The Q mister Protestant
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2016, 08:10 AM
RE: The Q mister Protestant
When I was in the Army, it was a requirement that your dog tags had your religion embossed on them in case you bit the dust in some distant shithole. They didn't have any stamps for "atheist" so I had to put up with "OPD" hanging around my neck. Other Protestant Denomination.

I'm sincerely hoping that's changed now. Any currently serving members can confirm this?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 08:16 AM
RE: The Q mister Protestant
I knew a guy in the Navy who got new dog tags with "Druid" for his religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 09:11 AM
RE: The Q mister Protestant
(15-03-2016 11:54 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Yeah this is protestantism. I also find it funny when people reject the name and in the same debate will attempt to tear down Catholics. It's like dude you should be proud to be labeled as a protestor of the Church you seem to carry some type of disgust with the Catholic Church so why not embrace this disgust?

(15-03-2016 07:04 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  That's one of the biggest flaws of Christianity, there are way too many ways of interpreting it and are they all correct? Just believe and it's all good? but if not, someone's getting ripped off when they die and can't go to Heaven because they weren't doing it right.
This is interesting to me because I do agree the many factions within Christianity makes it harder to discern what's right and wrong. I don't think though that it's a flaw in Christianity. If you follow that logic anything that undergoes interpretation is flawed. I believe that if you can first find reasoning to believe in Christianity you should approach each denomination with a similiar, hopefully logical, process. On the last part just to add a more positive spin on what you appear to believe. The Catholic Church teaches something called invincible ignorance basically stating that somebody ignorant to the truth can be exempt from what he does not know. (CCC 1791)

The thing that makes this a flaw in Christianity -- that highlights the flaw, rather -- is that for every doctrinal difference between two denominations, it shows that there is no evidence-based method of demonstrating one doctrine right and the other one wrong. This is true for everything from the various interpretations of the trinity, to questions about the nature of Jesus's supposed divinity (fully god and fully man being only one of several versions that have been debated), to ethical questions about how Christians are supposed to behave in the world. There's no real justification for choosing one over the other -- just stubborn faith absent evidence, that has all the reliability of rolling a die or lucking out in the "I was born in the right religion" lottery.

Once one recognizes this flaw in Christianity's... diversity, it's easier to see that flaw in religion as a whole. There's no more evidence for the existence of a god (much less a son of that god) than there is for any particular interpretation of the trinity. There's no more evidence for Christianity than there is for Islam or vice-versa, and no more evidence for any of the Abrahamic religions than for Shinto, Hinduism, or Scientology.

Contrast with how almost any question about something OTHER than faith works. There IS a way to find out what side's right and what side's wrong. Want to figure out if heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects? Drop two cannonballs of different weights off the Pisa tower. Want to figure out if special relativity works? Put a precision clock on a high-speed plane and compare its readings against a more stationary one. Want to know if vaccines cause autism? Do a statistical analysis of autism trends among vaccine recipients versus non-recepients.

So far religion's only ways of figuring anything like this out are as follows: Go with the most persuasive speaker, see what version corresponds to a given holy text (the choice of which is itself arbitrary and faith-based rather than evidence-based), or try to kill, silence, and/or persecute the other side before they can do it to you. And in exactly none of those cases is the ultimate winner determined by any underlying truth. It's easy for the "wrong" side (assuming both sides aren't wrong) to win a religious war, or to conform more closely to a flawed religious text, or to have the more persuasive speaker. Christianity, and religion in general, employs no reliable methods of truth-seeking. Rather, it employs the demonstrably LEAST reliable methods of truth-seeking, such as epistemic faith, and touts doing so as a virtue.

Once you see that flaw, you start to realize that nothing can be known through religion that cannot more easily, more reliably, and with less baggage be known through other methods. The belief is unjustified The principle difference between a religious belief and a wild guess is that most people realize when they're wildly guessing and don't believe the guess to be the Unassailable Truth.

And regarding invincible ignorance? Try telling a mother that she's exempt from what she doesn't know, when what she didn't know was that the Catholic Church's program of exorcism is not evidence-based, and her child just got beaten to death as part of an exorcism. Or the millions of victims who followed the Church's doctrine on condom use during Africa's AIDS crisis. Or the victims of violence sowed by centuries upon centuries of Catholic priests preaching the doctrine of Jewish Deicide from the pulpit. Try being immune to that ignorance.

... actually, okay, the people preaching all that WERE immune to that ignorance. Their victims weren't, but the people believing it did okay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Reltzik's post
16-03-2016, 07:59 PM
RE: The Q mister Protestant
(16-03-2016 08:10 AM)SYZ Wrote:  When I was in the Army, it was a requirement that your dog tags had your religion embossed on them in case you bit the dust in some distant shithole. They didn't have any stamps for "atheist" so I had to put up with "OPD" hanging around my neck. Other Protestant Denomination.

I'm sincerely hoping that's changed now. Any currently serving members can confirm this?

I'm dimly recalling that that was what was on my dad's dog tags. He was in the Army after Korea. That's a many-decades old memory. He was really an atheist, based on comments I had heard him make, but never pushed it. My mother was a staunch Catholic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 08:03 PM
RE: The Q mister Protestant



"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
16-03-2016, 08:15 PM
RE: The Q mister Protestant
(15-03-2016 11:54 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Yeah this is protestantism. I also find it funny when people reject the name and in the same debate will attempt to tear down Catholics. It's like dude you should be proud to be labeled as a protestor of the Church you seem to carry some type of disgust with the Catholic Church so why not embrace this disgust?

(15-03-2016 07:04 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  That's one of the biggest flaws of Christianity, there are way too many ways of interpreting it and are they all correct? Just believe and it's all good? but if not, someone's getting ripped off when they die and can't go to Heaven because they weren't doing it right.
This is interesting to me because I do agree the many factions within Christianity makes it harder to discern what's right and wrong. I don't think though that it's a flaw in Christianity. If you follow that logic anything that undergoes interpretation is flawed. I believe that if you can first find reasoning to believe in Christianity you should approach each denomination with a similiar, hopefully logical, process. On the last part just to add a more positive spin on what you appear to believe. The Catholic Church teaches something called invincible ignorance basically stating that somebody ignorant to the truth can be exempt from what he does not know. (CCC 1791)

I always thought the many denominations of Christianity and especially the great schism was a huge detriment to their beliefs. If the Bible was at all clear and concise in it's intentions there would only be one form of the religion, instead we have 30,000-40,000 different versions. If God truly loved us and had a dire message for us, wouldn't he want us to be sure we are getting the right message? This is dealing with the final destination of our immortal souls, it shouldn't be up for interpretation and most if not all denominations think you have to do it their way or you're risking going to Hell. If a Mormon can tell a Catholic, "You don't get it." then, how can they possible tell an atheist we don't understand it either, when even people who worship the same God don't have it right?

This God is supposed to be all loving and all powerful, yet in his limitless knowledge and love he can't seem to find a way to relay his super important messages to us in a way that makes sense and can't be open to interpretation? If he can't he's not all powerful, if he doesn't care to than he's not all loving. I've just been told by so many believers to read the Bible, then I will understand but in which way should I understand it? The way a Southern Baptist understands it or the way a Quaker does? If they could get together and decide once and for all how the Bible should be read then maybe I can respect it at least a little bit more but for now it's deeply fractured and flawed and I can't excuse that.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: