Belief in God.

[BeetleBailey]

Well since we can have political threads, why not a religious one?

I'm curious why those who don't believe in God have their belief. 3, 2, 1 go.

[Frazer]

I am living based on the assumption* that there is no god. How can we know? Some jahovas or mormons gave me a book on creationism today but I've already misplaced it :S Don;t knw where in the bookshelf to put it atm. I'll file the bible under fiction though.

Also, to more flly answer the question - I wasn't brought up in a religion. I fail to see any orginised religion with merit. Hoiw the fuck can they know? And they're relying ona fucking book of stries that they will interpret as they fucking will.

Orginised religion = shitpants. belief in something more fair enough, but that His name is Steven, that he was white living in kenya and that dinosaurs were secretly placed in teh ground by the soviets to confuse use. Afterlife? Fuck knows. I hope for Valhala, that always sounded fun.

[Rob]

I've always been skeptical by nature. My parents tell me I never really even bought into Santa Claus.


I'm curious why those who don't believe in God have their belief.
I think there's a falseness of phrasing here. I don't think it's so much a "belief" as it is a "lack of belief". I find the idea of an all-powerful man in the sky to be on the same page as the idea of a man who delivers gifts to all the world's children in one night, or a rabbit that gives chocolate eggs out one day a year. They're nice thoughts, but nothing more.

I know there's no such thing as Santa or the Easter Bunny, they're just nice stories parents tell their children; and so I don't really think about it much. Same principle when it comes to religion.

And for the record, my mum was raised Church of England/Anglican and my dad (as best I can tell, he doesn't really talk on the subject) is agnostic. They've always taken a "we'll support you no matter what you choose" stance. And no, I was not baptised.

[Rob]

Addendum:

I hope no-one will take my above post to mean that I discount the importance of religion to humanity in general. As an historian by education, I'm quite aware of its importance and significance as one of the major driving forces in the history of humanity; and I'm well aware of the role in plays in modern geo/sociopolitics as well.

I just don't buy it on a personal level.

[TylerDurden]

don't believe in god persay.

Everything has energy, and i believe that back in the day, people could only describe such things as "god" and pretty much put it in a form of man, so it could be easily swallowed.

i belive that to be the downfall of religion. When people look past the main point, and only focus on "god" being a man, and pretty much having faith in the man, which to me is so narrow minded. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Meaning

just because we know things that surround us, like men, women, trees and cars, doesn't, or shouldn't mean that those things are the only answer, and that these things that have almost in a way been manifested, are the key to what is, and what isn't.

in conclusion, just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Burris]

Agnostic here. I am supportive of catholics and usually defend them when my mainly protestant friends bash them.

[Penguin]

I believe in God only so that I can hate Him.

Seriously, this guy creates a universe, fucks with people constantly, then goes into hippie mode (but Hippie Mode God, AKA Jesus, starts preaching about eternal damnation and hellfire but LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AND BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER MMKAY?). Then He's completely hands-off with the universe and and says "Next time I come back I'm killing every last one of you." He creates people with predispositions He doesn't like and tells his followers to persecute and kill them. To top it all off, He demands our love.

Seriously, what is our purpose? "To give glory to God." In other words, we exist solely for His own amusement. Outside of that each one of us lives an inescapably pointless existence. Every one of us is an utterly insignificant grain of sand in the desert of humanity. Being charitable, a beautiful and unique snowflake in an avalanche, eventually to melt away into forgotten nothingness, replaced by billions more.

Your fate is simply to spend eternity singing His praises in permanent induced joy or cursing Him in a state of permanent suffering. You might get to suffer a bit and THEN join the angelic choir.

Hating God gives me some semblance of purpose when I don't think I can go on any more. Someday, I hope to fight Him. Supposedly any human who were to gaze directly upon God would die from the sheer amount of pure love pouring from Him. Okay buddy. Let's see what He is really made of. High stakes. I win, the universe ends. I lose, the soul is utterly destroyed and I get out of the entirely pointless afterlife. It's a win-win.

In closing, a highly relevant Smith quote.

Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more that your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

[Dr. Crawford]

I believe in a god yes, but I'm not quite sure how to explain that.

We had to have come from somewhere/something. Whether it is a sentient being or not, it is still "god".

A part of me says god is in all of us, because life is a miracle

and another part of me says that god also isn't this omnipotent omniscient being, but just our creator, who has better things to do than to tend to our every need.

To me, religion is about peace, love, and happiness. One of the most annoying things ever is religious extremism/intolerance. As long as you are happy, and are a good person, that is all that matters. Just because someone says they are part of some religion doesn't make them a good person.

I believe the bible is more of a book of morals than actual events.

I am not too concerned with what happens when I die, because I am not there yet. If I am to meet god, then that's cool. If not, then hey that's cool too. I live my life as if its all I've got, because it IS all I've got. The after life may be the best thing ever, but I want to enjoy as much as I can with this life just in case there is no afterlife at all.

I also believe it is wrong to pray to god and ask for things. Instead, you should be thanking god for the life you have.

I guess I could be classified as Agonostic or Deist.

[Burris]

I remember this dumb atheist hippy girl told me religion is responsible for all wars.

I then asked her to explain Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc.

[Rob]

There's one in every crowd.

[MeleeMe?]

I could go on for-friggin-ever on this subject but ill try to keep it short and to the point.

My absolute biggest gripe with religion is this..

I think evolution has been pretty well proven and I believe in it...

but..

The bible says that God created Adam and then Eve (from one of Adams ribs) :shifty:

Now religion is based completely off of faith. A belief that requires that much faith should never have any untruths in it. Right?

So if the entire religion is based off of faith and the entire story of human creation is a lie (my opinion) then where do the lies stop? Thats pretty big fucking lie to deal with and the bible has quite a few stories that are pretty damn far fetched.

Im not the kind of person that can put my faith into a religion when many of the things in that religion are clearly lies.

