Religion, or the lack thereof [Archive]

Darth Marsden

06-03-2007, 01:04 PM

I've had a busy weekend. First we headed up to Leicester for the renewal of wedding vows of some family friends, then by a return journey back home to see my niece's first communion. Two different but important events, and at both of them, I very much felt out of place. I know exactly why as well - religion.

I'm a Christian. Church of England, to be prisice. But the thing is, I'm not a very GOOD Christian. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus and I believe in science. This leads to a few conflicts which I've been thinking about over the past few weeks - what happens when we die, etc. To be honest, I want to believe I'll go to Heaven, but I know that there's nothing. No life after death, no eternal paradise, nothing. That's it. End game.

So I'm having a very minor crisis of faith here, and we go to some very moving renewal of vows. Very touching - we've know the family ever since we were young and we do still visit back and forth a couple of times a year - but there was a fair mention of God. And I felt totally out of place singing hyms about His/Her love for us, and how the third person in a relationship is God. It feels wrong, because I don't know if I believe that.

The next day we're at the first communion of my niece. Very sweet, very touching, la de da. Same problem though - we're singing songs about how the Lord God loves us all, praying for His/Her forgiveness, giving thanks to Him/Her. And I feel horrible singing along to this because I don't believe this at all. A part of me accepts that there could well be a great being watching over us, but that for the most part, what people do in the name of their faith is way too much.

Then the kicker. The Act of Faith. It reads, and I quote from the booklets they gave us - 'We believe God made us. We believe Jesus died and rose to save us. We believe the Spirit gives us life. This is our faith. This is the faith of the church. We are proud to profess it, in Christ Jesus our lord. Amen.'

And I don't believe this at all. God made us? We were made by a sperm and an egg. Our very existence at all is due to evolution, not because some cosmic being rolled up his sleeves and said 'Right, I want someone to worship me. Let's call them... Human Beings.' It's rubbish.

I accept that other people may believe this. I'm not denying them that - it's their right to believe whatever they want to. But hearing things like this constantly for over an hour makes you wonder who came up with stuff like this. Why did they do it? What was the point?

...so don't mind me. Just a little worried that I won't go to Heaven - if indeed it exists - because I don't pray to Jesus every night before bed, or want to be blessed in Church. Eep.

ShadowTiger

06-03-2007, 01:36 PM

To be honest, I want to believe I'll go to Heaven, but I know that there's nothing. No life after death, no eternal paradise, nothing. That's it. End game.(Key Word bolded and underlined.) Do we? How do we know? I don't really want to get all religious-zealot here, nor do I want to assume, or really get in deep down with the topic of faith. It's just that we don't know if God exists or not. We don't even know if God will ever be within our technological capabilities to be unearthed. Whereas the ancient people of the past thought that the stars were fixed in their positions in the sky, these days we know better. Much, much better, and about much, much more. Maybe we'll happen to find God one day. Or, maybe God is just a made up story to keep people in line that descended from the cavemans' beliefs in the world based on having nothing else. (Read Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M. Auel for an example.)

Then there's the theory that God is just testing us all, and won't come out to any given person even if they want proof that he exists so people can actually worship him rather than wonder if he exists. Even with such a virtuous act in their hearts, it's still not worthy of being shown to. I'm in that boat, really.

AtmaWeapon

06-03-2007, 01:58 PM

Actually the conflict and its resolution are much more simplified than your post implies.

I believe in God, I believe in Jesus and I believe in science. [...]This paragraph is fine and in my opinion normal; I think many Christians today struggle between science and faith and, without derailing into a ridiculously detailed discussion of my beliefs I further believe the only accurate resolution is to rely on Biblical principles for matters of ethics and morality and leave science to creation, origin of man, etc. where it has solid evidence.

Now here is where your conflict really lies:
I felt totally out of place singing hyms about His/Her love for us, and how the third person in a relationship is God. It feels wrong, because I don't know if I believe that.

A part of me accepts that there could well be a great being watching over us, but that for the most part, what people do in the name of their faith is way too much.
These two statements contradict the first. Fundamental to being a Christian (even a BAD Christian) is the basic belief in God and Jesus. God's position and purpose in life to the believer is well defined in Biblical texts, and failure to accept this notion means your system of belief is something that is not technically Christian.

It's not bad that you struggle with your faith; in my opinion the only way to know you believe the right thing is to struggle with it and attack your own beliefs to see if you can come up with a valid defense. It seems to me, though, that the source of your discomfort is revealed in this statement:
Just a little worried that I won't go to Heaven - if indeed it exists - because I don't pray to Jesus every night before bed, or want to be blessed in Church. Eep.Which, at least by my doctrine, shows a failure to understand Jesus' message. Belief that He atoned for your sins and the desires to live a sinless life and have repentance for the sins you do commit are all that are required. Prayer is good, church attendance promotes spiritual growth, but Jesus warned against placing more emphasis on the ritual than the worship.

So really the solution is to do some inner searching. Granted, how you go about it can influence the outcome as if you consult evangelical atheists they will be sure to help weaken your Christian position but an evangelical Christian would be more likely to help strengthen your Christian position.

