The unreasoning hostility to religion...

[GIThruster]

Happy, I'm a philosopher. I had a dozen classes in critical thinking just because I intended to teach them, so overloaded my schedule with them. Yes, perfect grades.

You are ASSUMING I don't think critically because you perceive me as a religious person.

Another example of unreasoning hostility to religion.

[happyjack27]

Happy, I'm a philosopher. I had a dozen classes in critical thinking just because I intended to teach them, so overloaded my schedule with them. Yes, perfect grades.

You are ASSUMING I don't think critically because you perceive me as a religious person.

Another example of unreasoning hostility to religion.

another example of logical fallacy. more than one, actually. i'll leave you to discover them since you claim to be so good at it.

and i'm not sure i trust you anymore. what you just said about yourself is pretty extraordinary and the evidence doesn't seem to support it. forgive the frankness.

[happyjack27]

You sound like a nun. "Just take my word for it. . .really, it's true."

it's plainly obvious that that's precisely the opposite of what i'm saying. i've asked you in no uncertain terms to _not_ take my word for it.

so mr, a student, what logical fallacy(ies) is that?

[GIThruster]

Happy, I don't see this conversation going anywhere, but to restate:

The thesis I rejected is that religious people don't evaluate their beliefs. Skippy said that and now you're saying the same. When asked why you believe such a thing, you don't have an answer past "I read a study somewhere" which is in fact, asking us to take your word for it despite your rhetoric to the contrary.

I on the other hand gave reasons to believe the thesis is not true which you have not responded to.

Only one of us is thinking, and it's not you.

[GIThruster]

and i'm not sure i trust you anymore. what you just said about yourself is pretty extraordinary and the evidence doesn't seem to support it. forgive the frankness.

I've posted up more than a dozen times in this forum that I am not a scientist nor engineer, but rather, I am a philosopher. Now suddenly when it's in my favor you want to doubt what I say?

I think we're at the end of our conversation. Unless you had a reason we should believe religious people don't think critically?

[happyjack27]

i have given you plenty of reasons, repeatedly. the first being that not having critical thinking skills is the default position. MOST people don't have such skills, to say nothing of religious people or any particular demographic for that metter.

you, on the other hand, have presented nothing but logical fallacies, most of them rather plain. presumably this is what you refer to as "reasons". and i have pointed out a number of these fallacies. apparently to no avail.

GIThruster, I don't usually say these kinds of things, but I think at this point you've more than earned it,esp. given your last few statements, and i think anyone following would at this point agree. You are incouragable. and offensive. i simply do not see how it is possible to have a productive conversation with you on this matter.

so i shall end, much as i began, repeatng:

if you really care to know the truth, do your own research. with intellectual honsety, if you are capable.

[Skipjack]

Skippy, the texts that talk about the virgin birth are hundreds of years older than the spread of christendom to celtic lands.

???
You are aware of the fact that the celts were living all over Wsetern Europe, not just in England, are you?

You don't know what you're talking about at all.

The other thing was that at the council of Ephesos the manufacturers of pagan feamale godess statues were protesting the christians. As a compromise the Mary cult was introduced there as well (it was a complicated process). I have to look up the details on this again, but this is pretty much what it was about. This was not the celts in this case, but the christianization of the pagans and also the Celts all over Europe had already been ongoing for a while at that point. It was just a means to get Christianity easier acceptance among the pagans.

[Skipjack]

The thesis I rejected is that religious people don't evaluate their beliefs.

No, the thesis was that religions and ideologies do not adapt themselves to scientific state of the art.
Or has anybody gone and rewritten the genesis part of the bible to reflect the more accurate modern knowledge of the creation of the universe, the heavens and the earth?
Nobody has bothered to change the writings of Marx and Engels either for that point. They are too wrong ideologies based on outdated knowledge at the time of their creation. They are not up to date, so to speak.
The communists of the day still follow the same idiotic ideas that Marx introduced back then without any adaption to modern knowledge. The socialists do so to some extent as well. E.g. the thinking in classes is long outdated and is still practised by the socialists of this world.