[BeetleBailey]

Meleeme,
Doesn't it require just as much faith to believe in no God? I believe in a God who could create the world in 6 days but I read the beginning of the bible as more of a narrative in which the point is that God is the creator and we are his creation. I'm with you on evolution, science has shown that the earth is somewhere around 13 billion years old and I believe it. But when it comes to the big bang, I think that was God starting it up.

What "lies" are you talking about in the bible? The crazy ass stories of men killing thousands with jawbones, or the flood, or Jesus' whole resurrection deal?

[MeleeMe?]

Adam and Eve.

Im pretty sure its not possible for a woman to be created out of a rib bone.

If that is a lie then what else in the bible is a lie? Is the entire thing fiction? A religion based of faith and not fact has to be 100% believable. If I cant believe that God created us then how can I believe in any of it?

[Burris]

South Park summed it up well for me:

In the future there will be no religion, just science. Which will essentially be the religion.

I thought that was ingenious.

[TylerDurden]

...Doesn't it require just as much faith to believe in no God?...

Either way, it's blind faith, is it not ?

(Trusting in something you don't understand/know or have never seen.)

so, let's look at this in terms of an acidic scale. One is positive, the other negative. What's in the middle ?

! Not giving a fuck !

If it was so important to believe in god, then we'd know this importance. If it was important to not believe in god, then we'd understand this importance.

Since there is no true arrow pointing to either, (other then someone TELLING you what to believe) then why not take the ego out of the equation, and sit in the middle, as neutral.

When the ego is faced with the question of death, any answer is possible to justify the well being of it.

[SMELLY OLD MAN]

>:(

Ack, science is uncontrollable, religion isn't. Religion has the potential to be a big part of world peace.

[CrazyTalk]

i believe in god. i believe he created the universe and that we evolved into what we are today. i also believe that the bible like crawford says is a book of morals than actual events which can be summarized by four words "be good and just". what i cannot stand is people who warp things like in the bible or other religious books to make people do their bidding. religion is supposed to be about peace and being good to one another and tolerating and respecting others, not about trying to convert or kill someone because they're different. i cannot stand also people who say "you'll burn in hell if you do x or don't believe in what i believe in".

[Cheeto]

I was raised in a Lutheran church, and most of the things they said made no sense.

"Our purpose is to give praise to God." *followed by* "We have free will" *followed by* "Believe in God or go to Hell."
"God loves all." *followed by* "The sinners will be denied the kingdom of heaven and face God's wrath."
"God is the Father to us all, and sometimes fathers must be stern with their children." *followed by* "God will cast you out, for sin offends the nature of God, and will not be allowed in his presence."

No, no, no. It doesn't work like that. Full stop. If you have an omnipitent being, he wouldn't make so many blatant contradictions. I have the mental image of a white bearded, nice old guy sitting on a cloud shrieking "I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY THAT!" Further more, some old cludgy fuckers, drinking lead laced wine, living in caves and stuff brick castles isolated from the real world, and living without the benefit of modern medical or scientific theory (or any medical or scientific theory, really) a thousand plus years ago do not get to decide what to make of the world TODAY.

However aethism doesn't ring true to me. The idea that we exist here as a freak of nature makes me think that we shouldn't be sentient, and that if we were, the greatest pleasure would be to take what we want no matter the expense, but that it would be pointless anyway because it'd have no lasting effects on you since you're going into oblivion anyway.

So I left religion, organized belief structures, and found my own way. It's worked rather well for me. I believe that there was a force that created existence and all within it, and that we return to that in the end. But it is not necessarily some old white guy sitting on a cloud, because why would something that powerful even have a gender? Really, I doubt anything that powerful would have a sense of individuality, anyway, and would merely exist as everything. I think there's a structure and form and something happening which is difficult, if not impossible, to fully percieve, and that every day we're missing the cosmic events going by us until we get our one chance to make a difference. Lastly, I think, as I've said whenever anyone asked me for religious guidance, that your beliefs are your own damn business, and not suitable for anyone else to believe in. Find your own damn way. Don't let someone else have the power over you to decide your morality and your world for you.

[AFG]

So I left religion, organized belief structures, and found my own way. It's worked rather well for me. I believe that there was a force that created existence and all within it, and that we return to that in the end. But it is not necessarily some old white guy sitting on a cloud, because why would something that powerful even have a gender? Really, I doubt anything that powerful would have a sense of individuality, anyway, and would merely exist as everything. I think there's a structure and form and something happening which is difficult, if not impossible, to fully percieve, and that every day we're missing the cosmic events going by us until we get our one chance to make a difference. Lastly, I think, as I've said whenever anyone asked me for religious guidance, that your beliefs are your own damn business, and not suitable for anyone else to believe in. Find your own damn way. Don't let someone else have the power over you to decide your morality and your world for you.


sort of like the force, eh?

[Rob]

Adam and Eve.

Im pretty sure its not possible for a woman to be created out of a rib bone.

If that is a lie then what else in the bible is a lie? Is the entire thing fiction? A religion based of faith and not fact has to be 100% believable. If I cant believe that God created us then how can I believe in any of it?
As staunchly atheist as I am, I don't believe it's fair to call them lies. It's inaccuracies, bred of a period long before scientific understanding. Nothing more, nothing less.

[SMELLY OLD MAN]

They're the only answers that were availiable at the time, ones that brought hope. What hope has science brought?

[Rob]

They're the only answers that were availiable at the time, ones that brought hope. What hope has science brought?
But that isn't the point. Science seeks to understand how, while religion seeks to understand why. There's inherently no desire to inject emotion into a quest for "how".

[SMELLY OLD MAN]

They're the only answers that were availiable at the time, ones that brought hope. What hope has science brought?
But that isn't the point. Science seeks to understand how, while religion seeks to understand why. There's inherently no desire to inject emotion into a quest for "how".

People need faith. Not necessarily religious faith, just faith in something -- faith in something greater. For me, it's an order, an underlying structure shining through everything I do, everything I see, through all these intertwining elements that make up the world, this faith helps me pull through the shit fairly well, the thought that I'm just a part of this big game, one insignificant piece of this infinite puzzle, it's those fucking incredible moments where everything snaps together, moments of absolute vision, of pure comprehension.