Decide for yourself if you truly believe there is nothing after death. If so, then ask yourself if the conflict between this belief and Christian principles is so great that you cannot continue to call yourself a believer. If so, then you must make yourself comfortable with becoming more of a secular person. I could provide several personal opinions on this struggle, but my personal advice would be quite biased so I feel it would be more appropriate to give it if specifically asked rather than starting this thread down the path we all know it will tread.

Beldaran

06-03-2007, 02:23 PM

Mitsukara

06-03-2007, 03:46 PM

Well, I've been rambling on this subject quite a bit lately, but what the hay.

My parents are, of course, Christian, and right up until the age of 12 I believed everything they told me. But then, of course, I experienced some changes, and realized some things about who I am and who I want to be, that came into direct conflict with it. Christianity != Transsexuality being okay (although to get technical the bible says nothing about it). At first, I just hoped that maybe if I was good and kind, God would love me for who I was- although that already contradicted what my parents had been telling me (they don't think good acts and behavior are enough, see).

But the more I saw of the world, the less I was satisfied with that compromise. It culminated in the death of someone I loved, which reminded me all too bluntly how unsure I was (and am) about not only those beliefs, but whether any afterlife exists.

I've come to the conclusion that, to be perfectly honest: I don't know. I don't know if god exists, I don't know if some other religion is correct, I don't know if the afterlife exists, I don't even know if "magic" exists. I don't know if ghosts exist, I don't know if souls exist. I don't know what consciousness really is or what makes me me. Technically I don't know if anyone else has a sense of perspective like I do, though I feel fairly confident that at least that's the case.

So I just try to go with what's in my heart and mind to live life. I try to look at everything hypothetically, because if you want to get really elaborate, I don't know that anything I perceive is being seen correctly. But to function rationally I just have to guess based on what I think I see. I use logic as well as I can and go with what my feelings say, except for one "moral" I try to hold myself to. I could try to word it myself, but it was worded ingeniously for me many centuries ago: "And ye harm none, do what ye will". If I think anything I do or see might hurt somebody, I'm very, very careful about it, and try to find the least hurtful way, or at least the best compromise. Going on this same reasoning I try not to let my anger lose on anybody TOO strongly unless I think it will accomplish something, so typically I just wind up venting and ranting to myself or an empty/mostly empty chatroom or somesuch.

However, if I think I can help someone in some way, without screwing things up, and that such help is wanted or needed, I try to do my best with that, also.

I am an agnostic. I do not know anything for absolute certain one way or another, so I just try to live my life as myself in the most harmless way I can. I try to enjoy life, experience what it has to offer; I love certain people and enjoy certain things, and I have an identity which is very important to me. I also try to add something to it for other people, when I can. I hope that there is an afterlife, because I think it would be pretty awful for everyone to ultimately lose their lives and everything they ever did and were to just be gone forever eventually, but I don't really know if there is one or not. I hope so.

rock_nog

06-03-2007, 03:53 PM

Why Belderan, you speak as if those things aren't real. You know, I've always wondered why you hate religion so much. I mean, granted, it can be twisted to cause horrible things, but it can also help people get through life. I just don't see why it matters whether what people believe in is real. I mean, if it's real to you, does it matter?

I mean, I used to believe in UFOs, and now I don't. However, I don't see what the harm was in my believing. I mean, in the end, it really didn't make a difference. It's not like I would've been a better person or anything for never having believed in UFOs. I just figure, as long as you're not using your beliefs to justify actions, then there isn't a problem, right? And I'm sorry, this whole darn post is off-topic.

AtmaWeapon

06-03-2007, 04:07 PM

You are correct in your doubt. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the notion that a magical being controls everything. It is impossible to know what happens after death, but the most plausible scenario is that we simply cease to exist.

People who believe in god are no different than tribal mystics who believe in voodoo, or medieval serfs who believe in wizards and witches, or the Greeks who believed in Apollo or Zues. It's just different flavors of the same delusional fantasy.This is what I had in mind when I mentioned "don't ask an evangelical athiest". I was waiting on this cutie pie to post and what do you know his troll was clockwork.

You can be open-minded and decide for yourself what you think is right in this universe or you can be "open-minded" and "rational" and continuously attack points of view that challenge your own by dismissing them because they have no proof, when one of the first things I learned in logic classes was that issues of faith are not debatable as faith is placed on things in situations where logic provides no explanation. Those pesky Christians are always bothering the open-minded and forcing their beliefs upon people who weren't really interested in hearing them in the first place, Beldaran is a good example of one of those evangelical Christ-- oh wait.

Also a point of curiosity Beldaran: you made sure to not capitalize the word "god" but took great care to capitalize other mystical beings such as "Apollo" and "Zues" [sic] though you couldn't be bothered enough to spell Zeus properly. One should take care when expressing one's angst towards all things not athiest to provide equal disrespect to all belief systems, or possibly face unfair lack of discrimination lawsuits in courts eternal. Also I might suggest the cute substitute "g-d" that people seem fond of using that really sticks it to the big man up in the clouds! He gets so mad when people leave that letter out he has something like 12 more hurricane Katrinas planed over the next decade.

