Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the dictionary, maybe, but IRL there are many nuances in these words. Just take "Catholic" which can be very different based on ethnicity or whether or not you went to Catholic schools. I know Catholics who were tortured by the threat of mortal sin when they were kids and others who didn't take it very seriously. Irish Catholics who went to Catholic school had a very different sense of their religion than Italian Catholics who did not -- yet both types could probably recite all the prayers and tell you what all the sins were. There are "stereotypes" of religion that simply don't hold for every individual who practices a particular religion.

Sigh, I think it's well established there are vast differences among what is practiced as a religion; there is no disagreement here. You and others can stop giving examples of how different people practice religion differently.

Let me ask you this question: is a spark plug the same as a religion? Both are nouns. Is your answer yes, no or maybe? If you answer yes or maybe, we can end our conversation here as there is no sense continuing.

If you answer no, they are not the same, then you have implied that the words "spark plug" and "religion" have some inherent meaning that make them different and not the same. This meaning that you are ascribing to the words are what makes these words useful as part of the English language. The meaning of words are not determined by individuals like you or I, but by group consensus through contemporary use. Therefore, just because you or all your friends feel that "Catholic" in real life may refer to baked goods, doesn't make it so. A majority of our collective population have to agree. The meaning of words as accepted by the collective are contained in the dictionary, which is a living and evolving record of the meaning we collectively give to words. New meanings of words as broadly accepted and used are added all the time. However, you do not as one person or even a small group of individuals get to make up new meanings of words and expect others to agree. In other words, your discount of a word's meaning as described in the dictionary is irrational and not conducive to a meaningful conversation.

The definition of "religion" and "catholic" as it appears in a dictionary are just that, a definition. It is not a stereotype.

McLeanAtheist

Did not need this lecture on the difference between a definition and a stereotype. The point is, a dictionary definition does not automatically dictate meaning in everyday life. Just because a person doesn't live up to the narrow dictionary definition of "Catholic" doesn't mean you can tell them they are not a catholic.

I'm beginning to think that the reason you have more respect for the religious fundamentalist position is that you are a kind of "fundamentalist" yourself, as in preferring clearcut answers and dismissing that which does not fit in that narrow purview.

Anonymous wrote:
In the dictionary, maybe, but IRL there are many nuances in these words. Just take "Catholic" which can be very different based on ethnicity or whether or not you went to Catholic schools. I know Catholics who were tortured by the threat of mortal sin when they were kids and others who didn't take it very seriously. Irish Catholics who went to Catholic school had a very different sense of their religion than Italian Catholics who did not -- yet both types could probably recite all the prayers and tell you what all the sins were. There are "stereotypes" of religion that simply don't hold for every individual who practices a particular religion.

Sigh, I think it's well established there are vast differences among what is practiced as a religion; there is no disagreement here. You and others can stop giving examples of how different people practice religion differently.

Let me ask you this question: is a spark plug the same as a religion? Both are nouns. Is your answer yes, no or maybe? If you answer yes or maybe, we can end our conversation here as there is no sense continuing.

If you answer no, they are not the same, then you have implied that the words "spark plug" and "religion" have some inherent meaning that make them different and not the same. This meaning that you are ascribing to the words are what makes these words useful as part of the English language. The meaning of words are not determined by individuals like you or I, but by group consensus through contemporary use. Therefore, just because you or all your friends feel that "Catholic" in real life may refer to baked goods, doesn't make it so. A majority of our collective population have to agree. The meaning of words as accepted by the collective are contained in the dictionary, which is a living and evolving record of the meaning we collectively give to words. New meanings of words as broadly accepted and used are added all the time. However, you do not as one person or even a small group of individuals get to make up new meanings of words and expect others to agree. In other words, your discount of a word's meaning as described in the dictionary is irrational and not conducive to a meaningful conversation.

The definition of "religion" and "catholic" as it appears in a dictionary are just that, a definition. It is not a stereotype.

McLeanAtheist

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:To those who quote the dictionary definition of "religion" or explain that one cannot be a Christian without accepting this or that doctrine: Language is malleable. We do not all use words in the same way. A person can consider herself or himself to be devoutly religious while believing in a metaphorical God, while another person with extremely similar views of politics, charity, and most other aspects of life, might self-designate as an atheist.

If this thread were in a language forum, it would make sense to debate whether either of the above people is using correct terminology. But in this Religion Forum, I think we should accept that words like "Christian" and "atheist" are used broadly, and only give a general approximation of the user's outlook. Joe Biden and Rick Santorum, for example, are both Catholics, but that gives very little information about what to expect from them.

I'm sorry I can't accept that as a valid argument. Language has meaning only when you nail down the definition of words. Words like "Religion", "Christianity", and "Catholic" have well defined meanings. If your understanding and belief of this world no longer conforms to the definition of Christianity and Religion, then it is wrong to call it Christianity and Religion and then blame the other side for arguing semantics.