The point I'm trying to make is that people don't need to know about the truth, only whatever truth brings them comfort, makes them happier, better towards one another.

[Rob]

Life is what you make of it? Yeah, I can dig that.

[TylerDurden]

manji gives me comfort.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii81/jadedmarko/1261527285B.jpg

[CrazyTalk]

i think the whole eve being created from adam is a metaphor that means men and women pretty much have the same parts and created equally but physically unequal (adam having 1 less rib) or something like that. atleast that's my take

[TylerDurden]

info was passed on through storys, it was a way to remember it. old school communication.

[Azevedo]

Meleeme,
But when it comes to the big bang, I think that was God starting it up.


Science is the tried and proven ground. Faith has zero means of being tested or reasoned with. You have to provide proof showing that 'God" was behind the big bang. Not a feeling, not some intangible a priori inherent "I just know" statement, but actual evidence.


People need faith. Not necessarily religious faith, just faith in something -- faith in something greater. For me, it's an order, an underlying structure shining through everything I do, everything I see, through all these intertwining elements that make up the world, this faith helps me pull through the shit fairly well, the thought that I'm just a part of this big game, one insignificant piece of this infinite puzzle, it's those fucking incredible moments where everything snaps together, moments of absolute vision, of pure comprehension.


The point I'm trying to make is that people don't need to know about the truth, only whatever truth brings them comfort, makes them happier, better towards one another.

So your argument is that religion (or similar beliefs in a 'higher' power/purpose) is the crutch provided for people unable to deal with the reality of their finite existence. Gotcha.

[Cheeto]

sort of like the force, eh? More like brahmain with a hint of Buddhism and Abrahamic thrown in and given a topping of paganism.



Science is the tried and proven ground. Faith has zero means of being tested or reasoned with. You have to provide proof showing that 'God" was behind the big bang. Not a feeling, not some intangible a priori inherent "I just know" statement, but actual evidence. No, you don't. That's the nature of faith. Faith and science shouldn't be at odds with each other. Science can have it's proven ground of reason and experiment, faith can have it's domain of intuition and feeling. And ne'er the two shall cross. Unless people on either side feel the need to be combative, such as:



So your argument is that religion (or similar beliefs in a 'higher' power/purpose) is the crutch provided for people unable to deal with the reality of their finite existence. Gotcha.
Yeah, like that. Perfect example of someone who's so extremely fundamentalist towards their view they can't even tolerate the EXISTENCE of another because it somehow questions their world view and they haven't the mental faculties to deal with that.

[SMELLY OLD MAN]

So your argument is that religion (or similar beliefs in a 'higher' power/purpose) is the crutch provided for people unable to deal with the reality of their finite existence. Gotcha.

Yes. You included.

Religion brings two things which are equally important to any society : hope and laws.

[Mr. Burns]

I was raised in the Nazarene church (sort of an offshoot of Methodist) and still basically believe everything I was taught growing up. I'm also an electrical engineer by profession (and, really, by personality) and so I believe strongly in science and the scientific method as the way to discover the workings of our little corner of the universe here. How does that make sense? It's simple really: the Bible is not a science textbook, and there is a lot of metaphor in there. Specifically, the creation story, the flood, and Jonah are stories that ring of metaphor and not of history.

So why do I, an almost entirely rational person, believe in something so irrational as an omnipotent being? That's also relatively simple: it makes more sense to me to believe that than the opposite. Life is so incredibly complex and beautiful and all this incredible order came about as the universe tends toward chaos? I don't see how that's possible. I find it much easier to believe there was an architect.

After that point, anything else that seems impossible just doesn't seem nearly as impossible. When you choose to believe there's something/someone with the ability to create the cosmos it isn't very difficult to imagine that entity doing any or all of the things in the Bible. That said, it's also very possible that there are perfectly rational explanations for the stories as they were written, whether it's due to the fact that the authors didn't understand what was going on entirely or described something in the way that made the most sense to them, even though it wasn't really accurate.

[Puddle]

I'm agnostic and not a big fan of any organized religion. I've also studied Sumerian and other pagan religion. Before the "only one god." movement. Fuck I sound like a cylon. Gods were a way of explaining what we could not about our surroundings. How does the sun work? How do the wind rain and rivers move? As a curios and inventive species we need to have some answers to these questions. Now we get the intelligent design argument, well science and palaeontology have proven a great deal of our past and this planet. Not to mention our solar system in general. I really get pissed when I see these people blowing themselves up for "Belief". It's bullshit they have something missing in their lives or such hatred to the fact they can't change it. BOOOM! I'm now in paradise.
Now what about death and the fear of death? Look at the explanation of almost all religions. Stating you go to a paradise when you kick the bucket. We need something to believe in. Does it all go black? Is there a continuation? Or do I just cease. Be pretty bleak if we knew when we died that that's it no more me. Look at reincarnation it gives us a reason to keep going.
I've got to say that I have tortured the Mormons at my door with philosophical statements like Phenomenology. In other words all we perceive is all that our senses tell us. Which means there must be more to it than just what we perceive with them.
Oh and don't tell me I'm going to go to hell because I blew my load on that married chicks belly.

[BeetleBailey]

Well thanks Crap, that's my feeling about the bible and God as well. I just can't articulate it as well as you.

[Rob]

I was raised in the Nazarene church (sort of an offshoot of Methodist) and still basically believe everything I was taught growing up. I'm also an electrical engineer by profession (and, really, by personality) and so I believe strongly in science and the scientific method as the way to discover the workings of our little corner of the universe here.

So why do I, an almost entirely rational person, believe in something so irrational as an omnipotent being? That's also relatively simple: it makes more sense to me to believe that than the opposite. Life is so incredibly complex and beautiful and all this incredible order came about as the universe tends toward chaos? I don't see how that's possible. I find it much easier to believe there was an architect.

