The Faith & Religion mega Thread

But, apparently a world without sin would just be boring‽

Originally Posted by jamison20000e But, apparently a world without sin would just be boring‽

That's a view that quite a few Christians have taken. O felix peccatum...

Opinions|religions( no difference) are always open to interpretation.

Words are like opinions as they evolve, although how else would we describe facts.

Location Main article:*Cenacle The*Cenacle*on*Mount Zion, claimed to be the location of the Last Supper and*Pentecost. According to later tradition, the Last Supper took place in what is today called The*Room of the Last Supper*on*Mount Zion, just outside the walls of the*Old City*of*Jerusalem, and is traditionally known as The Upper Room. This is based on the account in the*Synoptic Gospels*that states that Jesus had instructed two disciples (Luke 22:8 specifies that Jesus sent Peter and John) to go to "the city" to meet "a man carrying a jar of water", who would lead them to a house, where they would find "a large upper room furnished and ready".[Mark 14:13–15]*In this upper room they "prepare the Passover".

Imagine the tourism you can get using make believe, just ask Disney.

You think they actually posed for that portrait?

Depictions of the*Last Supper in Christian art*have been undertaken by artistic masters for centuries,*Leonardo da Vinci's late-1490s mural painting*in*Milan, Italy, being the best-known example.[1]

The only sins I can think of is reducing the evolutionary fitness of a people and the opposition of life.
(Fringe problems like abortions nonwithstanding, they should be incredibly rare in a better world an therefore irrelevant enough to not be a big thing.)

It's not exactly like "do whatever as long as it doesn't harm others", that's too lenient for me. Don't do anything that inspires others to do something similar is more my view.
Gotta own up to it, though. If I jump off a cliff and make it look so cool that someone else does it, that's still ultimately on them, or myself if I did the same thing, but there's also a point to be made that without this inspiration things might have been different.

Abrahamic sins mean nothing to me, but I'm not going to talk about any of that, there is literally nothing positive I can say about abrahamic religions in general, not even the artwork and buildings, they're nothing positive either.
They're well crafted, but are not monuments of anything good in my view, and the artificial scarcity annoys me.
"Sure abrahamic effects weren't always nice, but this is still a masterwork, so we need to preserve it"

No, we do not need to preserve it at all. You know what master craftsmen do? They make things. If Davincis works got destroyed in a freak accident of nature he wouldn't have thrown his hands up in the air and gone "Sorry, I'm like a musket, I can only shoot once", he would have done it as many times until it worked, funding and resouces provided, of course.

The true hallmark of a master to me is the ability to recreate things. I draw, I'm not that good, but even I have no trouble losing any drawing I make, I can make it again, maybe even better.

It would be completely fine to demolish everything abrahamic and build something better again, but that's verboten. Artificially. We still have craftsmen aplenty, but anything other than that stuff is as plentyful as hens teeth.

So, yeah, my loathing goes into that territory, zero regard for the monuments, so...me no gonna talk about that religion family in general ...

P.S.:
I wrote my "don't do what harms others" thing while half asleep, and I find it a bit unclear in hindsight.
I still don't really have exact details and it's a bit arbitrary (as is the nature of 'justice' in general), but a better example would be:

There used to be these 'joke' instructions about how to make crystals by blowing into a chemical solution (bleach, etc) but what actually was generated was chlorine gas, etc, harming the person who followed those instructions.

How does it tie into 'a sin is what hampers human fitness for evolution'?
Well the most obvious thing is the victim who gets darwin'd, that's pretty bad and it's up to them for having done it, toom but that is lesser than the damage done to human fitness by the instruction image itself.

Why? Because for a lame joke, the trust in language/human communication and society was reduced. A child who might carelessly and naively follow these instructions and gets hurt, or maybe even dies is bad, but a degradation of trust and language is much more harmful.
You can make new children, but it's harder to fight against the decay of trust, especially since trust IS a great weakness.

It's strength simply outshines everything else. Trust based societies are usually superpowered, since it is incredibly powerful to be able to work together with strangers based on mutually agreed rules, even if they're arbitrary (although the nurturing of human life can be a partof the design process in almost anything).
I consider the degradation of that many times more sinful than the physical harm whatever a lie causes, and I consider that incredibly bad, too.

