[Id and Ego seek]

Just a simple question.

Most believers would never seek out scientific or medical advice from anonymous people living in primitive, illiterate, and superstitious parts of the world today. We don't seek advice from these people on issues of importance like government, ethics, science, or philosophy, so why do believers take seriously the ideas of similar people who lived thousands of years ago and knew much less than the goat herders of today?

All credit goes to Netwriter.

Would love an answer from a theist because those comments in the comment section aren't doing anyone justice.

[TheGrinningSkull]

I'm sure there's a difference with the fact that the Quran was brought down then.

Your claim " so why do believers take seriously the ideas of similar people who lived thousands of years ago and knew much less than the goat herders of today? " holds no validity, unless you can offer proof. Knew much less in what way? Technological advancements?

Your claims seem a bit vague.

Has your argument completely forgotten the fact of the existence of holy books?

[Cerdog]

(Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
I'm sure there's a difference with the fact that the Quran was brought down then.

Your claim " so why do believers take seriously the ideas of similar people who lived thousands of years ago and knew much less than the goat herders of today? " holds no validity, unless you can offer proof.

"This claim has no validity unless you can offer proof" is far more relevant being directed from atheists to theists than the other way around, especially considering you just mentioned the Quran being brought down.

Knew much less in what way? Technological advancements?

Technology, science, medicine, etc.

Your claims seem a bit vague.

Because holy books are known for their specificness?

Has your argument completely forgotten the fact of the existence of holy books?

The point is that we shouldn't trust holy books coming from times/areas when we had far less knowledge than we do now. It'd be like if most of the world converted to scientology, and then in two thousand years people realise it was ridiculous because we didn't know something they will know then.

[A level Az]

The main reason I think (and quite an obvious one) is that the holy books offer something more than science and technology, things science can't explain. Yes science and technology is much more advanced now, but that doesn't make it a replacement for religion.

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by A level Az)
The main reason I think (and quite an obvious one) is that the holy books offer something more than science and technology, things science can't explain. Yes science and technology is much more advanced now, but that doesn't make it a replacement for religion.

OK, things science can't explain yet; and things nobody can explain. Religion doesn't explain them either! Religion should never been seen as a substitute for science and secular humanism in explaining anything.

[A level Az]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
OK, things science can't explain yet; and things nobody can explain. Religion doesn't explain them either! Religion should never been seen as a substitute for science and secular humanism in explaining anything.

Except religion DOES explain them for some people. Have you actually read the holy books? I've read many and I'm not surprised, for example, why some people buy into the idea that Jesus has died for their sins or why they believe heaven and hell exist. Who are you to question why somebody believes in something that you yourself cannot explain? It's very easy to just say God doesn't exist or focusing on the conflict religion causes instead of acknowledging the good it has done in the past (liberating and giving rights to people, charity, promoting peace etc.) And I think you'll find many religious people value science very highly, it's not merely a coincidence that religious parents in general strive to get their children into top disciplines like engineering and medicine. We're in the era of science and technology now, but that doesn't mean we abandon what has worked in the past without a second thought.

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by A level Az)
Except religion DOES explain them for some people. Have you actually read the holy books? I've read many and I'm not surprised, for example, why some people buy into the idea that Jesus has died for their sins or why they believe heaven and hell exist. Who are you to question why somebody believes in something that you yourself cannot explain? It's very easy to just say God doesn't exist or focusing on the conflict religion causes instead of acknowledging the good it has done in the past (liberating and giving rights to people, charity, promoting peace etc.) And I think you'll find many religious people value science very highly, it's not merely a coincidence that religious parents in general strive to get their children into top disciplines like engineering and medicine. We're in the era of science and technology now, but that doesn't mean we abandon what has worked in the past without a second thought.

You failed to identify issues religion explains where science fails to. Is the existence of heaven or hell one of those examples? You're joking, right? A majority of Christians (Jehova being a shocking one) deny the existence of hell; Jesus tells us, the Kingdom of Heaven is in each of us (Luke 17:21). If the Kingdom of Heaven is within each of us, then how would hell exist as a place outside of us? Either you believe, or you do not. Either Jesus was right, or those who came after him were. Different holy books also have a different account of heaven / afterlife and hell / punishment. No wonder science doesn't have an answer to these 'questions'; science is consistent in their methods and findings.