After that point, anything else that seems impossible just doesn't seem nearly as impossible. When you choose to believe there's something/someone with the ability to create the cosmos it isn't very difficult to imagine that entity doing any or all of the things in the Bible.
That doesn't seem terribly rational or logical to me at all; that the most rational explanation for a complex universe and personal perceptions of beauty is..."uhhh....god did it"? Forgive me, but from my armchair philosopher seat, that seems a terribly simplistic copout of an answer. I should also probably say at this point that I've intended none of this as an attack on you, just my response to something that strikes me as a tad....illogical.


How does that make sense? It's simple really: the Bible is not a science textbook, and there is a lot of metaphor in there. Specifically, the creation story, the flood, and Jonah are stories that ring of metaphor and not of history.

That said, it's also very possible that there are perfectly rational explanations for the stories as they were written, whether it's due to the fact that the authors didn't understand what was going on entirely or described something in the way that made the most sense to them, even though it wasn't really accurate.

This, by contrast, I can completely get on board with. Religious texts are some of the most important documents in human history, and as we all know science as a field of study hasn't existed for as long as conceptions of divinity. It's perfectly reasonable, logical, and even entirely likely that supernatural explanations were given for events that were otherwise incomprehensible to pre-scientific method humanity. I also think it's perfectly reasonable and likely that said stories were constructed as larger metaphors with which to endorse moral ideals.

[WHEATLEY007]

Seriously, this guy creates a universe, fucks with people constantly, then goes into hippie mode (but Hippie Mode God, AKA Jesus, starts preaching about eternal damnation and hellfire but LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AND BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER MMKAY?). Then He's completely hands-off with the universe and and says "Next time I come back I'm killing every last one of you." He creates people with predispositions He doesn't like and tells his followers to persecute and kill them. To top it all off, He demands our love.

Seriously, what is our purpose? "To give glory to God." In other words, we exist solely for His own amusement. Outside of that each one of us lives an inescapably pointless existence. Every one of us is an utterly insignificant grain of sand in the desert of humanity. Being charitable, a beautiful and unique snowflake in an avalanche, eventually to melt away into forgotten nothingness, replaced by billions more.

Your fate is simply to spend eternity singing His praises in permanent induced joy or cursing Him in a state of permanent suffering. You might get to suffer a bit and THEN join the angelic choir.


That’s how I pretty much feel about religion. If we are gods children, then I hope that theirs some justification in the way we are all treated. Anyone whoever even though out loud of treating their own kids like that would have them quickly taken away and would be sectioned themselves.

But…….do I believe in god or a god?? Probably not, in the generally agreed view. I don’t agree that faith can take the place of explaining what science cannot. We’ve only been on this plant, let alone existed as a species for a small time so to expect us to have even some of the answers is expecting too much. However, I can also get my head past the pre-big bang part. Action and reaction means that there had to be something before the big bang, so what? - A god, an energy, a different dimension? I don’t know but I’m not sure if the god idea is behind the big bang. Behind lots of big bangs, maybe, Something’s got to start the chain reaction and get the ball rolling, and I believe that there had to be something originally that could react.

More important than "is there a god?" is "whats the point of all this?" Is there an end that we are heading to? Is there a goal? Is this Gods fun sand-box/THE SIMS game ?

Or something like that.

[Puddle]

That said, it's also very possible that there are perfectly rational explanations for the stories as they were written, whether it's due to the fact that the authors didn't understand what was going on entirely or described something in the way that made the most sense to them, even though it wasn't really accurate.

This, by contrast, I can completely get on board with. Religious texts are some of the most important documents in human history, and as we all know science as a field of study hasn't existed for as long as conceptions of divinity. It's perfectly reasonable, logical, and even entirely likely that supernatural explanations were given for events that were otherwise incomprehensible to pre-scientific method humanity. I also think it's perfectly reasonable and likely that said stories were constructed as larger metaphors with which to endorse moral ideals.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Religious texts do have historical facts in the teachings. We can find ancient cities and the stories can have a major moral impact on a society.

I've read this actual translated text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

The book cost me a bit from the UBC Library. I was interested in the 7 seals and sumarian texts in general. Thank you Mr. Crowley. I still have it around someplace mosty just tales of mistakes and trials. My cousin gave me the nechronomicon and I decided to look into it. However that book turned out to be a crock.

[Azevedo]

Science is the tried and proven ground. Faith has zero means of being tested or reasoned with. You have to provide proof showing that 'God" was behind the big bang. Not a feeling, not some intangible a priori inherent "I just know" statement, but actual evidence. No, you don't. That's the nature of faith. Faith and science shouldn't be at odds with each other. Science can have it's proven ground of reason and experiment, faith can have it's domain of intuition and feeling. And ne'er the two shall cross. Unless people on either side feel the need to be combative, such as:



So your argument is that religion (or similar beliefs in a 'higher' power/purpose) is the crutch provided for people unable to deal with the reality of their finite existence. Gotcha.

Yeah, like that. Perfect example of someone who's so extremely fundamentalist towards their view they can't even tolerate the EXISTENCE of another because it somehow questions their world view and they haven't the mental faculties to deal with that.

The nature of 'faith' is keeping your eyes shut to the real world and screaming 'LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'. It is merely believing for the sake of believing. If there is no rational basis (such as evidence) for a belief there is no merit and justification for that belief. Faith is mere dogma.



So your argument is that religion (or similar beliefs in a 'higher' power/purpose) is the crutch provided for people unable to deal with the reality of their finite existence. Gotcha.

Yes. You included.

Religion brings two things which are equally important to any society : hope and laws.

I'm not included since I'm an Atheist and your conclusion about religion is an illogical jump.

Religion has nothing to do with hope; it is a mere form of control and indoctrination to get people to do what they want since most of religion has no rational merit. 'Don't do this or you will burn in hell'. If you get people to believe that everything eventually works out in the end, it's a lot easier to control them and keep them docile during their 'first life'. Religion has nothing to do with just law either. It is only a staple of law since religion is the opium of the masses and the majority gets to establish the rule of law. Whether those laws set down are just or not has really nothing to do with anything that you said. If religion was really all about what you said it would not be such a huge participant in genocide and war since the beginning of civilization.

