules are negative in nature simply because it denies the right of behaving as you wish, and giving your right to decide to third parties who will forever control your thoughts. this is not even a problem for the most part of humankind, since everyone simply dreads thinking for themselves.

Believe as you wish; there is not much historical precedence to support the idea that living without guidelines, rules, or laws have benefitted humanity much. Societies/communities cannot function properly without rules and laws because unfettered freedom involves me stepping on others in the act of living out my freedom - the only way to guarantee the freedom of all is for all of us to limit our freedom enough so that others can live as freely as I without being oppressed by my use of freedom. That's basic political theory - something I'm sure you understand.

[Petronius]

That all people wouldn't obey the scriptural guidelines doesn't negate their value - that's like saying if nobody wanted to eat vegetables that they wouldn't be healthy food. The thing has value whether or not people choose to think so.

You're shifting ground here; the assertion was made that churches merely attempt to "manipulate" the flock, but I asked if the moral precepts of the Bible are not worth following; now you've changed the position to say that the moral precepts aren't valid because people won't follow them. That's a different argument. How is it manipulation to tell people that behaving in "x" ways will benefit the world around them? If the statement is true, how is it manipulation?

If you think the church's message is just a manipulative tool, then tell me what it should be preaching that you would approve of.

I'm sorry - but I couldn't understand your third sentence above.

Red, I think it's a mistake to believe societal rules are not arbitrary. You will forgive me my obsession for the subject of sexuality, but let's take this:

don't sleep with your neighbor's wife

This is good advice. It prevents a situation of suffering, jealousy, conflict and family dissolution which is very wise. Maybe millenia ago the problem of unwanted bastards would have been more poignant, but not so much today. Now assume the scripture said something like:

do not be jealous if your wife sleeps with another man

This precept, if obeyed, will bring similar benefits, and I would say is more mature because it invites reasoning with a problem rather than shying from it. The same with "Do not lie" - "Accept that everything is relative", and so on.

You say they will be good if everyone obeys them, but a seemingly contrary commandment can be just as helpful, again, if obeyed by the majority.

This notion of obedience brings forth the necessity of an institution that would make sure, through propaganda, force or any other means, that these laws are respected. Church would in most cases assume this role, hence it being called a tool of control. You deny the idea, but support it through your claims. That's the irony I was talking about in my nonsensical phrase.

Telling people "x is helpful" is very manipulative when you imply that non-x is destructive, which in some cases is simply not true or is a self-fulfilling theory. It is a lie to claim you hold truth about something relative.

[Redzeppelin]

Red, I think it's a mistake to believe societal rules are not arbitrary. You will forgive me my obsession for the subject of sexuality, but let's take this:[don't sleep with your neighbor's wife]

This is good advice. It prevents a situation of suffering, jealousy, conflict and family dissolution which is very wise. Maybe millenia ago the problem of unwanted bastards would have been more poignant, but not so much today. Now assume the scripture said something like: [do not be jealous if your wife sleeps with another man]

This precept, if obeyed, will bring similar benefits, and I would say is more mature because it invites reasoning with a problem rather than shying from it. The same with "Do not lie" - "Accept that everything is relative", and so on.

I don't follow this logic. There is a huge difference between having sex with my neighbor's wife and my being jealous of my wife having sex with my neighbor. Adultery is a violation of a relationship - pure and simple. If people were faithful those those they married, how would that be a negative thing? Telling me not to experience a reasonable emotion (jealousy) in response to a violation of a very intimate and personal relationship is indeed arbitrary and virtually meaningless. That would solve nothing - because the injunction to not "feel" something is very different from the command to not DO something. The Bible's restriction against adultery protects relationships - your suggestion merely seeks to change how we respond - but what if we're "wired" to respond that way?

You say they will be good if everyone obeys them, but a seemingly contrary commandment can be just as helpful, again, if obeyed by the majority.

Example, please.

This notion of obedience brings forth the necessity of an institution that would make sure, through propaganda, force or any other means, that these laws are respected. Church would in most cases assume this role, hence it being called a tool of control. You deny the idea, but support it through your claims. That's the irony I was talking about in my nonsensical phrase.

I'm sorry - I understand that people have big "bones of contention" with the church and that many people don't like being told what to do. What I don't understand is how the Bible's commands in terms of moral behavior are wrong. At their most basic level, the moral commands of the Bible protect relationship - that's what morality is ultimately about - protecting relationship. The Bible does not make salvation a result of moral behavior - churches that preach that are misleading and do not understand the New Testament. God encourages moral behavior because that behavior is reflective of His character - and believers are commanded to be like God in that they make moral choices. By acting in accordance with the character of God, the believer comes to better know Him - which is His primary desire - that we know Him. We are commanded to act morally to reflect God's character to the world. Sometimes we do so imperfectly, but this merely reinforces our humanity rather than God's perceived "shortcomings."

It is no more manipulative to tell people that moral behavior will make their lives and the lives of their community better than it is to tell smokers that smoking will cause cancer. How is it in the church's "selfish-self-interest" to tell people to give to the poor, respect your neighbor's marriage, don't take what's not yours, and tell the truth?

Moral behavior improves society - argue against that one.

Telling people "x is helpful" is very manipulative when you imply that non-x is destructive, which in some cases is simply not true or is a self-fulfilling theory. It is a lie to claim you hold truth about something relative.

But adultery, lying, selfishness, stealing, gossip, etc ARE destructive. Come on - are you really going to take that position? How can you do so with a straight face? There may be legitimate gripes about how the church communicates its message, but how can you argue with the validty of moral behavior and the benefits it bestows upon a community?