[janet9]

This is a question that I really want to know the answer to. And also, as I've read from Hitchens, that there is 100% proof out there that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years, though some say up to 200,000. Taking 100,000 for example, why was it that only in the last 4000 years did all these religious scriptures and revelations come about - why did the heavens and God just do nothing for 96,000 years? But I think that the bigger question here, is, why did all this happen in barbaric, illiterate parts of the Middle East?

(From a no longer theist).

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by Cerdog)
"This claim has no validity unless you can offer proof" is far more relevant being directed from atheists to theists than the other way around, especially considering you just mentioned the Quran being brought down.

I believe the burden of proof lies with you. You made the claim, now back it up.

Because holy books are known for their specificness?

Yes, they are very specific in a range of issues.

The point is that we shouldn't trust holy books coming from times/areas when we had far less knowledge than we do now. It'd be like if most of the world converted to scientology, and then in two thousand years people realise it was ridiculous because we didn't know something they will know then.

Well, let me ask you a question, now that we have far more knowledge, does this change a believer's stance on their beliefs?
Why would you think not?

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by janet9)
This is a question that I really want to know the answer to. And also, as I've read from Hitchens, that there is 100% proof out there that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years, though some say up to 200,000. Taking 100,000 for example, why was it that only in the last 4000 years did all these religious scriptures and revelations come about - why did the heavens and God just do nothing for 96,000 years? But I think that the bigger question here, is, why did all this happen in barbaric, illiterate parts of the Middle East?

(From a no longer theist).

Well, did you ever read these verses mentioned in the Quran?

"And for every nation there is a messenger." (10:47)

"And there is not a people but a warner has gone among them." (35:24)

"And certainly We raised in every nation a messenger, saying: Serve Allah and shun the devil." (16:36)

The Quran even mentions that not all the messengers were mentioned:

"And [We sent] messengers about whom We have related [their stories] to you before and messengers about whom We have not related to you. And Allah spoke to Moses with [direct] speech." (4:164)

[Calumcalum]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
Just a simple question.

Most believers would never seek out scientific or medical advice from anonymous people living in primitive, illiterate, and superstitious parts of the world today. We don't seek advice from these people on issues of importance like government, ethics, science, or philosophy, so why do believers take seriously the ideas of similar people who lived thousands of years ago and knew much less than the goat herders of today?

All credit goes to Netwriter.

Would love an answer from a theist because those comments in the comment section aren't doing anyone justice.

I take seriously Jesus' views on ethics and philosophy because there is good warrant for believing that he is God.

[Cerdog]

(Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
I believe the burden of proof lies with you. You made the claim, now back it up.

I'm not entirely sure which claim you're referring to. While we're on the burden of proof, though, the Quran has quite a few claims that need backing up.

Yes, they are very specific in a range of issues.

And incredibly vague on a large number of others. Holy books are notorious for being unclear and claiming either scientific revelation (if a phrase can be understood in some way to match up with a scientific theory) or metaphorical interpretation (if they're proved wrong).

Well, let me ask you a question, now that we have far more knowledge, does this change a believer's stance on their beliefs?

Depends on the believer in question.

Why would you think not?

Various reasons: indoctrination as a child, fear of hell/god, inherent belief in the supernatural, etc.

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
I take seriously Jesus' views on ethics and philosophy because there is good warrant for believing that he is God.

Doesn't mean much.
I take seriously Confucius' views on ethics and philosophy because there is good warrant for believing that he is God or at least a divine prophet of the true God, which isn't Yahweh.
Wait, you do you mean you take his views seriously because it said he was God in the Bible, or do you mean his views on ethics and philosophy are proof he is God?

[elkana]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
Just a simple question.

Most believers would never seek out scientific or medical advice from anonymous people living in primitive, illiterate, and superstitious parts of the world today. We don't seek advice from these people on issues of importance like government, ethics, science, or philosophy, so why do believers take seriously the ideas of similar people who lived thousands of years ago and knew much less than the goat herders of today?

All credit goes to Netwriter.