[BeetleBailey]

That doesn't seem terribly rational or logical to me at all; that the most rational explanation for a complex universe and personal perceptions of beauty is..."uhhh....god did it"? Forgive me, but from my armchair philosopher seat, that seems a terribly simplistic copout of an answer. I should also probably say at this point that I've intended none of this as an attack on you, just my response to something that strikes me as a tad....illogical.

But saying that order came from non-existence without a designer yet giving no explanation for how that happened seems like an illogical, copout position. Or even when you look at the Big Bang theory it is illogical to think that nothing started that up and going.

Although I do believe there's been a God forever and He's just been around, I feel that my argument is pretty weak when I tell someone that the Big Bang must be from God because it had to have been started by something all the while believing that God wasn't created or started from something. Sorry if that is confusing.

Besides the whole idea of us being in the world to chose whether to believe in God or not. The Christian view of "what's the point of this" is that we are to strive to imitate Christ. Obviously Christians have and still really miss the mark when it comes to this. If you study the Gospels or the New Testament in whole, it's blatant that we are supposed to love everyone. The crazy extremists who hate on homosexuals, the crusades, or even your basic Christian who can be self-righteous dicks got it all wrong.

[Rob]

As a general sentiment I agree with your POV Azevedo, but don't you think you're being a bit belligerent/combative about it? Calling faith "mere dogma" is wrong both in that it's not an agreed-upon pillar of life and thus not dogma, and as an essential part of life since the dawn of mankind makes it not really "mere" either.

[BeetleBailey]

Azedodo, even you have faith dude. You have faith that there is no God. Just as I can't come up with concrete facts on there being a God, you don't have any to prove there isn't one.

[Rob]

That doesn't seem terribly rational or logical to me at all; that the most rational explanation for a complex universe and personal perceptions of beauty is..."uhhh....god did it"? Forgive me, but from my armchair philosopher seat, that seems a terribly simplistic copout of an answer. I should also probably say at this point that I've intended none of this as an attack on you, just my response to something that strikes me as a tad....illogical.

But saying that order came from non-existence without a designer yet giving no explanation for how that happened seems like an illogical, copout position. Or even when you look at the Big Bang theory it is illogical to think that nothing started that up and going.
I disagree, fully and wholly. I don't suggest that I have an explanation for everything, I'm content to let it be and wait for persons smarter than myself to work out the details. I don't choose to sub in an answer (deity) with no justification or explanation suggesting thereto.



Although I do believe there's been a God forever and He's just been around, I feel that my argument is pretty weak when I tell someone that the Big Bang must be from God because it had to have been started by something all the while believing that God wasn't created or started from something. Sorry if that is confusing.
The "first cause" argument has baffled theologans since time immemorial, so don't feel alone in any potential confusion there....


The Christian view of "what's the point of this" is that we are to strive to imitate Christ. Obviously Christians have and still really miss the mark when it comes to this. If you study the Gospels or the New Testament in whole, it's blatant that we are supposed to love everyone. The crazy extremists who hate on homosexuals, the crusades, or even your basic Christian who can be self-righteous dicks got it all wrong.
Indeed. This, I agree with fully.

[Azevedo]

That doesn't seem terribly rational or logical to me at all; that the most rational explanation for a complex universe and personal perceptions of beauty is..."uhhh....god did it"? Forgive me, but from my armchair philosopher seat, that seems a terribly simplistic copout of an answer. I should also probably say at this point that I've intended none of this as an attack on you, just my response to something that strikes me as a tad....illogical.

But saying that order came from non-existence without a designer yet giving no explanation for how that happened seems like an illogical, copout position. Or even when you look at the Big Bang theory it is illogical to think that nothing started that up and going.



A lack of evidence for coming out of 'non-existence' is not evidence for God/Intelligent Design.


As a general sentiment I agree with your POV Azevedo, but don't you think you're being a bit belligerent/combative about it? Calling faith "mere dogma" is wrong both in that it's not an agreed-upon pillar of life and thus not dogma, and as an essential part of life since the dawn of mankind makes it not really "mere" either.

Faith is dogma. It is belief without rationalization, without cause. I'm not arguing that there is not an important historical aspect to religion nor am I being incessantly belligerent: I am just pointing it out for what it is. Whether or not certain ideas in religion have merit is best left decided by to a case-by-case decision. The problem with most Judeo-Christian (more specifically Yahweh God values) is that either you do this or you get punished without justification just like in believing without justification.


Azedodo, even you have faith dude. You have faith that there is no God. Just as I can't come up with concrete facts on there being a God, you don't have any to prove there isn't one.

I do not believe in God since there is no evidence for it. I don't have the burden of proof, it lies with the believers. How is this faith?

[Rob]

I do not believe in God since there is no evidence for it. I don't have the burden of proof, it lies with the believers. How is this faith?
That, I think, succinctly and concisely summarizes our entire point of view. +Reps.

[Mr. Burns]

The nature of 'faith' is keeping your eyes shut to the real world and screaming 'LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'. It is merely believing for the sake of believing. If there is no rational basis (such as evidence) for a belief there is no merit and justification for that belief. Faith is mere dogma.Anyone who tries to tell you faith is rational doesn't understand faith. Faith is believing in the absence of evidence. That doesn't make it wrong to believe, no matter how WTF STUPID you think it is. Also, which definition of dogma are you talking about?


I'm not included since I'm an Atheist and your conclusion about religion is an illogical jump.

Religion has nothing to do with hope; it is a mere form of control and indoctrination to get people to do what they want since most of religion has no rational merit. 'Don't do this or you will burn in hell'. If you get people to believe that everything eventually works out in the end, it's a lot easier to control them and keep them docile during their 'first life'. Religion has nothing to do with just law either. It is only a staple of law since religion is the opium of the masses and the majority gets to establish the rule of law. Whether those laws set down are just or not has really nothing to do with anything that you said. If religion was really all about what you said it would not be such a huge participant in genocide and war since the beginning of civilization.I'll address the last sentence first. People have used religion as a tool just like everything else. That includes manipulating people to get more money/power/concubines/etc. So being the given reason for a war or genocide or whatever doesn't make religion the actual cause. I'm sure you know that but I just wanted to make that clear.

