Something I think bares reading.

[Andara Bledin]

I disagree. "Do good or else you'll be tortured forever" and "Do good because it's good" are competing philosophies.

Nobody is arguing that they are.

If you don't cherry-pick one phrase out of the middle of a larger comment, you can easily see that he's talking about part of what the story of Lazarus is supposed to impart, not that he ascribes to that message.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Nobody is arguing that they are.

I am. Arguing that they are competing philosophies, that is.

If you don't cherry-pick one phrase...

I'm not cherry picking. I'm quoting a short portion of a post which I think sums up the post. If I'm misunderstanding the post, it would help if that poster would explain where I'm mistaken, rather than somebody (you) trying to explain what somebody else meant.

Andara, I would appreciate it if you would respond to my questions regarding how you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your belief in reincarnation. It's difficult to debate beliefs with someone (you) who refuses to make a clear statement about what they believe.

[Hyena Dandy]

Andy was absolutely right. I was saying "This is what the story says" which is separate from "This is what I do."

Saying a Christian can't do good things for the sake of good things because their religion says they'll go to hell is just as ridiculous as saying atheists never do good things because their religion doesn't say they're going to hell.

[Andara Bledin]

I am. Arguing that they are competing philosophies, that is.

Ok. I'm not sure who your arguing against, then.

This is the whole statement:

What the parable means to me is that it is a Christian duty to help the needy. Or else, you know, hell. But the key part is that in one of the few places that the Bible references heaven or hell, its about helping people in need.

He's talking about what he thinks a story's moral is supposed to be, not that he believes in that moral.

Your quote, out of context, looks like you're trying to imply that he, personally, said "or hell" as opposed to him saying that the story said "or hell."

It's difficult to debate beliefs with someone (you) who refuses to make a clear statement about what they believe.

Apologies, but I am not currently debating my own beliefs. The last few times I tried I was mocked for having them and it was implied that it also means I am delusional and a danger to my own health with no honest attempt made to gain any understanding of why I might have them in the first place. As such, I don't see any point in continued debate on the matter.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Andy was absolutely right. I was saying "This is what the story says" which is separate from "This is what I do."

You said, "What the parable means to me...", which implies that what follows is a statement of your beliefs. And what followed appeared to say that you believed that the reason to do good was to avoid Hell. I see that you clarified your position in later posts, but not in the post where you quoted the parable.

Saying a Christian can't do good things for the sake of good things because their religion says they'll go to hell is just as ridiculous ...

Where did I say that? I said that Christianity teaches a moral code that's based on an avoidance of Hell, not that a Christian can't do good for goodness' sake.

Apologies, but I am not currently debating my own beliefs. ... with no honest attempt made to gain any understanding of why I might have them in the first place. As such, I don't see any point in continued debate on the matter.

I have asked you several times to explain what you believe and why. You have said very little about either. What little you have said is confusing and seems contradictory. I was hoping you would be willing to shed some light on your beliefs in order to foster understanding between us.

I don't want to discuss somebody else's beliefs with you. I want to discuss your beliefs. And my beliefs. I don't want to ask you to defend beliefs that you don't hold. But without knowing what your beliefs are, specifically, I'm in danger of assuming details (which might not be accurate) about your beliefs based on what little you've described on this forum.

You're right that stating your beliefs will open them up to criticism. That's as it should be. If you don't think your religious beliefs can withstand criticism, you (and all people) have two options. You can either examine your beliefs, find out where they're faulty, and correct them. Or you can voluntarily withdraw from debates about religion. Those are really your only two options, because no idea is above criticism. No concept is sacred.

Now, as a show of goodwill, I will make a statement of my beliefs. This is a tentative statement, and subject to change, but as of this moment, this is what I believe: I believe that all life is sacred, that we should each do our best to make each life as free from pain and suffering as possible. I believe that this life is the only one we get, and so we should cherish it and enjoy it as much as possible without harming ourselves or others. I believe that the best possible relationship that one can have with another human being involves love, lust, and friendship in equal amounts. I believe that science is the best tool (set of tools, really) that we have for learning about the universe. And I believe there are no gods.

Now it's your turn, Andara, and anybody else who would like to join in.

[Andara Bledin]

But without knowing what your beliefs are, specifically, I'm in danger of assuming details (which might not be accurate) about your beliefs based on what little you've described on this forum.

If you want to know my beliefs you can ask. That way you would avoid making mistakes based on assumptions.

You can either examine your beliefs, find out where they're faulty, and correct them. Or you can voluntarily withdraw from debates about religion. Those are really your only two options, because no idea is above criticism. No concept is sacred.

No. There is a third option, and that is the one I've chosen. I will be more than happy to answer questions about what I believe. I just won't debate about it. That is one of the beauties of personal beliefs; the only person I need to convince is myself.

If I was trying to sway people to my way of thinking, then it would behoove me to provide some form of proof or backing or citation. As I'm not, I choose to refrain.

Now it's your turn, Andara, and anybody else who would like to join in.