Thing is, this is different from "no false witness" or "shall not lie", lying in some cases is perfectly valid and the better choice, so the abrahamic version falls short to me, completely surplus to requirement.

But just think about the loss of trust, it's easy to think about today. Many don't even trust their immediate neighbors, and, in fact, that guy is probably a bastard, right?
I think the current era is an era that attacks trust the most, to beat a dead horse more, the classic orwellian terms like doublethink, etc are in great effect, and they are devastating.

Especially when they are wrapped under superficially 'sensible' pretext. "Language evolves, dude" etc.
Language, communication I consider among our greatest, most precious goods that should NEVER be sold out for a cheap laugh, and I don't mean that in a grammar police way, typos and bad grammar are not THAT big of a deal all things considered,but the overall package.

I also believe that language shapes thought and therefore should not be streamlined too much, and by streamlined I mean simplified, let it be a mouthful, rather than too short, even if simplicity is a sign of great design in other fields. Shorthand is not mutually exclusive with verbosity, both can exist in a language, and I'm protective of verbosity.

In fact, if I were to found a religion, it would probably be the worship and cultivation of language. I'm a big old retro heathen (none of that neo BS) but the gods from back there are only figures in stories, like the Eddas, otherwise they don't exist as figures. There's no Thor rumbling through the sky in a cart pulled by goats.
That's just a fun quip to talk about thunder in the sky. The gods are aspects of life and biology, and those go on working even if we go "OOK ZOG ROCK SMASH" so I'd still focus my own made up religion on language instead. It could then be used to praise those aspects, too.

And I think it would be more fulfilling with an expressive, optionally verbose language that stimulates the mind, and can feel good when spoken out loud in various emotional contexts, booming, dulcet, melodic, etc, angry, soft, etc.

But I digressed something big time now. Ah, well.

Got a really thought-provoking video to share of a symposium by a serious historian who used to think the arguments against Jesus as an actual historical figure were either weak or outright bunk. You probably won't enjoy this unless you've actually read the Christian Bible, but you may hate it if you have and you are also a Christian believer. For any of those people who can manage to deal with what may feel like criticism (debunking can and he is extremely well read and scholarly but he is sometimes not gentle in his dismissiveness for what appears as fraud) I'd very much like to hear how accurate you find him as a scholar of the Bible. I've read the Christian Bible but i am most certainly not a scholar in it. I was quite young when I read it and had only little historical context at that time. If such concepts and arguments worry or can upset you, you can look up his credentials to get a perspective on what to expect. His name is Dr. Richard Carrier and he is controversial as might well be expected. Either way here it is ------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Also since some here (hello, hazel) have mentioned that Richard Dawkins often came across as a bit strident and offensive, and I have to agree with hazel that sometimes he has, I have been seeking some non-debate type formats where perhaps he might be a bit more "normal". This seems substantially more relaxed and normal and I think at least fleshes out my perspective on Dawkins' personality. I enjoyed it rather a lot. Others may too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNIRUigPxA8

A 1995 exposure of a small spot in Ursa Major revealed about 3,000 faint galaxies. In 2003-4, using upgraded instruments, scientists looked at a smaller spot in the constellation Fornax and found 10,000 galaxies. An even more detailed investigation in Fornax in 2012, with even better instruments, showed about 5,500 galaxies. Kornreich used a very rough estimate of 10 trillion galaxies in the universe. Multiplying that by the Milky Way's estimated 100 billion stars results in a large number indeed: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or a "1" with 24 zeros after it (1 septillion in the American numbering system; 1 quadrillion in the European system). Kornreich emphasized that number is likely a gross underestimation, as more detailed looks at the universe will show even more galaxies.

God is busy < but not here >. Thanks for the info enorbet.

Hmmm? Dr. Richard Carrier. Where or where have I heard that name before? Maybe it was due to the fact that Dr. Carrier is widely known in the atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, etc... circle of friends.

The course offered by Dr. Richard Carrier to fellow atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc..., that are interested in debating on the internet, poking fun of believers in the Bible (both liberal and conservative believers), belittling the creation account as revealed in the Bible, is available on his blog under the heading, "Hone Your Skills in Counter-Apologetics: Join My Course on Combating Christian & Islamic Propaganda!