Would love an answer from a theist because those comments in the comment section aren't doing anyone justice.

because the bible wasnt written by goat herders it was written by God

[janet9]

(Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
Well, did you ever read these verses mentioned in the Quran?

"And for every nation there is a messenger." (10:47)

"And there is not a people but a warner has gone among them." (35:24)

"And certainly We raised in every nation a messenger, saying: Serve Allah and shun the devil." (16:36)

The Quran even mentions that not all the messengers were mentioned:

"And [We sent] messengers about whom We have related [their stories] to you before and messengers about whom We have not related to you. And Allah spoke to Moses with [direct] speech." (4:164)

By definition, faith means to believe in something without evidence - even if it contradicts science and outrages reason. I am a 'live, and let live' person; you believe in Islam and I respect you having that belief. But what I also respect, is openmindedness and free inquiry of ideas for their own sake. It's only when theists, with their tone, impose their beliefs over mine with an element of pride and superiority. What you quote is asserted without evidence - and so atheists and anti-theists can dismiss that, without evidence, surely.

You should at least take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way, so you won't have to blindly fire quotes from religious scripture to support your argument.

[Punk Phloyd]

(Original post by elkana)
because the bible wasnt written by goat herders it was written by God

And God has cracking penmanship.

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by elkana)
because the bible wasnt written by goat herders it was written by God

Uh, no it wasn't lol

That's just flat out wrong. Even if you're a Christian, you can't argue with the fact that men wrote the Bible; yes you can say it's the word of God and men were simply the tools in God’s hand, but the Bible was not written by God. And that brings up many flaws

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
Just a simple question.

Most believers would never seek out scientific or medical advice from anonymous people living in primitive, illiterate, and superstitious parts of the world today. We don't seek advice from these people on issues of importance like government, ethics, science, or philosophy, so why do believers take seriously the ideas of similar people who lived thousands of years ago and knew much less than the goat herders of today?

All credit goes to Netwriter.

Would love an answer from a theist because those comments in the comment section aren't doing anyone justice.

Why has the British ruling elite educated itself almost exclusively on classic Greek and Latin texts for centuries

And tbf, we'd probably all be better off if we lived in an agrarian, work to live, extended family group society.

[Okashira]

Can goat herders build elaborate temples? Can goat herders do sophisticated math? For instance, if Moses wrote or oversaw the first five books of the Bible, then Moses certainly wasn't just a goat herder. This guy was brought up in the palace of Egypt, got the best education they could offer. Egypt certainly had superstitious beliefs, but they were far from being simple minded people.



Moses grew up in this enviroment, and at the same time he rejected their beliefs in his heart. He saw through the truth of it all, and rejected Pharaoh as a god. So what I'm saying is, Moses wasn't a simple man, he wasn't driven by superstitious beliefs. Moses is the kind of cat that if there isn't any truth to certain beliefs, he wouldn't waste time concerning them. He was real and honest. This gives me more reason to have faith in what God has said in the Scriptures.

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by Cerdog)
I'm not entirely sure which claim you're referring to. While we're on the burden of proof, though, the Quran has quite a few claims that need backing up.

The claim that current goat herders know more, that's a massive claim to make.

And incredibly vague on a large number of others. Holy books are notorious for being unclear and claiming either scientific revelation (if a phrase can be understood in some way to match up with a scientific theory) or metaphorical interpretation (if they're proved wrong).

I don't think holy books claim to be a substitute for science. If anything, to seek scientific knowledge. Proven wrong? I don't think so, and if what you claim to be "proven wrong" is a grey area then you cannot make such a claim.
Also, areas of the holy book seem vague are backed up such as in Islam with the Hadith. Which is also an important and valid source.

Depends on the believer in question.

Various reasons: indoctrination as a child, fear of hell/god, inherent belief in the supernatural, etc.

I'm sorry, but it seems that you assume all religious people fall into the cherry picked categories and just bunged on an "etc" to give yourself a disclaimer.

Sorry, not buying it.

Not everyone is "indoctrinated". Not everyone is taught to be uncritical, if anything, I'd think most are taught to question events and do research on topic matters.

If one does have fear in hell/God, then surely their belief is due to their own choosing. One can only have fear of God if they indeed believe in their hearts.

Likewise with inherent belief, that is by choice is it not?