How could you not know the Seven Deadly Enemies of Man? Statues of them lined the walls of Shazam’s cave.
1 Like
Religion, atheism, nationalism, it’s all a question of belief and practice – trees and fruit.
Are you comparing the central tenants of a religion to something that’s not even technically something that’s written in scripture. I believe the 7 deadly sins are more of a Catholic thing, I’m not certain. But it would be like asking a Christian the 10 Commandments.
“Thou shalt not spill thy seed” and “thou shalt not use a prophylactic device when knowing a woman” are not in the 10 C’s, yet the Vatican experts have found them to be dogmatic anyway (Onan and all that), yet the average Catholic may not be aware of this or even care. (Awareness of the condom part seems to be fairly high because it’s in the news every now and then. I’m not aware of scientific surveys of what ordinary Catholics think of the other part.)
Does that mean I know Mr. Catholic’s religion better than he does? Perhaps, at a technical level. And perhaps I have a point when I say, if you say you want the law to conform with your religion then you should know that you’re asking for this, that and the other thing (not just a ban on same-sex marriage).
On the other hand, if I’ve never been a practicing Catholic (not saying I have or haven’t) or even moved in those circles, then I don’t have the real world experience that Mr. Catholic has and am not in such a good position to tell him what he (actually) believes.
Now I feel like we’ve been through this before, so I might as well link it. 
My original point @yyy was very simple. I found many people to be ignorant of their own beliefs and others beliefs. One particular issue I commonly find with atheists is they group all religions on the same boat, of course believing in Zeus is on an intellectual level, kinda stupid. And that they think science and religion are mutually exclusive. You can criticize any world view, but I think one should actually have some basic knowledge, no? I fo
I don’t pretend to know Islam in and out. It’s complex. But from what I have learned, mostly historically since Muhammad was a lot closer in time to say Moses or Jesus we know a good bit about his actions and the influence of him. I have a hard time believing that Islam is compatible with modern society and even peaceful when I look at how Muhammad was.
I’ve made a much more complex answer and my view of Islam. I don’t have the time or energy to lay it all out again. But I don’t buy Islam being a peaceful religion and I think it’s even dangerous and I believe there is a strong case in believing so. One of which is if I am saying what I’m saying in a primary Islamic country, I would face some real dangers. Unless you would like to deny that?
You do a lot of scrutinizing on the offensive, id like to see you make a statement about something for once and see if it holds any weight. It’s actually quite annoying, it’s easy to try to break down others beliefs in a microscope, but I rarely see you make your own stance.
1 Like
I wasn’t saying any religion is or isn’t compatible with modernity or that any country does or doesn’t have blasphemy laws, but why pick on pagans (or Neopagans) in particular?
You do a lot of scrutinizing on the offensive, id like to see you make a statement about something for once and see if it holds any weight. It’s actually quite annoying, it’s easy to try to break down others beliefs in a microscope, but I rarely see you make your own stance.
I know, eh? It’s like I came to this planet just to annoy people with my neutrality. 
That’s the thing, you never say anything. You never take a stance of your own. Maybe only against someone else’s stance. But never your own.
As I said a few days ago, I tend to get more out of discussions by being neutral, and the Robot Revolution (which will of course involve data harvested from the interwebs) is expected to be bumpy.
(If that statement is confusing, see Black Mirror S1E3 and S2E1 for a general sense of what I’m getting at.)
I’ve actually said far more in my time here at the site than I intended to when I joined. In the past, I simply didn’t have the patience for political discussions with strangers. Then Trump happened, and I sort of got swept up in it.
I do admit to having a position on some issues, like the rule of law in general, Covfefism in general, certain matters of jurisprudence, and of course the supremacy of Discobot. 
Why does it matter if I don’t put the rest of my cards on the table? I still enjoy watching the other players go through theirs and commenting, inquiring, critiquing, and even advising now and then.
I also think as a moderator, even in an informal context, the more neutral I am, the more trust people will put in my decisions. Not to mention, it’s good mental-emotional exercise – how long can I resist the impulse to lash out at someone I think is hopelessly wrong?
Would it really benefit you and the other participants and lurkers if I revealed my personal theological beliefs or lack thereof? Or if I revealed myself to be, say, a board member of a Catholic charity run by Comrade Politbureau, or the president of a Pastafarian splinter group?
I think my arguments, such as they are, should stand or fall on their own merit. 
1 Like
They all share characteristics which put them in the same boat for us, hence our blanket disbelief of them. I haven’t heard of every god suggested by people, but I understand (and reject) the basic concept, which is inevitably shared (though I keep an open mind–maybe someone will surprise me some day). Some religions seem particularly bizarre to be sure, but they all do in some way, and there’s no way to say one is more valid than the other either, really. Maybe if you subscribe to some vague pantheism, deism, or the like, things are a little different, but they still have faults. It’s also worth pointing out that every religious person holds somewhat different beliefs, and you’d have to detail the kind of beliefs you’re talking about before we could assess them properly. But we have a very strong general idea of what is probably intended. It’s highly unlikely that you hold some particular belief which is going to be more convincing to us. So disbelief becomes a default stance. I believe in being open to new ideas, but not everyone has the same patience
For what it’s worth, I see Francis is re-opening the child abuse investigations. He’s probably just caving to pressure, but this time it’s the right pressure.
