Jesus was a Marxist

[BigBallinStalin]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

I'd say it depends on what value such theist gives to science. In a world in which science seems at odds with their deep beliefs, it's not rare then for a theist to have a grudge against science. There are theists however, that find science not at odds with their beliefs, such theist would not need to find science an enemy.

It's a circumstance. Science belongs to the realm of the logical mind, which has it's limitations, or definite scope if you will.

The valuation of science doesn't matter because that argument addresses the cause of their presumably diminished ability. Instead, I'm asking about an effect--an outcome. Is X true? The cause of X is irrelevant.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

By using "consistently" and "matters" do you mean everything? Then I say yes. If you don't mean everything, then of course not. I'm a theist and I'm a pretty good tax attorney and am able to consistently exercise logic and adhere to the "scientific approach" associated with tax law. But if we're talking about areas of theology, I have a diminished capacity to exercise logic because of my particular faith.

Of all the scientists in the history of the world, how many were theists ballpark? 90%? Did they have problems consistently exercising logic and/or adhering to a scientific approach towards matters of which they studied? No.

Let me put it another way, being an atheist does not give you an advantage in any debate other than one about the existence of a god or gods.

Sure, they had problems. It reminds me of Neil deGrasse Tyson's lecture, the Perimeters of Ignorance, where he showed a few cases of ground-breaking scientists reaching the end of their intellectual inquiry by regressing to a 'god did it' argument. Nevertheless, even though they had these problems, their relative ability to reason was much better than most atheists and theists. That is not the topic though.

All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

I'm not talking about advantages of rhetoric in debates; I'm asking about the truth of an indicator.

[BigBallinStalin]

Elaborate? Like writing his beliefs are very different from the most prominent "religionists" groups of his time?

I'll take this as an, "I don't know what on earth I'm talking about". The surest way of realising that someone is out of their depth is when they ramble off on tangents. Pretty much a standard religionist tactic when trying to argue for the existence of god.

So to use an analogy. You want me to believe you have extensive knowledge of a man you call Jesus. You claim he's a player which proves he rhymes, but won't acknowledge the vast differences between east and west coast?

South Side!

[BigBallinStalin]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

To some degree, probably, but not necessarily.

So, you couldn't tell at all?

[betiko]

It's completely true that there are atheists that strongly hold their belief, and need not to ridicule believers in deities. This becomes more relevant because most atheists think they are atheists because they use logic while believers don't. There is some sort of confusion here: the rational mind, to use one label, is at the disposition of the will, it's not the other way around. You first believe in something, or will something, and only later you use your rational mind to find proofs or reasons for it. You even choose not to see what could be contradicting evidence.

well.. any religious person will tell you that they do not use rationality but faith when it comes to their religious beliefs. Therefore, of course an atheist/agnostic will use rationality in response. If rationality is a too strong weapon against your faith and you feel outsmarted against it, deal with it.

You didn't get the point.

I believe I did. A rational theist is incapable of using his will to formulate a rational response regarding his beliefs. That's why the concept of faith exists. You can be both rational and believer thanks to it. Your will choses your "faith mind" each time you come up with contradictions with rationality.

[nietzsche]

It's completely true that there are atheists that strongly hold their belief, and need not to ridicule believers in deities. This becomes more relevant because most atheists think they are atheists because they use logic while believers don't. There is some sort of confusion here: the rational mind, to use one label, is at the disposition of the will, it's not the other way around. You first believe in something, or will something, and only later you use your rational mind to find proofs or reasons for it. You even choose not to see what could be contradicting evidence.

well.. any religious person will tell you that they do not use rationality but faith when it comes to their religious beliefs. Therefore, of course an atheist/agnostic will use rationality in response. If rationality is a too strong weapon against your faith and you feel outsmarted against it, deal with it.

You didn't get the point.

I believe I did. A rational theist is incapable of using his will to formulate a rational response regarding his beliefs. That's why the concept of faith exists. You can be both rational and believer thanks to it. Your will choses your "faith mind" each time you come up with contradictions with rationality.

Believe me betiko, you can bend logic anyway you wish. BBS could convince you you have an uterus if he wanted to.

You are assuming then, that logic dictates there is not god? Have you read Thomas Aquinas? I hear he had a ton of reasons. Science can never prove the inexistence of god. At any point you could always say "Yes but all this science has discovered can be in a bubble that god created and hangs around his neck".

[AndyDufresne]

BBS could convince you you have an uterus if he wanted to.

Is this the new campaign mantra for 2014? In 2012 we had "Stop crying and get logical." In 2013 we had "We should all be extremely alarmed and emotional."

And now, for 2014 we have "BBS -- he can convince you that you have uterus."




--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

By using "consistently" and "matters" do you mean everything? Then I say yes. If you don't mean everything, then of course not. I'm a theist and I'm a pretty good tax attorney and am able to consistently exercise logic and adhere to the "scientific approach" associated with tax law. But if we're talking about areas of theology, I have a diminished capacity to exercise logic because of my particular faith.