The only significant difference in our beliefs is that I believe that there is more than just this life and this in life and that there are gods, including my own.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Like Andy, I have taken the third option. I will answer questions about my beliefs. But I will never be able to rationally prove them, as the only person who I need to prove my beliefs to is myself.

I will not withdraw from debates about religion, but I will not debate my religious beliefs. I do not make posts claiming to that my beliefs are the only way that life can be looked at. I will happily debate religion. I will answer any questions anyone has about my beliefs. Unless I don't want to, in which case I will say I'd rather not answer that question. And then I will not answer it.

I will not stand for my beliefs being mocked. But I will not stand for anyone else's being mocked either, as I also believe that religious beliefs are inextricable from the person who believes them.

[the_std]

If you want to know my beliefs you can ask. That way you would avoid making mistakes based on assumptions.

I have asked you several times to explain what you believe and why.

[/snip]

I don't want to discuss somebody else's beliefs with you. I want to discuss your beliefs. And my beliefs. I don't want to ask you to defend beliefs that you don't hold.

[/snip]

Now it's your turn, Andara, and anybody else who would like to join in.

I don't mean to sound snarky here, but it's pretty obvious that Ghel has asked you what you believe, multiple times. If you're unable to accurately explain your beliefs (which I believe is understandable, because not all that is inside of us has words that are equal to the feelings), then you can say so. But if you say that, then you can't get upset when people make assumptions about what you believe if you can't explain those beliefs.

[Hyena Dandy]

I would like to add, if there was any confusion, though.

My points in this thread have not been about what I believe. My thesis throughout this argument has been about proper behavior, not proper belief.

[KnitShoni]

I don't mean to sound snarky here, but it's pretty obvious that Ghel has asked you what you believe, multiple times. If you're unable to accurately explain your beliefs (which I believe is understandable, because not all that is inside of us has words that are equal to the feelings), then you can say so. But if you say that, then you can't get upset when people make assumptions about what you believe if you can't explain those beliefs.

I think her point was that she DID explain her beliefs, and got ridiculed for them, more than once.

[Ghel]

How can one hold beliefs that they don't think will stand up to scrutiny? Why would anyone hold beliefs that they think cannot be demonstrated to be true? I don't understand this. I strive to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. That is why I am not afraid to state my beliefs on a public forum. If I discover that something I believed is not true, I will change my beliefs. Willingly. Immediately.

It worries me that so few people hold this level of skepticism. I worry that people are being taken in by charlatans and frauds (not just religious ones) because they're willing to believe what they're told or what sounds comforting rather than investigating the claims. I'm going to add one more thing to my list of personal beliefs from my previous post: I believe that skepticism, properly applied, leads to atheism.

[the_std]

How can one hold beliefs that they don't think will stand up to scrutiny? Why would anyone hold beliefs that they think cannot be demonstrated to be true? I don't understand this.

I think this is the problem with you trying to understand other peoples' beliefs. Most religious beliefs are not demonstrably false. They're just not proven. And while that may not be as logical or rational as only living by tenants that hold up to your rather extreme use of skepticism, it's really just tough cookies for you.

I, like you, am an atheist. I have no belief in a higher power as that does not seem logical to me and I see no proof of one in my daily life. But I don't give a flying fig if other people do or do not believe because I do not have any real proof that my viewpoint is correct, just as a Christian does not. Neither do you. So while I support you trying to understand the other side on a forum, I really don't think that you ever, truly will. I think this argument is just going to go on in a circle, maybe you or others winning small points and side-arguments here and there, but you, your reality and your brain make-up will likely never be able to comprehend the appeal of a personal religious viewpoint.

[Andara Bledin]

I think this is the problem with you trying to understand other peoples' beliefs. Most religious beliefs are not demonstrably false. They're just not proven. And while that may not be as logical or rational as only living by tenants that hold up to your rather extreme use of skepticism, it's really just tough cookies for you.

Pretty much precisely what the_std said.

These are my beliefs, and as such, the only person that requires any convincing is me. That you don't believe them is just fine; they're not supposed to be for you.

I worry that people are being taken in by charlatans and frauds (not just religious ones) because they're willing to believe what they're told or what sounds comforting rather than investigating the claims.

See, this is where you go off the rails.

Sure, there are people who don't have enough skepticism to protect themselves from charlatans, but this is not something that happens only to theists. And it's not something that happens to all theists.

You don't seem to understand that in matters of religion, some people choose to suspend their skepticism for their own personal gain.

Honestly, the more you talk about what you believe the more I come to think that not only are you an extreme skeptic, but you are also very pessimistic about the world around you. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, which is yet another reason why I choose the path of believing despite a lack of evidence while you choose to actively disbelieve despite a lack of evidence against.

So while I support you trying to understand the other side on a forum, I really don't think that you ever, truly will. I think this argument is just going to go on in a circle, maybe you or others winning small points and side-arguments here and there, but you, your reality and your brain make-up will likely never be able to comprehend the appeal of a personal religious viewpoint because.