As for whether it's the opiate of the masses, you can choose to see it that way. A lot of the time I see science and logic as the opiate of the masses who need to feel superior to other people because they know more than all those other idiots. That doesn't eliminate its validity to fulfill a role for humankind or an individual.

As for all this burden of proof talk, let's all just take a step back and realize how silly that is. If you need something absolutely proven to you before you'll believe it then you'll never be able to find peace in something as anti-rational as belief in God. We already know that, so why are we arguing? Other people don't have to have a scholarly paper proving God exists to believe there is something in control out there in the cosmos.

What I don't understand is how pissed some people get at religion (and at the very idea of God or gods) in this day and age. It's something that gives a lot of people hope, companionship, and purpose when they may not otherwise have it. We're supposed to believe that's a bad thing?

[Puddle]

What I don't understand is how pissed some people get at religion (and at the very idea of God or gods) in this day and age. It's something that gives a lot of people hope, companionship, and purpose when they may not otherwise have it. We're supposed to believe that's a bad thing?

I know a person who's life is much more fulfilling since he became a mormon. A family a good job and some dedication. Compared to his later self. A drug addicted alcoholic thief. Grasping faith probably kept him out of jail. I get the speach from his alcoholic father(Who is my friend.) about the pressure he puts on him. I simply stated that his son needed something to ground him in his life. And for him it was the right choice.

Faith depends on where you area nd what you lack.
Proof depends on how we can acheive the knowledge to prove it within our technological level.

[Azevedo]

A lot of the time I see science and logic as the opiate of the masses who need to feel superior to other people because they know more than all those other idiots.

I don't see knowledge as an opiate in any way. There is a difference between knowing things about a subject and remaining humble and then having to deal with people who don't have a clue trying to tell you how things "really" are.


That doesn't eliminate its validity to fulfill a role for humankind or an individual.

If the idea in itself is not *valid*, i.e., the belief that the flying spaghetti monster in the sky will take care of everything, everything that stems from that is solely derived from a false sense of comfort. It's the same end by different means.


As for all this burden of proof talk, let's all just take a step back and realize how silly that is. If you need something absolutely proven to you before you'll believe it then you'll never be able to find peace in something as anti-rational as belief in God. We already know that, so why are we arguing?

We can't have an argument if you wish to throw burden of proof out of the window and thusly all logical sentiment. If I am asserting that you are surrounded by rotating tea pots, you feel that me having to prove this before you believe it to be silly? :orly: Why does God get the wonderful exception you have made for it and not my teapots? There's a big disconnect going on here.


Other people don't have to have a scholarly paper proving God exists to believe there is something in control out there in the cosmos.

Having a piece of paper proves nothing. An argument is no more correct if it is coming from someone with a Ph.D. from Cornell or a man sitting on a computer talking to you through a bunch of tubes. Only the argument matters.

[Mr. Burns]

I don't see knowledge as an opiate in any way. There is a difference between knowing things about a subject and remaining humble and then having to deal with people who don't have a clue trying to tell you how things "really" are.

If the idea in itself is not *valid*, i.e., the belief that the flying spaghetti monster in the sky will take care of everything, everything that stems from that is solely derived from a false sense of comfort. It's the same end by different means.

We can't have an argument if you wish to throw burden of proof out of the window and thusly all logical sentiment. If I am asserting that you are surrounded by rotating tea pots, you feel that me having to prove this before you believe it to be silly? :orly: Why does God get the wonderful exception you have made for it and not my teapots? There's a big disconnect going on here.

Having a piece of paper proves nothing. An argument is no more correct if it is coming from someone with a Ph.D. from Cornell or a man sitting on a computer talking to you through a bunch of tubes. Only the argument matters.
Here's what I've been saying all along: faith is irrational and therefore all the burden of proof talk doesn't apply. Faith isn't about proof. It starts with a postulate, not a fact. Therefore your arguments saying, "Show me the proof!" will never be fulfilled because there isn't any proof. That this doesn't satisfy you is fine with me - I'm not here to force anything on anyone. I just find greater comfort believing that there is something in this universe greater than I. I find purpose in following some beliefs that have not only stood the test of time but pretty generally provide very decent ways to treat your fellow human beings. I find community in sharing my time and my thoughts with others who subscribe to the same set of beliefs and values.

I'm not generally a person to say the ends justify the means, but in this case all the ends are positive and the means aren't really that far a stretch of the imagination. So for me in this area, the ends (the positives I see in my life) justify the means (believing in God).

[Azevedo]

Here's what I've been saying all along: faith is irrational and therefore all the burden of proof talk doesn't apply. Faith isn't about proof. It starts with a postulate, not a fact. Therefore your arguments saying, "Show me the proof!" will never be fulfilled because there isn't any proof. That this doesn't satisfy you is fine with me - I'm not here to force anything on anyone. I just find greater comfort believing that there is something in this universe greater than I. I find purpose in following some beliefs that have not only stood the test of time but pretty generally provide very decent ways to treat your fellow human beings. I find community in sharing my time and my thoughts with others who subscribe to the same set of beliefs and values.

I'm not generally a person to say the ends justify the means, but in this case all the ends are positive and the means aren't really that far a stretch of the imagination. So for me in this area, the ends (the positives I see in my life) justify the means (believing in God).

Your belief is based on needing comfort, not on the actual existence (or non-existence) of God. You're playing Pascal's Wager and nothing more.

[Mr. Burns]

Your belief is based on needing comfort, not on the actual existence (or non-existence) of God. You're playing Pascal's Wager and nothing more.
You could have just quoted me without further comment and said the same thing.

[Puddle]

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to the use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism. [1]

Thank god for wikipedia

[BeetleBailey]

While I agree that living as though God exists makes for a good life and has the potential to gain (heaven). I wouldn't say that there is nothing to lose. If you follow God and believe the bible is his word then you've got to follow his commands. If I wasn't sure God existed then I sure as hell wouldn't be waiting for sex till marriage and I'd definitely steal because then I could be a pirate. :maxey:

[Puddle]

. If you follow God and believe the bible is his word then you've got to follow his commands.