[GIThruster]

Skippy, the texts that talk about the virgin birth are hundreds of years older than the spread of christendom to celtic lands.

???
You are aware of the fact that the celts were living all over Wsetern Europe, not just in England, are you?

You don't know what you're talking about at all.

The other thing was that at the council of Ephesos the manufacturers of pagan feamale godess statues were protesting the christians. As a compromise the Mary cult was introduced there as well (it was a complicated process). I have to look up the details on this again, but this is pretty much what it was about. This was not the celts in this case, but the christianization of the pagans and also the Celts all over Europe had already been ongoing for a while at that point. It was just a means to get Christianity easier acceptance among the pagans.

There's no doubting that the church has been synchretistic in blending beliefs and especially holidays with pagans. There are many more examples than you know. The prayer beads and penis hat the Pope wears come straight from babylonian mystery religion.

However, the issue with Mary and the Irish is that Ireland had already been dominated by goddess culture and is to this day matriarchal. There were 4 or 5 goddesses worshiped in Ireland, before it was transformed in very few years by the work of Patrick. It was almost 100 years later, that the laity in Ireland were able to secure the veneration of Mary as official doctrine in the RC church and this is to this day, the only laity led doctrine in their history.

Pretty sure that's what you're thinking of. Goddess worship was not nearly as popular anywhere else I can think of, but from its earliest times, Ireland has been pretty smitten with the goddess, whom they still call "Our Lady". they used to call her Dana, and Erin and Bridgite, and some still do.

[GIThruster]

The thesis I rejected is that religious people don't evaluate their beliefs.

No, the thesis was that religions and ideologies do not adapt themselves to scientific state of the art.
Or has anybody gone and rewritten the genesis part of the bible to reflect the more accurate modern knowledge of the creation of the universe, the heavens and the earth?

Well that's the first anyone has heard of your thesis in this thread.

BTW, it's pretty obvious the creation story in Genesis is not intended to be taken in the literalistic fashion you suggest. Just read the first two chapters. They tell completely conflicting stories. It's not like the Jews wouldn't have noticed! The salient fact is, it is we who have this obsession with fact, chronology, etc., who have mistaken the intent of that writing. The Jews in pre-hellenistic times, were not in any way so focused. They were focused on truth, rather than fact. You simply don't understand, and your implication that people ought to re-write the Bible to suit you is stunningly arrogant.

[Skipjack]

Actually it was Birghit and Morghana, if I am not mistaken.

There are many more examples than you know.

Oh I know plenty!

[Skipjack]

BTW, it's pretty obvious the creation story in Genesis is not intended to be taken in the literalistic fashion you suggest. Just read the first two chapters. They tell completely conflicting stories.

Yes it is pretty obvious that there are logical fallacies in it, yet there are many young earth creationists that insist on taking it literally because nobody bothered to at least write an adendum that explains and corrects these problematic parts. Why? Because it is dogma, that is why.

They were focused on truth, rather than fact.

Ok, you totally lost me there.

You simply don't understand,

Typical thing to say for religious people. "you simply dont understand". Yes I am intellectually incapable of understanding that something that is wrong is not wrong if it is a religion, I guess...

and your implication that people ought to re-write the Bible to suit you is stunningly arrogant.

Well, I would not to be to arrogant to rewrite anything that science says in case it is discovered to be wrong and outdated.
Yet, you are to arrogant to correct what is wrong in your religious writings.
For heavens sakes at least add a footnote that says "has to be understood in historic context and can not be taken litterally", so those young earth creationists will finally get it too.
But of course you can not do that because if you ask the pope even, he will tell you that it happened exactly as it is written in the bible.