I made a comment amounting to this same thing back in the "miracle" thread. It was basically ignored in favor of attacking minutia.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

So, you're saying they based their fantasy on a hallucination. That doesn't make the fantasy any more true. I'll still grant that it's a Neat Idea(tm), but that's all.

I'm saying its logical to deduce that that's where it might have come from and thus find it interesting that enough people managed to have NDEs ( and not just...Ds ) that far back. Considering the lack of medical technology back then.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm saying "Hey, here's something interesting". Because it is interesting. Especially in the aspect that a book that old is not being specific to any one religion. Which makes it more a philosophical work.

You're right that stating your beliefs will open them up to criticism. That's as it should be. If you don't think your religious beliefs can withstand criticism, you (and all people) have two options. You can either examine your beliefs, find out where they're faulty, and correct them. Or you can voluntarily withdraw from debates about religion. Those are really your only two options, because no idea is above criticism. No concept is sacred.

Ehh...that's...what's the word I'm looking for....rather...rigid? Going to have to go with Andy and Hyena on this one. >.>

How can one hold beliefs that they don't think will stand up to scrutiny? Why would anyone hold beliefs that they think cannot be demonstrated to be true? I don't understand this.

The problem, is that you seem to rule out the realm of the "possible" along with everything else. There are many things that cannot yet be demonstrated to be true, in all aspects of civilization, yet we pursue them regardless. If we did not, we'd never figure out how to demonstrate they were true.

It worries me that so few people hold this level of skepticism. I worry that people are being taken in by charlatans and frauds (not just religious ones) because they're willing to believe what they're told or what sounds comforting rather than investigating the claims.

I don't think anyone present in this thread is a Blind Sheep(tm) like that with their beliefs. Everyone here seems to have amassed an amalgamation of beliefs based on their own reasoning and experience. You included.

I'm going to add one more thing to my list of personal beliefs from my previous post: I believe that skepticism, properly applied, leads to atheism.

I don't believe that to be the case honestly as I am quite skeptical myself ( thanks to several Sheep Tenders over the years ), however as you've included the qualifier "properly applied", this is firmly rooted in your own opinion. Thus I will not argue it.

I think this is the problem with you trying to understand other peoples' beliefs. <snip>

Yes, there we go. Thank you.

Now, as a show of goodwill, I will make a statement of my beliefs.

See, aside from the God point, I do not see how your beliefs are so incompadible with anything but the most rigid of religious fundementalists. I would say that the average theist would largely agree with you on many of those points with the exception of the God question.

I will likewise state my own, though like Andy, I am not stating them because I wish to fight over them. They work for me, and that is good enough for me:

I believe life is intended as an evolutionary learning experience, and we should strive to understand and experience as much as we can, in all aspects of it. And as such, I believe in reincarnation, because such understanding would never be completely possibly with only one short lifetime at one point in human history. As civilization and thus understanding in science and technology advances, we too must return to advance with it. I don't think one go around life as a caveman for instance, really counts for everything.

I believe in universal compassion for all life, and that we should keep it as free from pain and suffering as possible. I believe we have potential, maybe even purpose in some cases, but never a "divine" plan as that would negate free will. I believe we must strive to come to understanding and reason that gets us above our base impulses and emotions. Not in the sense that we should squash them and become Vulcans, but in the sense that we should never act upon them at the expense of reason. For that tends too, more often than not, lead to suffering.

I believe there is wisdom in the past, but wisdom in the future is the realm of science.

I do not believe in gods in any western sense of the word. I do believe there are beings higher than us. And in that position, thus have compassion for us for they would not be above us if they didn't. But I do not believe these beings have any more real power over creation than we do. They are there, and they watch over us when need be. But to interfere with us would defeat the whole point.

[Ghel]

Most religious beliefs, while not demonstrably false, are not demonstrably true, either. Thus, there is no reason any human being should believe them.

The point of this discussion was never "to win." But I've lost track of what the point was, except to encourage people to examine their own beliefs and see where they're lacking.

I apply skepticism to all things (that's what I mean by "properly applied"), and even more so for supernatural claims. There's no subject from which I withhold skepticism.

It's true that we pursue the possible, but we do so using science, not mysticism. We withhold judgment on a possibility until we have enough evidence to say that the possibility is truth. If that possibility is out of line with the rest of what we know to be true, then we can reasonably declare it to be false until such time as sufficient evidence is presented or discovered to move it into the realm of possibility. That still doesn't mean that anyone should believe something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

GK, I'm only going to make one nitpick about your statement of beliefs. I obviously don't believe in reincarnation, or any sort of higher beings, but this bit is demonstrably false: "...such understanding would never be completely possibly with only one short lifetime at one point in human history." Human understanding is not limited to what a single person can learn in a single lifetime. Humans share their knowledge, and that body of knowledge grows exponentially with each human being's addition of knowledge to it. One human's death does not take away any of that amassed knowledge, as long as it is shared. As technology advances, the rate at which information can be shared increases, undermining what seems to be your basis for your belief in reincarnation.