Come be my student in August! My online course starts tomorrow: “Counter-Apologetics: Learning the Best Ways to Refute Arguments for God.” You can register and join us any time in the next ten days. As I just completed on my blog several debates with and critical reviews of Christian apologists, this is a choice time to benefit from learning what’s new to tackle and best to defeat it!1 This course includes special advice on arguing against Islam as well as both liberal and conservative Christianity, tips and tactics of in-person and online argument and debate, the most effective way to frame ten key arguments for atheism so that theists can’t get around them (without looking silly), and a whole lot else.2 1. Carrier, Richard Dr., Hone Your Skills in Counter-Apologetics: Join My Course on Combating Christian & Islamic Propaganda! Copied on October 9, 2019. <https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15733> 2. Carrier, Richard Dr., Hone Your Skills in Counter-Apologetics: Join My Course on Combating Christian & Islamic Propaganda! Copied on October 9, 2019. <https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15733>

So we should keep silly and in the dark‽

America didn't exist 1,000 years ago and it may not a 1,000 from now...

Originally Posted by greencedar The course offered by Dr. Richard Carrier to fellow atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc..., that are interested in debating on the internet, poking fun of believers in the Bible (both liberal and conservative believers), belittling the creation account as revealed in the Bible, is available on his blog under the heading, "Hone Your Skills in Counter-Apologetics: Join My Course on Combating Christian & Islamic Propaganda!

Clever of you to find that! Clearly this man is another atheistic bigot of the Dawkins ilk. Not exactly a reliable source for a fair-minded contribution to the debate. I've made it my policy to avoid fundamentalist ranters, whether they be Christian, Islamic or atheist.

For whom it may concern, Dr. Richard Carrier and also Dr. Richard Dawkins certainly make no apologies let alone any secret for the fact they are atheists and by some measure, aggressive about it. That said in the two videos I just posted I see no ranting whatsoever. In the case of Dr. Carrier his video/symposium and book keep the concept of "Is There a God?" completrely separate from "Was Jesus a real person?". They are, in point of fact, entirely separate issues unless one is a Christian completely convinced by dogma and unable to even entertain any critical evidence and reason.

The most basic point of that video is that it wasn't as if humanity was running along minding it's own business when literally out of the blue God and his alleged Son, Jesus, appeared and said "I'm glad you enjoy the place I built for you but you need to be kinder to each other and btw worship me and nobody or nothing else on your knees or I will endlessly torture you for Eternity". Well he did kinda say that or so we are told but not at all out of the blue. The point of the symposium is it is almost ALL BORROWED from previous religions. It seems Evolution applies to Philosophy as well.

If anyone prefers to trust agenda-ridden scripture (they did have a livelihood and a seat among the powerful at stake, admittedly as does Dawkins and Carrier, but to imagine one side does and the other does not is rather disingenuous) or hallucinations as opposed to widely ranging and corroborative historical records that is of course one's prerogative, but it would be nice if you'd also own that stance and admit that anything that criticizes or even questions dogma is written off as ranting bigotry is fundamental to your base belief.

For those who have yet to view the video, read the books, or perhaps even entertain for a moment an opposing proposition I'd like to suggest you not be turned away by what others find so disturbing they must write it off without ever actually finding fault with the historicity of the evidence presented. Yes, Carrier is an atheist so he does indeed have an agenda or at least a level of prejudice, BUT he is also a learned scholar who has studied History and attained controversy for sure but also earned accreditation and befitting titles in a world dominated by The Religious Agenda, no mean feat. His words are therefore at least worthy of consideration in my view.

For many, if not most, the word "sacred" not only translates as "worthy of respect" but as "unquestionable, above reproach"... basically "Case Closed". The phrase "Kangaroo Court" comes to my mind.

Invent "gods" so we can all be human; stupid is as we do unless tricking yourselfs blissfully!

Regarding The Darkness" here are some prescient and sobering words to ponder

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan - Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark- 1995 I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and whats true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

Wow! Now that's what I call prophetic!

One of the things I liked about Sagan is that, although he was a doughty campaigner against "creationist" nonsense, he had no animus against religion as such. He was a complete unbeliever but he was never bigoted about it. I could say the same about that other prolific essayist, Steven J Gould. I have an enormous respect for both of them. I respect Dawkins only when he sticks to evolutionary biology, which is the subject he knows most about.