#Religion

RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?

Feel free to discuss below. I have been doing a lot of research into the matter recently. 

When horrific acts are done by people who claimed, carried out traditions and see/saw themselves as members of a religion, often what is done by the politically correct media is to sympathise with the religious group and encourage peace by denouncing those people away from being considered genuine members of the religious group.

This goes for literally any incident or scandal you can think of, I am not just talking about the horrific acts that make the headlines.

The reason this strikes me as somewhat worrying is that while this is done, it then begins to highlight a hypocrisy when we see that people can define themselves, readily and happily, as members of religions we sometimes really resent those who do actually do it just to be part of the group. What I am saying is that let's say you're a person who wants to blend in with your very Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist etc family, if not friendship circle as well, you'd probably just say you're a member of that religion right? As long as you didn't do anything too scandalous or let's say you weren't caught, you'd be deemed a genuine member of that religion and anyone who would say 'wait no, that's just a poser' would instead get the backlash. What, then, actually qualifies someone as a genuine member of the religion?

To make it very clear what I am saying and the contradiction happening, I will explain it as an either/or statement.

The evil people who know their holy scriptures off by heart and understand their religion's history very well are incorrectly being denounced as 'fake Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc'

The not-so-evil posers who use religion to either blend in or get some kind of societal privilege are not actually posers, since the only real disqualifying factor appears to be how troublesome it would be to admit you're an adhering member of that religion.

The further thing to ask is whether it's morally correct and appropriate for people to 'raise their child into a religion' when we don't know which religion is the actual true one, right?

The very fact that entire families are commonly all of the same faith, if they're not atheist, isn't a coincidence and it is a reflection on religion being nothing more than a social construct. Even more disturbing is the fact that things like circumcision and animal abuse involved with many Islamic, Satanic and Wiccan sacrificial festivals are actually completely contradictory since we should be disqualifying them as they're justifying mutilation in the name of their religion. We actually did this with Muslims who endorsed (and a select minority still endorse) female circumcision, as well as many other examples such as what Christians used to do to suspected 'witches'. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has recently begun to cave into international pressure to move away from the strictly sexist elements of its Sharia Law, legalising women to drive and compete in the Olympics. Women are made to be pure subjects of men in the Qur'an, although it's true to say that in Islamic history there have been fierce female empresses and in Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular there have been female politicians who actively have been in charge of taming and handling negotiations with the Taliban.

The problem is that I am not exactly saying that it would be politically wise to be honest when a member of a religion does a very evil act. It's a very appropriate lie to suddenly say 'no they are nothing like what our religion stands for and are 100% fake' but that person probably knew more about the religion and lived more devout in terms of the traditions and lifestyle than most posers who call themselves 'casual followers' or 'modern, progressive' variants of their religion. The thing is, at what stage is religion nothing more than a fancy name to associate your 'group' or 'clique' with? What truly qualifies or disqualifies a genuine Muslim for example? It can't just be whether they're evil or not.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

Stage 2

1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.

2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless,  space less,  and immaterial. 

3. Therefore something immaterial,  timeless,  and space less caused the universe,  and these properties are said of God. 

4. Therefore we conclude God exists. 

Obviously a lot to unpack and defend, 

I believe god created us for entertainment purposes. I believe in a rather deistic god overall. How about you?

Some of the qualities I have found admirable  in the atheists I have met is their knowledge of science.  It always seems no matter who I'm talking to,  if they're an atheist their knowledge of science is on point.  

I like their proclivity to debate as well.  In a good way though.  I'd rather spend my time discussing or debating with an atheist than someone in a cult or aberrant sect of some religion.  Due to the fact the atheist is usually a far better debater 

P1. There is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified (i.e. no state of affairs where 2 plus 2 equals 9, or triangles have four sides)

P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition. 

P3. If they are not dependent  on human cognition,  they are dependent on another cognition.  Namely a universal cognition. 

P4. A universal cognition that apprehends the truth value of all necessary propositions (universals) can apprehend the truth value of all particular and contigent propositions. 

P5. Any mind that apprehends the truth value of all propositions is omniscient. 

P6. An omniscient mind exists. 

P7. Therefore God exists. 

If there are any Reformed folks on this forum, grace and peace.  I usually don't spend too much time with in house discussions right now as I'm currently pursuing natural theology,  however this topic is one I love pondering. 

I had a very brief flirtation with Calvinism this past year, I ultimately didn't go down that path as I believe Molinism offers a superior solution to the classic questions of divine sovereignty and human freedom.

Here's my thoughts: 

In Reformed theology God is absolutely and meticulously sovereign over His creation because nothing happens outside of His decree.  If it happened it is because God decreed it.  

In the Molinist paradigm however, God is still absolutely and meticulously sovereign over His creation,  but not because nothing happens outside of His decree, but because He uses His middle knowledge to achieve His will and purposes through the free undetermined actions of His creatures. 

Why is this important?

Well in the Reformed schematic,  I don't see how determinism can be affirmed without sourcing the origin of sinful acts in God.

 In the Molinist schematic,  God can perfectly enact and accomplish His will through completely free creatures. 

In other words, under Molinism God doesn't have to play the chess pieces on the board (i.e. decree everything they will do). He can let each piece move freely themselves on their own while still getting His will accomplished.  This seems like a superior understanding of God.