Of all the scientists in the history of the world, how many were theists ballpark? 90%? Did they have problems consistently exercising logic and/or adhering to a scientific approach towards matters of which they studied? No.

Let me put it another way, being an atheist does not give you an advantage in any debate other than one about the existence of a god or gods.

Sure, they had problems. It reminds me of Neil deGrasse Tyson's lecture, the Perimeters of Ignorance, where he showed a few cases of ground-breaking scientists reaching the end of their intellectual inquiry by regressing to a 'god did it' argument. Nevertheless, even though they had these problems, their relative ability to reason was much better than most atheists and theists. That is not the topic though.

All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

I'm not talking about advantages of rhetoric in debates; I'm asking about the truth of an indicator.

Again, it depends on what matters you're talking about. A theist will not ignore an indicator because he/she is a theist unless it is with respect to one particular question (or series of related questions).

[betiko]

It's completely true that there are atheists that strongly hold their belief, and need not to ridicule believers in deities. This becomes more relevant because most atheists think they are atheists because they use logic while believers don't. There is some sort of confusion here: the rational mind, to use one label, is at the disposition of the will, it's not the other way around. You first believe in something, or will something, and only later you use your rational mind to find proofs or reasons for it. You even choose not to see what could be contradicting evidence.

well.. any religious person will tell you that they do not use rationality but faith when it comes to their religious beliefs. Therefore, of course an atheist/agnostic will use rationality in response. If rationality is a too strong weapon against your faith and you feel outsmarted against it, deal with it.

You didn't get the point.

I believe I did. A rational theist is incapable of using his will to formulate a rational response regarding his beliefs. That's why the concept of faith exists. You can be both rational and believer thanks to it. Your will choses your "faith mind" each time you come up with contradictions with rationality.

Believe me betiko, you can bend logic anyway you wish. BBS could convince you you have an uterus if he wanted to.

You are assuming then, that logic dictates there is not god? Have you read Thomas Aquinas? I hear he had a ton of reasons. Science can never prove the inexistence of god. At any point you could always say "Yes but all this science has discovered can be in a bubble that god created and hangs around his neck".

The inexistence of most of what is written in the bible, of course. You need to read it for the spirituality or the values, not to believe anything in it actually happened. You need to see everything as alegories.
Do you even read what I write? I said that I cannot disprove the idea that there could be a form of deity out there, that I consider possible a deity of an infinite larger scale than the ones worshipped by any religion.
That deity would have no reason to be either good or bad and couldn t care less of our insignificant galaxy.

[jiminski]

no one can prove to me that Marx existed.... but, as I mentioned the name in this sentence, i am accepting that a figurehead existed which was, at the very least, constructed using existing, well trodden, philosophies of other figureheads of a similar indeterminate inception which may or may not have actually existed in a non thought based, material sense. Jesus on the other hand definitely existed and was the son of god; a god who may or may not be a metaphor for the entirety of material, metaphysical, objective and subjective states of existence: past, present, future and any state which may otherwise exist... or not exist.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

By using "consistently" and "matters" do you mean everything? Then I say yes. If you don't mean everything, then of course not. I'm a theist and I'm a pretty good tax attorney and am able to consistently exercise logic and adhere to the "scientific approach" associated with tax law. But if we're talking about areas of theology, I have a diminished capacity to exercise logic because of my particular faith.

Of all the scientists in the history of the world, how many were theists ballpark? 90%? Did they have problems consistently exercising logic and/or adhering to a scientific approach towards matters of which they studied? No.

Let me put it another way, being an atheist does not give you an advantage in any debate other than one about the existence of a god or gods.

Sure, they had problems. It reminds me of Neil deGrasse Tyson's lecture, the Perimeters of Ignorance, where he showed a few cases of ground-breaking scientists reaching the end of their intellectual inquiry by regressing to a 'god did it' argument. Nevertheless, even though they had these problems, their relative ability to reason was much better than most atheists and theists. That is not the topic though.

All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

I'm not talking about advantages of rhetoric in debates; I'm asking about the truth of an indicator.

Again, it depends on what matters you're talking about. A theist will not ignore an indicator because he/she is a theist unless it is with respect to one particular question (or series of related questions).

How about this modification: All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or tend to adhere to a scientific approach toward matters in general?

[BigBallinStalin]

no one can prove to me that Marx existed.... but, as I mentioned the name in this sentence, i am accepting that a figurehead existed which was, at the very least, constructed using existing, well trodden, philosophies of other figureheads of a similar indeterminate inception which may or may not have actually existed in a non thought based, material sense. Jesus on the other hand definitely existed and was the son of god; a god who may or may not be a metaphor for the entirety of material, metaphysical, objective and subjective states of existence: past, present, future and any state which may otherwise exist... or not exist.

In short, you have no idea?