[GIThruster]

BTW, it's pretty obvious the creation story in Genesis is not intended to be taken in the literalistic fashion you suggest. Just read the first two chapters. They tell completely conflicting stories.

Yes it is pretty obvious that there are logical fallacies in it, yet there are many young earth creationists that insist on taking it literally because nobody bothered to at least write an adendum that explains and corrects these problematic parts. Why? Because it is dogma, that is why.

Actually, the history of Christian Fundamentalism is much more complex than you suggest. In very short, it was as a response to liberal theology, developing literary criticism (which has proven stupid all around) and several other things just about a century ago, that "The Fundamentals" was published (can't remember the author) and so began the rallying cry against things like evolution. It's a VERY complex subject but it is fair to say that these were all well meaning people, and though misunderstanding how they ought to have been reading their Bibles, they were certainly doing critical thinking. They were wrong, but that happens to everyone.

What we really ought to be focused on are all the Christians who thought the age of the Earth was very young (as did everyone once), and who adapted to believe otherwise--the vast majority of them. Seems evidence enough for what I'm saying. There will always be dissenters and their existence isn't evidence that Christians aren't critical thinkers, that they're not adaptive to modern science, etc.

They were focused on truth, rather than fact.

Ok, you totally lost me there.

All ancient writing, regardless of culture, is somewhat hazy on the facts, with the exception of ancient record keeping (which are our very oldest texts are examples of.) Ancient Jewish religious writing is not focused on fact, nor chronology, in just the same way that modern Russian literature is not. Rather, it is focused on truth. It does not matter if the story about the fall of man in Genesis 3 is literally fact. What matters is the truth it relates as to mankind's epistemic condition, how we think, what we can and can't know, that we're self-centered rather than theo-centered in all our normal dealings. There are hours of lessons to be learned in the Gen 3 story, and though it does not matter if the story is fact, in order to understand the truth in the story, you have to treat it as fact. The Jews never worried about whether it was fact. It's not until modern times we see such obsession, and this is really a response to liberal theology from the end of the 19th century.

BTW, there are some stories where it matters if they're factual. The Easter story is a god example. The difference is, that in the Easter story, the resurrection is presented as EVIDENCE for belief. Discussion of how Christ appeared to so many after the resurrection, and at one time to more than 500 people at once, and later the Apostle Paul who declares "if Christ is not raised from the dead, everything you have believed, you have believed in vein" make it plain, that the resurrection story is intended to be taken as fact.

[Skipjack]

Sorry, but for me the whole "truth"- thing is bullcrap.
There are facts and there are theories that you make based on those facts. These theories may be proven as "true" in experiment (but can still be disproven, or proven as "false" later).
I dont see any "truth" in writings that are not based on any facts whatsoever.

This whole "truth" thing is another religious invention that is meant to make sure that nobody can touch the dogmas of said religion.
Basically what you are saying is that something can be lacking facts and be completely fictional, but still be the truth. With that you put the religion out of the reach of any rational critizism and therefore make it impossible to have a rational conversation about said religion. This is of course the intention of those promoting the religion.
I put my science out there for critizism, but of course religion is above all that. And when someone like me does not find that right, then we are called "hostile towards religion".
I see...

[chrismb]

GIT, the whole problem with your contention is that it is sooo easy to find examples where religious people do just give up and no longer function as analytical beings. Yet to falsify your position, I only have to give such an example:

For example; if God created everything, then who created God?

Urrr.... so the religious person at this point mutters something about God being 'unknowable' and beyond our comprehension. That is the exact opposite of being analytical. It's curling up into a little ball of illogic and saying "err..well, there must be a good explanation but as I don't know it I shall declare it 'unknowable'".

The very fact that religious people think that some things are unknowable therefore defines them as non-analytical at the boundary of their thinking, yet the boundary of knowledge is exactly the place where critical thinking needs to be applied.

You tell me otherwise.... if religous people who believe God created the universe are analytical, then what is their analysis of where God came from?