Surah 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in Religion.” This would be a rational position if practiced as a standard, however Muslims disallow the Bible (as well as other books of religion) in their countries and do not give people a choice. They do not want to engage in dialogue or allow freedom of choice when they are in control. To present the Bibles Gospel is tantamount to aggression, so one is labeled an infidel, and the use of force can be used to restrain him. The rest of this verse says “Truth stands out Clear from Error: whoever Rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped, the most trustworthy Hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth And knoweth all things.” This verse seems to imply that those who embrace Islam willingly are accepted.

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.” This friendship makes any Muslim a enemy of their own and deserving of the same fate as the unbeliever. This is because God does not guide an unjust people.

A matter of interpretation?

Let me ask you this question.
Is the bible or any religious text the actual word of god since it has been written and passed down through the ages by men?

[Mr. Burns]

A matter of interpretation?

Let me ask you this question.
Is the bible or any religious text the actual word of god since it has been written and passed down through the ages by men?
If you believe it's the word of God, then you believe it is. If you believe it's a bunch of hogwash then you don't. That's a similar belief taken on faith.

As for the accuracy of the words we have today, there have been no texts as faithfully copied and distributed as the books of the Bible. There are lots and lots of manuscripts available to us today which all vouch for each other, so we have a lot of evidence that the books we are using today are the same as the ones written way back then. The Torah was extremely strictly controlled by the Hebrews. The scholars would say each page as a prayer as they wrote it, and if the page was not perfect when it was completed they would scrap it and start over again. So we have a lot of faith that those books are the same as the ones used a couple thousand years ago as well.

Any sort of religion too me is just another tool made by man for power.

[Puddle]

Any sort of religion too me is just another tool made by man for power.

SHE'S GIT THE POWA!

[Azevedo]

So we have a lot of faith that those books are the same as the ones used a couple thousand years ago as well.

This is impossible given the amount of languages it has been translated to and from. Try to watch a video of the late Dr. Gene Scott; that guy can babble on for an hour over a simple sentence in the bible in how its meaning can be changed completely from the translation of one language to another.

[Cheeto]

Props to puddle for defusing the thread before Burns and Azvedo kill each other.

[Azevedo]

Props to puddle for defusing the thread before Burns and Azvedo kill each other.

Every time I start to post in this thread I have to edit out me sounding like Bill Cosby crossed with a Murloc.

[Puddle]

So we have a lot of faith that those books are the same as the ones used a couple thousand years ago as well.

This is impossible given the amount of languages it has been translated to and from. Try to watch a video of the late Dr. Gene Scott; that guy can babble on for an hour over a simple sentence in the bible in how its meaning can be changed completely from the translation of one language to another.

Yes that is a great point! The major problem is the meanings can be twisted to somones interpritation. We've all seen what cults can do to people. Faith is an interesting tool for manipulating people to follow you. Then do somthing that others would see as crazy, wrong or plain evil.

Props to puddle for defusing the thread before Burns and Azvedo kill each other.

I couldn't resist!

[Mr. Burns]

This is impossible given the amount of languages it has been translated to and from. Try to watch a video of the late Dr. Gene Scott; that guy can babble on for an hour over a simple sentence in the bible in how its meaning can be changed completely from the translation of one language to another.
Not when you're translating from the original manuscripts and you use multiple translations. Even one good translation with some notes can tell the reader the intricacies of the words in the original language and how it correlates with the translation made. How deep do you want to get into Bible translation? There's a lot there.
Props to puddle for defusing the thread before Burns and Azvedo kill each other.Have I come off that strongly? I've just been trying to explain my position and make it clear that everyone is welcome to their opinion.

[Azevedo]

Not when you're translating from the original manuscripts and you use multiple translations. Even one good translation with some notes can tell the reader the intricacies of the words in the original language and how it correlates with the translation made. How deep do you want to get into Bible translation? There's a lot there

You've already pointed out the problem I am getting at; multiple translations. There are no set of rules laid down for which translation is more correct than another which is why there are so many splinter groups. Again this is a problem with faith and the dogma it causes; taking things blindly at face value without rhyme or reason. When determining whether or not something out of the Bible is 'Good' or not, one does not turn to the Bible to decide (unless they are exceedingly blind). They usually turn to reason, oddly enough.

[Mr. Burns]

You've already pointed out the problem I am getting at; multiple translations. There are no set of rules laid down for which translation is more correct than another which is why there are so many splinter groups. Again this is a problem with faith and the dogma it causes; taking things blindly at face value without rhyme or reason. When determining whether or not something out of the Bible is 'Good' or not, one does not turn to the Bible to decide (unless they are exceedingly blind). They usually turn to reason, oddly enough.
The prevailing heuristic in many churches today is to read multiple translations in their own language or to read the Bible along with commentaries by scholars (which are really fascinating if you like languages). Any church who says only one translation is valid really is trying to stifle learning and independent thought and is guilty of a lot of things people accuse religion of in this thread. A church who wants its congregation to actively pursue learning will want them to use as many sources as they can when they study.

[Azevedo]

You've already pointed out the problem I am getting at; multiple translations. There are no set of rules laid down for which translation is more correct than another which is why there are so many splinter groups. Again this is a problem with faith and the dogma it causes; taking things blindly at face value without rhyme or reason. When determining whether or not something out of the Bible is 'Good' or not, one does not turn to the Bible to decide (unless they are exceedingly blind). They usually turn to reason, oddly enough.
The prevailing heuristic in many churches today is to read multiple translations in their own language or to read the Bible along with commentaries by scholars (which are really fascinating if you like languages). Any church who says only one translation is valid really is trying to stifle learning and independent thought and is guilty of a lot of things people accuse religion of in this thread. A church who wants its congregation to actively pursue learning will want them to use as many sources as they can when they study.

I agree. The problem still remains in deciding which translation is 'more correct' than the other. What is measured as Good or Bad does not come from the Bible, but something else.