Again I bring up the example of swimming as mentioned before. You can go to an exercise forum in a thread discussing swimming and claim that you love to swim the backstroke because it's so elegant. In ensuing discussions where people exchange their backstroke swimming techniques, you describe how you have your arms rotate forward instead of backward, how you face forward instead of up. It is then revealed that you do this in your living room, while standing on an exercise mat. When people point out that this is not swimming, let alone backstroke swimming, you argue that language is malleable, we do not all use words in the same way. You can consider yourself to be swimming the backstroke while standing on a mat rotating your arms forward, while another person doing an extremely similar activity might self-describe to be doing a Yoga movement. You can further argue that if this were a language forum, their concerns about the definition of swimming or backstroke might make sense. But in an exercise forum, we should accept that words like "swimming" and "backstroke" are used broadly, and only give a general approximation of what the user is doing. For example, both Joe Biden and Rick Santorum have swam before, but that gives very little information about what specific physical activity they were doing while "swimming".

If words had no defined meaning, there can be no productive discussion.

McLeanAtheist

In the dictionary, maybe, but IRL there are many nuances in these words. Just take "Catholic" which can be very different based on ethnicity or whether or not you went to Catholic schools. I know Catholics who were tortured by the threat of mortal sin when they were kids and others who didn't take it very seriously. Irish Catholics who went to Catholic school had a very different sense of their religion than Italian Catholics who did not -- yet both types could probably recite all the prayers and tell you what all the sins were. There are "stereotypes" of religion that simply don't hold for every individual who practices a particular religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A different atheist -

Most reasonable questions do have reasonable answers - or people looking for reasonable answers -- that's how humans have made so much progress. I view the acceptance of "faith" in ancient stores as being outside this reasonableness as unreasonable. I think and hope that this way of thinking -- which I know is very acceptable now-- is changing and will eventually be as unacceptable as believing in Santa after the age of 8.

I believe in Santa. People who don't believe in Santa might as well be Data on Star Trek the Next Generation; they have no understanding of human creativity, intuition, and beauty. Some things are true because we see them as true. Life is art, not just numbers on a screen.

Good one, but I bet the fold you're directing it to won't get it.

fold = folks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meanwhile, you have decided what the right way to "study and believe" is. Many sincere Christians "have studied and believe" that the resurrection is a metaphor for rebirth. They believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in a different way than you and the fundamentalists think they should believe, but they still believe.

Some educated religious liberal Christians are aware of the numerous ancient resurrection myths and see them (and Jesus) as reflecting a basic human desire to remake themselves and get a fresh start. I respect the liberals more because they are more thoughtful and less dogmatic and more aware of and in sync with modern science and philosophy.

Not Mclean atheist guy.

Let me ask you a question: why? Why do sincere Christians believe this despite evidence to the contrary? Can you point me to some specific argument(s) that strongly makes the case? I would love to read some because, to me, it seems like they start out wanting to believe this stuff in the first place, filter all evidence through that framework, and then magically make the conclusion they started with in the first place.

But let me back up a second. Isn't a big part of Christianity the idea that this Jesus guy literally died for your sins and then rose again? I don't know how you can not literally accept that and still identify with the faith. It's all part of the deal.

Because it feels good? Because they are psychologically drawn to "spirituality" in a way you are not, so can't understand? It's more acceptable in our current society to believe than to not believe? Because they are not aware of or interested in the evidence to the contrary?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A different atheist -

Most reasonable questions do have reasonable answers - or people looking for reasonable answers -- that's how humans have made so much progress. I view the acceptance of "faith" in ancient stores as being outside this reasonableness as unreasonable. I think and hope that this way of thinking -- which I know is very acceptable now-- is changing and will eventually be as unacceptable as believing in Santa after the age of 8.

I believe in Santa. People who don't believe in Santa might as well be Data on Star Trek the Next Generation; they have no understanding of human creativity, intuition, and beauty. Some things are true because we see them as true. Life is art, not just numbers on a screen.

Good one, but I bet the fold you're directing it to won't get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meanwhile, you have decided what the right way to "study and believe" is. Many sincere Christians "have studied and believe" that the resurrection is a metaphor for rebirth. They believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in a different way than you and the fundamentalists think they should believe, but they still believe.

Some educated religious liberal Christians are aware of the numerous ancient resurrection myths and see them (and Jesus) as reflecting a basic human desire to remake themselves and get a fresh start. I respect the liberals more because they are more thoughtful and less dogmatic and more aware of and in sync with modern science and philosophy.

Okay, so Jesus was not real. He was just a metaphor for rebirth, doing good, redeeming ourselves individually and collectively for the sins of the past by living a good righteous life from now on. Okay, I'll grant you that.

Lets take one more step, how can you then be sure that God is real. I propose that God is really just a metaphor that the authors of the bible created, to represent the great sense of unknown, our submission to the unknowable limits of our existence, to accept that we can not know in our own lifetime and in the lifetime of all of man, all that there is to know, because it is bigger and greater than us, our solar system, our galaxy, and perhaps even our own universe.