By the way, there are different varieties of atheist, and I’ve been at least two types at different points in my past. I moved on from that. When you call something stupid, you need a basis of comparison. Then you realize that everything is stupid in its own way.
There’s not a lot to be said against agnosticism, except that it doesn’t really accomplish anything.
I wasn’t aware that it set out to “accomplish” anything.
That which accomplishes nothing is, by definition, useless.
1 Like
A disciple once asked his guru when he would be permitted to practice Ayurvedic medicine. The guru told him to go into the ashram’s garden and examine every single plant, including the trees and the grass, and come back when he had figured out which ones have medicinal value and which ones are merely decorative or grown for other purposes.
When the disciple finally came back, he told the guru that there was not a single plant in the garden without medicinal value. The guru told him he had passed the test.
The story comes from India, but I think we can add a 
anyway. 
Of course there is, we know Zeus isn’t throwing lighting because we are capable of reaching the atmosphere where lighting happens and we know the science of it. We can also find out if say Christianity is true is we have evidence of the the resurrection or the other way around because it’s the foundation of the religion. You do it all the time, you think your world view is more valid and with good cause. Remember disbelief in god or any religion is also a belief in something. And for me atheism takes a tremendous faith.
If you insist, Andrew, we can go at Greek paganism till the cows come home, though of course I’ll just be critiquing other people’s arguments. 
You’re expecting to see a literal bearded man throwing lightning bolts with his bare hands and calling it the foundation of a religion that has many deities and variations on their stories.
If modern science disproving that one belief is proof of the non-existence of Zeus & pals, what do you say to modern science disproving 7-day creationism?
I’m making a point. It is possible to find truth yes? There are ways to basically test the validity of any beliefs is all I’m saying.
You mean it disproves young earth creationalism which is just a interpretation of the Bible that is not important to the foundation of Christianity at all? I don’t think a higher being that literally is beyond time and created time…follows a 24 earthly hour clock to create and felt he needed to rest… In Christianity, God reveals himself in nature and his creation. All Christians believe is that God created everything, whether god created the universe in 7 earthly days is not relevant at all. It’s not the first time Christians and Christian authorities had a interpretation of scripture that isn’t consistent with nature, but we always focus on that. Not that it’s actually many theist that discovered truth because they believe in God and believe that truth can be known through observing nature because it’s god creation. It’s like hearing that the Galelleos discovery was held back by Christianity but the truth was that Galileo was a Christian and wanted to know more about God through his creation. The Bible is extremely metaphorical.
Here’s a good link, R.C. Sprouls is one of my favorite apologists.
And just so you know, I grew up on a Buddhist and Taoist family. Rejected it. Was a atheist/agnostic for most of my life. And in my own search for the truth, science led me to theism and the Christian belief and although I’ve rejected it many times. I’ve found that it’s consistent with science. And I reject scientism and I think it’s actually just as harmful as in any religion that’s used in a wrong way. So a lot of your questions I find quite elementary. I’ve thought about these things a long long time ago.
How about @yyy you give me a basic run down of your world view and why you believe in it.
Signs point to yes
1 Like
My point is, if you allow one religion to have a modern, more-liberal-than-literal intepretation, why should you not allow the same for all religions?
And btw you can still find 7-dayers, so bear in mind that you’re not speaking for all Christians.
I reckon we all have, but with different results.
This again? Okay, if you insist…
@discobot quote
1 Like
Do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame. — Alexander Pope
1 Like
Thus spake the God-Emperor. 
I challenge you to find anything wrong with that! 
-
Only one religion is true. I don’t believe in Pluralism or that truth is relative.
-
I’m not giving you a modern liberal interpretation. Modernity has nothing to do with it, I told you, nature is gods creation and how he manifest himself according to Christianity. A rejection of sciencentic fact is a reject of truth and god.
-
I take it case by case. Name one instance where I’m “not allowing” an interpretation.
Talking to you is painful, you’ll always have some fine print you think you find and think it’s so clever. Did I ever say I’m speaking for all Christians? Did I ever say young earthers don’t exist? NO. I think you know that but like to throw the arguement off it’s tracks.
I’m saying it’s not important to anything about the religion. If a person claims Jesus did not resurrect and it was metaphorical. Yeah, they are not Christians. That is the foundation of Christianity, that right there has no bend in interpretation. I can disagree with a Catholic on if he’s really eating the flesh of Jesus, but does it matter to Christianity. No, not really at the end.
I read everything in with common sense taking it in the most plain interpretation as possible, and that’s no different reading scripture. If you would like me to explain it better, split this. We are getting off tracked.