[Mr. Burns]

You've already pointed out the problem I am getting at; multiple translations. There are no set of rules laid down for which translation is more correct than another which is why there are so many splinter groups. Again this is a problem with faith and the dogma it causes; taking things blindly at face value without rhyme or reason. When determining whether or not something out of the Bible is 'Good' or not, one does not turn to the Bible to decide (unless they are exceedingly blind). They usually turn to reason, oddly enough.
The prevailing heuristic in many churches today is to read multiple translations in their own language or to read the Bible along with commentaries by scholars (which are really fascinating if you like languages). Any church who says only one translation is valid really is trying to stifle learning and independent thought and is guilty of a lot of things people accuse religion of in this thread. A church who wants its congregation to actively pursue learning will want them to use as many sources as they can when they study.

I agree. The problem still remains in deciding which translation is 'more correct' than the other. What is measured as Good or Bad does not come from the Bible, but something else.
I don't understand what you're saying. Jesus has said the two most important commandments are:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength
2. Love your neighbor as yourself
And that the whole sum of the law is encompassed by these commands. So what do you mean good and bad aren't defined in the Bible?

[Azevedo]

I don't understand what you're saying. Jesus has said the two most important commandments are:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength
2. Love your neighbor as yourself
And that the whole sum of the law is encompassed by these commands. So what do you mean good and bad aren't defined in the Bible?

I am saying that what makes something good and just is not the source it comes from, it is the intrinsic value of the teaching itself which is not measured from the source. Having the Bible say that treating others is good is no more valuable than it saying that cold-blooded murder is hunky dory just because it is the Bible.

[Mr. Burns]

I am saying that what makes something good and just is not the source it comes from, it is the intrinsic value of the teaching itself which is not measured from the source. Having the Bible say that treating others is good is no more valuable than it saying that cold-blooded murder is hunky dory just because it is the Bible.
Since we're talking moral relativism, how is the intrinsic value measured?

[Azevedo]

I am saying that what makes something good and just is not the source it comes from, it is the intrinsic value of the teaching itself which is not measured from the source. Having the Bible say that treating others is good is no more valuable than it saying that cold-blooded murder is hunky dory just because it is the Bible.
Since we're talking moral relativism, how is the intrinsic value measured?

Reasoning which leads to ---> Social Contract, the only tie between two different stems of consciousness.

[Bismarck]

It has been my feeling for some time that any person living a spiritual life knows that truly, it is irrelevant whether or not God exists. By living a truly spiritual life free from prejudice and dogmatic hatred, the fruits are self-evident - the cultivation of a compassionate and peaceful mind, one with the discipline and insight to conquer life's many challenges.

Whether you find that path through the love of Christ and his message, or the Dharma as laid down by Buddha, or by contemplation of the unity of Allah, the end goal is the same. The Bible is a guide, and when read with a truly open heart you find it acts like a mirror - reflecting only what you bring to it. It is in this way that the Bible, like the Dhammapada, the Qu'ran, the Tao Te Ching, finds it's true worth, one which is transcendent about questions of proof, or even of contradictions in the text.

Faith is said to be irrational because it is concerned with an irrational world, that of the human heart and mind. Religion and spirituality are exercises in subjectivity, and looking at it with a scientific eye will leave one lacking because there is no meat for the rational to find sustenance in, save the historical and sociological trivia concerned with the given text. The flesh and bones of religion are nothing but a dust cover for the truth within which can only be found through personal introspection and insight.

[Cheeto]

http://cheeto.qnan.org/images/Bismarck_pickelhaube.jpg
We need a Bismarck smiley. http://cheeto.qnan.org/images/bis.gif

[Azevedo]

The Bible is a guide, and when read with a truly open heart you find it acts like a mirror - reflecting only what you bring to it. It is in this way that the Bible, like the Dhammapada, the Qu'ran, the Tao Te Ching, finds it's true worth, one which is transcendent about questions of proof, or even of contradictions in the text.


Nice post but there is nothing 'transcendent' about questions of proof or contradictions. If everything in religion (or the gist of what you have said regarding other beliefs) was self-evident and transcendent, no questions would be raised nor contradictions be touted given the 'self-evident' nature of the systems you are describing. The only thing self-evident is what you pick and choose from the religion, which as you say can act like a mirror-the problem is that anyone can essentially play Bible Baseball (or with any other text) to find something to suit their own needs. Its still not a matter of transcendence or 'something more' with religion, but of interpersonal philosophy inlaiden and meshing with desires. If it was not about that, there would be no problems between multiple religions that can somehow 'transcend' proof and contradiction.

[Bismarck]

What I am saying is that religion is an inherently personal thing. Like I said, what you get out of it depends largely on what you bring to it. It's absurd to talk about "proof" or contradictions in the text and the like in the context of a personal relationship with God because so often, the crux of belief comes from within, not without.

Organized religion is a cultural framework and exchange of ideas about God that have become popular. Some may think that, in light of what else I'm saying, that means organized religion and the very concept of religious doctrine is obsolete or even absurd. But I'd say that is not at all the case. In Hinduism, there is a path to salvation known as Bhakti Yoga in which sheer devotion to God brings enlightenment, and it's easy to see why. Anyone who's ever held devotion to a given set of religious doctrines can understand that that devotion can be an intensely spiritual experience.

One of my favorite authors is Huston Smith, who in his writings refers to religions as "wisdom traditions." I very much like this perspective on religion, not just a code of living or spiritual worldview, but a conglomeration of spiritual truths which are intended to be reflected on as part of a journey of personal growth.

[Stellar]

Well, I am not opposed to religion. Honestly, I can buy into that sense of community and doing good onto each other. i just really hate going to mass. I go to a Catholic Church (well used to) and it's serioulsy some lazy-half-ass bullshit sermon with about 45 minutes of singing/crap music. I don't want to go to a Church to listen to crap songs and organ solos.


I wouldnt' say I believe in "God". I just have a feeling. I have to believe there's a reason for the way things happen. I have a hard time believing that things just happened by chance.

[TylerDurden]

did everything i write in this thread utterly offend everyone, or what ?

ppffftt >:(