Nyheder
For alle nyheder, hvad end de måtte omhandle.
Regler
1. Brug artiklens titel
Titlen på indlæg skal være titlen på nyhedsartiklen der linkes til. Du må dog gerne oversætte titlen hvis den ikke er på dansk, så længe oversættelsen er retvisende. En alternativ titel (fx i tilfælde af clickbait) eller vigtig supplerende information kan angives i kantede parenteser. Fx: "Clickbait titel [Beskrivende titel]". Dette sikrer at titlen på artiklen ikke er misvisende.
2. Brug ikke tekstfeltet ("body")
Link udelukkende til artiklen og brug ikke tekstfeltet ("body" på engelsk). Hvis du vil tilføje noget, så skriv en kommentar. Dette sikrer at debatten foregår fra et neutralt synspunkt der tager udgangspunkt i artiklen, og ikke en bestemt vinkling skrevet i tekstfeltet. Undtagelse: Det er tilladt at dele et referat af en artikel bag betalingsvæg i tekstfeltet.
3. Kun nye artikler
Artikler skal være mindre end en uge gamle. Dette sikrer at artikler faktisk er nyheder.
4. Debat-indlæg og andet skal markeres
Det er tilladt i et begrænset omfang at indlægge artikler der ikke som sådan er nyhedsartikler og ikke er skrevet af avisens ansatte (fx debat-indlæg eller læserbreve), men sådanne artikler skal markeres med [Debat] el. lign. mærkat i titlen af indlægget inden titlen på artiklen. Dette sikrer at brugere er klar over den potentielle højere bias der kommer fra debat-indlæg og sikrer at debat-indlæg ikke bruges til at skubbe en agenda.
Husk også at følge Feddit.dks generelle regler.
view the rest of the comments
I'll just conclude you can't answer that simple but fundamental question.
I have investigated the Bible also with guidance, even from multiple people who were pretty knowledgeable, and I have read the Bible. I know some of the keys you talk about, and some of them are really really extremely convoluted. But that's not surprising, Christians have spent a 1000+ years trying to explain away the flaws of the Bible, and I admit some are very very good at it. But it never stands up to critical scrutiny.
You have an apparently very complicated answer to a simple question, but Occam's razor suggests the simpler answer is more probable.
The reason there are so many flaws in the Bible is that it was never inspired by a deity, and the existence of god is extremely unlikely.
In fact everything in the Bible is exactly as ignorant as you'd expect for something written at the respective times. And nothing you have stated here shows otherwise.
I let that pass earlier, but No you didn't, that's what atheists call pick and choose.
You claim some parts are more reliable than others, but they could also all be unreliable, that would perfectly explain why it is so inconsistent.
I don't really see any other explanation that truly makes sense, that justifies accepting the Bible as holy scripture.
But thanks anyway for an honest but cordial exchange, I don't understand your reasons to believe, but I suspect you understand why I don't.
Because my proposition is by far the simpler and more logical one.
I mean, if you're reading any religious text from the premise of critical scrutiny and reason, you're obviously not going to find any revelation. I suspect @zloubida@lemmy.world has a very different way of reading scriptures than you.
Not saying either of you are wrong, but you're talking about so different things without really meeting in the middle that the whole debate is kind of moot.
Back when I read the Bible it was not with critical scrutiny in mind, I was actually seeking to understand it, But I can't just shut off my brain, and if you don't there are very clear problems, the four guides I had access to were unable to explain. Like why it is legal for a slave owner to kill his slaves, as long as they don't die within a day.
My point is there is no rational reason to believe any of the fantastic claims of the bible. And doing so is demonstrably harmful, just like holding other forms of false beliefs without reason are in general.
I am now of the strong conviction that we shouldn't have a state religion, and religion shouldn't have special privilegies.
The fact that the Danish folkekirke was allowed to discriminate against women until recently is abhorrent, WHY was that allowed when we had clear regulation that forbade it?
They are AFAIK still allowed to discriminate against people based on sexuality, and there are stories about priests denying marriage based on sexuality or because they have been divorced. Since it's a state church, their services are public services, but as an institution it does not abide by basic rules against discrimination.
Other churches are AFAIK also allowed to discriminate based on sexuality or gender, despite it's clearly illegal, why?
I don't think the other commenter ever claimed that or even thinks that. I think most religious people know perfectly well that religion is not a rational thing, but rationality is not the purpose of religion.
I agree with you that organized religion can be very harmful and we should work for a secular society, but dismissing religion because of facts and logic is like disproving mathematics via the word of God - its simply entirely different domains and perspectives.
Wow really? Superstition is equal to facts and reason based on evidence now?
Goddam and it's the 21st century!
That's exactly the mindset that makes religion harmful.
I never claimed people can't have faith, what I claim is the illegal practices should not be legal, and it shouldn't have special privileges.
I never said such a thing and I don't think you understood what I wrote. Try reading it again, and I'll rephrase:
Dismissing religion from an atheistic point of view based on facts and logic doesn't make sense, because religion is not about facts and logic.
Disproving mathematics from a religious point of view via the word of God is equally absurd, because mathematics does not deal with faith.
You're trying to apply facts and logic to religion which is obviously a perspective that will not work (not saying you have to try to make it work or that religion makes sense, but just that criticising the Bible from this perspective doesn't make sense).
Again they can believe what they want, but where religion and "secular world" intersect, we cannot bend to religion when it's contrary to more modern standards that are based on way better knowledge than primitive iron age standards.
Only to show where it does harm to others isn't validated.
Any religious person that removes such practices can have my blessing.
But for instance the belief in a life after death, which there is absolutely no reason to believe is true, can be very harmful for the individual believers themselves.