[jiminski]

no one can prove to me that Marx existed.... but, as I mentioned the name in this sentence, i am accepting that a figurehead existed which was, at the very least, constructed using existing, well trodden, philosophies of other figureheads of a similar indeterminate inception which may or may not have actually existed in a non thought based, material sense. Jesus on the other hand definitely existed and was the son of god; a god who may or may not be a metaphor for the entirety of material, metaphysical, objective and subjective states of existence: past, present, future and any state which may otherwise exist... or not exist.

In short, you have no idea?

I'm sorry if i didn't make myself clear but that was the view of an atheist satirising a theist in the style of an agnostic.... as with anything, it's better before it's explained.

[jiminski]

and i categorically do not believe in correct punctuation! ?

[notyou2]

Everyone knows Marx is a chapter in the book Jesus wrote.

[jiminski]

Everyone knows Marx is a chapter in the book Jesus wrote.

Well in 'reality' the supposed writers of the gospels were not even contemporary to the 'Jesus' figure. these books were: Matthew's ....... ahhhh i see what you did there!

[Anarkistsdream]

Everyone knows Marx is a chapter in the book Jesus wrote.

The Gospel of Marx, yep...

[betiko]

Juda s second name was Karl.

[nietzsche]

It's completely true that there are atheists that strongly hold their belief, and need not to ridicule believers in deities. This becomes more relevant because most atheists think they are atheists because they use logic while believers don't. There is some sort of confusion here: the rational mind, to use one label, is at the disposition of the will, it's not the other way around. You first believe in something, or will something, and only later you use your rational mind to find proofs or reasons for it. You even choose not to see what could be contradicting evidence.

well.. any religious person will tell you that they do not use rationality but faith when it comes to their religious beliefs. Therefore, of course an atheist/agnostic will use rationality in response. If rationality is a too strong weapon against your faith and you feel outsmarted against it, deal with it.

You didn't get the point.

I believe I did. A rational theist is incapable of using his will to formulate a rational response regarding his beliefs. That's why the concept of faith exists. You can be both rational and believer thanks to it. Your will choses your "faith mind" each time you come up with contradictions with rationality.

Believe me betiko, you can bend logic anyway you wish. BBS could convince you you have an uterus if he wanted to.

You are assuming then, that logic dictates there is not god? Have you read Thomas Aquinas? I hear he had a ton of reasons. Science can never prove the inexistence of god. At any point you could always say "Yes but all this science has discovered can be in a bubble that god created and hangs around his neck".

The inexistence of most of what is written in the bible, of course. You need to read it for the spirituality or the values, not to believe anything in it actually happened. You need to see everything as alegories.
Do you even read what I write? I said that I cannot disprove the idea that there could be a form of deity out there, that I consider possible a deity of an infinite larger scale than the ones worshipped by any religion.
That deity would have no reason to be either good or bad and couldn t care less of our insignificant galaxy.

Look at your uterus, it seems to have sand at the entrance.

[betiko]

Is that all you could answer taco?

[nietzsche]

Is that all you could answer taco?

Proves my point.

[nietzsche]

Seriously, how could I miss the opportunity??

[nietzsche]

betiko

Anyway, in my original post here I mentioned that religion, organized religion, became a tool for the control of the masses. Of course much of what's written in the scriptures is not real. But some of what might sound naive nowadays you have to understand that it might have another meaning now that what it had in those days: language evolves.

Other things you have to understand is not for the rational mind to understand, because it's meant to be spiritual instructions. In spiritualist matters, you can be communicated with language what it's trying to be shared, but you cannot "get it" by understandig. You need to experience it, to meditate.

[betiko]

betiko

Anyway, in my original post here I mentioned that religion, organized religion, became a tool for the control of the masses. Of course much of what's written in the scriptures is not real. But some of what might sound naive nowadays you have to understand that it might have another meaning now that what it had in those days: language evolves.

Other things you have to understand is not for the rational mind to understand, because it's meant to be spiritual instructions. In spiritualist matters, you can be communicated with language what it's trying to be shared, but you cannot "get it" by understandig. You need to experience it, to meditate.

Perhaps you don t understand the word allegory, perhaps you really answer my posts without reading them. Which one is it?

[nietzsche]

betiko

Anyway, in my original post here I mentioned that religion, organized religion, became a tool for the control of the masses. Of course much of what's written in the scriptures is not real. But some of what might sound naive nowadays you have to understand that it might have another meaning now that what it had in those days: language evolves.

Other things you have to understand is not for the rational mind to understand, because it's meant to be spiritual instructions. In spiritualist matters, you can be communicated with language what it's trying to be shared, but you cannot "get it" by understandig. You need to experience it, to meditate.

Perhaps you don t understand the word allegory, perhaps you really answer my posts without reading them. Which one is it?

Well, you didn't read the part where I implied that not all that's is said about Jesus is true in my original post so we are even.

In any case, I did read yours, my post was sort of agreeing with you while sharing another point I'm not sure if you know or not.