I simply cannot respect the logic that discounts everything in Christianity, including Christ himself, yet stops short of discounting God. It's weakness hiding under the idea of pragmatism.

McLeanAtheist

A lot of liberal Christians see "god" as a metaphor too. Others are not so sure and/or don't want to think about it much

Okay, at what point are you then simply agnostic and no longer a Christian? If you don't even get in the water, are you still swimming?

McLeanAtheist

Good question -- I think (from what I've seen) that it is largely a state of mind with some people - they may be agnostics who like going to church so they think of themselves as Christians, though, if you ask them a few questions, it will be fairly clear that they are agnostic - the beliefs are not that important to them. I think a lot of people who eventually drift away and become "nones" could be like this. There are others who feel a sense of "god" or "Spirituality" but don't identify with any particular religion and are not interested in taking a stand or thinking much about their beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:"Swim" has a lot of variables. You're seeing Christianity as all being the backstroke. The nuances are completely over your head.

If you want to discuss religion, I suggest you learn a little more about it.

I think McLean Atheist is learning about religion -- right here on the religion forum -- great place to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Swim" has a lot of variables. You're seeing Christianity as all being the backstroke. The nuances are completely over your head.

If you want to discuss religion, I suggest you learn a little more about it.

You are missing the point of the analogy by focusing on the tangential details.

NP -- I think I got your analogy and would say it doesn't work -- swimming is much more concrete and simple than religion -- maybe not to you -- but you clearly don't understand religion as an active participant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Swim" has a lot of variables. You're seeing Christianity as all being the backstroke. The nuances are completely over your head.

If you want to discuss religion, I suggest you learn a little more about it.

You are missing the point of the analogy by focusing on the tangential details.

No, I'm disagreeing and using the analogy.

Anonymous wrote:"Swim" has a lot of variables. You're seeing Christianity as all being the backstroke. The nuances are completely over your head.

If you want to discuss religion, I suggest you learn a little more about it.

You are missing the point of the analogy by focusing on the tangential details.

"Swim" has a lot of variables. You're seeing Christianity as all being the backstroke. The nuances are completely over your head.

If you want to discuss religion, I suggest you learn a little more about it.

takoma wrote:To those who quote the dictionary definition of "religion" or explain that one cannot be a Christian without accepting this or that doctrine: Language is malleable. We do not all use words in the same way. A person can consider herself or himself to be devoutly religious while believing in a metaphorical God, while another person with extremely similar views of politics, charity, and most other aspects of life, might self-designate as an atheist.

If this thread were in a language forum, it would make sense to debate whether either of the above people is using correct terminology. But in this Religion Forum, I think we should accept that words like "Christian" and "atheist" are used broadly, and only give a general approximation of the user's outlook. Joe Biden and Rick Santorum, for example, are both Catholics, but that gives very little information about what to expect from them.

I'm sorry I can't accept that as a valid argument. Language has meaning only when you nail down the definition of words. Words like "Religion", "Christianity", and "Catholic" have well defined meanings. If your understanding and belief of this world no longer conforms to the definition of Christianity and Religion, then it is wrong to call it Christianity and Religion and then blame the other side for arguing semantics.

Again I bring up the example of swimming as mentioned before. You can go to an exercise forum in a thread discussing swimming and claim that you love to swim the backstroke because it's so elegant. In ensuing discussions where people exchange their backstroke swimming techniques, you describe how you have your arms rotate forward instead of backward, how you face forward instead of up. It is then revealed that you do this in your living room, while standing on an exercise mat. When people point out that this is not swimming, let alone backstroke swimming, you argue that language is malleable, we do not all use words in the same way. You can consider yourself to be swimming the backstroke while standing on a mat rotating your arms forward, while another person doing an extremely similar activity might self-describe to be doing a Yoga movement. You can further argue that if this were a language forum, their concerns about the definition of swimming or backstroke might make sense. But in an exercise forum, we should accept that words like "swimming" and "backstroke" are used broadly, and only give a general approximation of what the user is doing. For example, both Joe Biden and Rick Santorum have swam before, but that gives very little information about what specific physical activity they were doing while "swimming".

If words had no defined meaning, there can be no productive discussion.

McLeanAtheist

Anonymous wrote:

As an atheist, I can appreciate that morality has evolved this man-made thing called religion has evolved with it. What I am saying is that for religious people, those who believe in not just God but a particular specific definition of God, a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is more reasonable and congruent with the concept of religious belief.

McLeanAtheist

I do not understand how you can say believing in talking donkeys is more reasonable than just trying to live by the words of Christ.

They all decide which selective parts they will follow.

"It seems you are very focused on believers conceding that faith doesn't align with hard proof that you can turn over in your hands."

Not so much "hard proof you can turn over in your hands" so much as "all available evidence against, and no evidence in favor."