Any thoughts? 

What if god directly contacted you and proved they were god but told you that the only way you can stay in touch and experience your privileges (which may include getting into the heaven) is if you never talked about the god to others and kept it a secret, perhaps even masquerading as an atheist or at least agnostic?

Would you lie to everyone you knew?

The modal ontological argument as developed by philosopher Alvin Plantinga:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being* (mgb for short) exists. 

2. An mgb exists in some possible world.

3. If an mgb exists in one possible  world, then an mgb exists in all possible worlds.

4. An mgb exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore God exists. 

*for our purposes an mgb is defined as a being that possesses all great making properties,  and lacks no great making property.  

Out of all the classical theistic arguments,  this one is my personal favorite. Albeit, somewhat paradoxically,  although I  believe it to be a sound proof , it seems to be the less convincing for many people. 

I realize each premise needs expounding,  hence the reason I started the thread. This thread is open for discussion to anyone. Atheists are welcomed and encouraged to comment. 

Thank you 

A mandated reporter is a person who is legally required to report any suspicion of child abuse or neglect to the relevant authorities. Teachers and psychologists are some examples of people that are required to report any known abuse. The laws are in place to prevent children from being abused and to end any possible abuse or neglect at the earliest possible stage.

Historically, American law has protected a clergy-penitent privilege for a religious confessional that is similar to attorney-client privilege. In other words, clergy are not required to tell anyone about any abuse or rape they know about. Only seven states have laws requiring priests to report this information.

Catholic priests are not the only people who hear people's confession in religious contexts. Scientology uses a process known as auditing which allegedly helps people "rid themselves of their spiritual disabilities." Like priests they are exempt from having to report any abuse they've learned about in a confession or similar process, and do not have to provide testimony in a court of law. 

A lot of people have come forward to report their experience of sexual abuse within all kinds of religious institutions. Many times people in the church know what is going on, but do nothing to stop it. A bill that started making its way through the California legislature last year would have made CA the first since 1999 to require priests to choose between violating the law or violating the seal of the confessional.

As predicted, virtually every religious institution fought back and the law was withdrawn. One bishop argued, "If any legislature can force believers to reveal their innermost thoughts and feelings shared with God in confession, then truly there is no area of human life that is free or safe from government. Another added, "Surely murder, theft, spousal abuse, child neglect and rape are terrible crimes. Would the state determine that priests are obligated to report these offenses to the authorities, should they hear of them in the confessional?"

All in the title. I've decided that if Jesus existed, he most likely resurrected. 

But did Jesus exist at all? Is the whole thing myth, or is it history? Share.

RELIGION POLL #3: Is Genesis Compatible With Science?

A couple of points I'd like to share. From a non-literalist perspective, many of the "days" in Genesis happened without the presence of a sun. That suggests to me that perhaps the time schemes are longer. Even If you were to come from a Biblical literalist perspective, in context, Genesis does not necessary make for full-fledged historical accuracy. At the time of Genesis' writings, no Jew would have a scientific background to understand concepts like evolution and the old earth. So it makes sense that God would present a simplified account that had some symbolic meanings. 

But that is just my limited knowledge on the subject. Feel free to share your take. 

This edition of ERT we have a proud Christian known as Dr. Franklin.

He hasn't revealed much else in his application than that he is a devout Christian.

Please introduce yourself, Dr. Franklin!

Welcome one and all to the first interview of the show! It is none other than Mr. Eternal AKA EtrnlVw!

He says this of his beliefs:

and it is to the very, very core of his beliefs that we wish to get!

He seems to believe that God is essentially the head of a complex web of heirarchy of conscious entities and within all, at the core of it all is God pulling the strings... Alternatively, is God the one inside going along the ride and we are the ones experiencing it for this entity?

We shall find out here on the Exploration of the Religious Thinker!

Welcome to the ERT, the place where we endeavour religious thoughts.

Today on the show, we have DPR [TheDredPriateRoberts] who identifies as Agnostic on his profile but seeks to not be labelled at all. It is important that we take note that he is unlabelled and non-theistic rather than a non-denominational Theist or Deist, so that we take into account that this individual doubts God's existence altogether.

Doubting doesn't just mean lacking conviction and that is something we certainly wish to prove on this show. 

Welcome, one and all, to the ERT!

Today, on our show, we have someone who isn't religious but who wishes to speak on religion, he's an agnostic and an atheist (which he refers to as agnostic atheism) who goes by the name Press.

Since he has left very little in terms of his beliefs or thoughts on reality, it would be best to let him introduce himself and his stance.

Or are religious people deluded to start with?

If we look at the first question, we would need to consider the effect religion has on followers.

For example, followers are required to believe in an entity that is invisible, silent and completely unproven.

Also, the fundamental principals of religions state that humans have a "soul". Again there is not one piece of evidence to support such a concept and the word soul is normally used as a metaphor.

To this extent, could we say that religion influences or even, forces followers to become deluded.

It could be that religious followers are deluded regardless of religion and find themselves attracted to the abstract, nature of believing in an unknown, contrived entity. For example, comprehensive research and authoritative studies have concluded:

Could the delusion in some religious followers be due to both factors, i.e., hereditary and conditional? In which case would some religious followers be more deluded than others