Beldaran

06-03-2007, 04:25 PM

I don't hate people who believe in god, just like I don't hate people who have AIDS. However, I do dislike AIDS and believe it is destructive and terrifying, just like I think irrational beliefs are destructive and terrifying (terryfing that people could be so stupid).

I purposely don't capitalize "god" to show my utter disdain for the concept of god. I don't have any disdain for the fictional character of Zeus because his followers are not currently destroying the world I live in.

If you want to be irrational and mentally backwards, that's your perogative. It's my perogative to speak out against things that are unsupported by scientific evidence that cause real harm to societies.

I hope people that believe in magic will come to see that humans can move past the need for that mental crutch and move on to bigger and better ways of seeing the universe.

As an example of the utter mental depravity of belief, consider that it took the Church until 1832 to remove Galileo's work from its list of books which Catholics were forbidden to read at the risk of dire punishment of their immortal souls.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. " - Carl Sagan

Pineconn

06-03-2007, 04:29 PM

Too many rhetorical questions alert!!

Religion is just... difficult to interpret and understand, IMO. No one will ever be able to comprehend it 100%, not even myself. But I particularly detest how people mandate the belief in God. For instance, the Boy Scout Law is...

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Reverent? What if I don't believe in God? I, too, am agnostic, for the record. What makes me a worse Scout if I don't believe in God than the other guy that does? Sometimes, religion is much more troublesome than it is worth. The Crusades? The Nazis? The Israeli-Pakistani conflict? All due to the hatred of another's religion. Additionally, the Church rejected the idea of a heliocentric solar system because it somehow defied Him. And who was right?

Which brings me to the point. If religion did not exist, would the world be in better shape?

[EDIT: Agh, Beldaran beat me to the church thing. A lousy two minutes.]

Aegix Drakan

06-03-2007, 04:43 PM

>_> Questioning and finding answers is pretty standard, actually. I consider myself a Christian (I can say the apostle's creed without any second thoughts/doubts) but...I don't really go by the book. In fact, some of the beliefs I have are a bit odd.

I know that there's nothing. No life after death, no eternal paradise, nothing. That's it. End game.

As ST so boldly pointed out (no pun intended), we DON'T know. We probably never will, because those who DO know are in no condition to tell us.

Our very existence at all is due to evolution, not because some cosmic being rolled up his sleeves and said 'Right, I want someone to worship me. Let's call them... Human Beings.' It's rubbish.

>_> I think you're taking it a little too literally. I don't think the Adam and Eve interpretation "works". Two humans CANNOT create an entire species. Plus, we'd all be related to each other and having kids with each...(actually...that explains a lot of stuf...)
*AHEM* In any case, Yeah, evolution is the only really good explanation. so how does God come in? A few little nudges here and there along the evolutionary process and voila. Here we are. Why? to create an intelligent race to...to do what, I have no idea. :shrug:

Just a little worried that I won't go to Heaven

>_> Name me a contemporary (rational) Christian who ISN'T worried about that. Worries me too (for other reasons). It sccres us because we have no bloddy idea aobut the next life. how do we know it's there? how do we know what it's like? how do we know we won't just end up in the underworld?

WE DON'T. Hence why we must find our own answers.

And plus, I don't think that you have to be a Catholic, or even religious at all to move on. I velieve it just depends on how you live your life. I think that anyone (even, let's say...people who believe the aliens made us) can find the next life, as long as they lived their lives well.

@ beldaran: Cease to exist? Meh, I don't think that. When a person dies, all the energy leaves their body.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Ergo, we continue to exist, but in a different state altogether.
*shurg* that's my take on it.

So I just try to go with what's in my heart and mind to live life....

If I think anything I do or see might hurt somebody, I'm very, very careful about it, and try to find the least hurtful way, or at least the best compromise.

I am an agnostic. I do not know anything for absolute certain one way or another, so I just try to live my life as myself in the most harmless way I can. I try to enjoy life, experience what it has to offer; I love certain people and enjoy certain things, and I have an identity which is very important to me. I also try to add something to it for other people, when I can.

...

>_> Uhh...does that make me an agnostican christian, or what? A lot of what you just said reminds me of how I function.

AtmaWeapon

06-03-2007, 06:55 PM

Beldaran the only appropriate response to your bandwagon is to ignore it because your beliefs themselves are somewhat irrational and the evidence you use is, ignoring tact, stupid.

You wave the Galileo flag at every opportunity but are we to believe that religion has not changed in the past two centuries? Dare you commit the fallacy of division and infer that since the Catholic church took a stance that it is indicative of the beliefs of every follower of every religion? Furthermore, your facts do not check out and since you cite no sources I can't cross-check to see if perhaps mine are wrong. After hearing you bring this up several times you motivated me to do some cursory research and I was pretty satisfied with what I found. Allow me to provide enlightenment:

Galileo was reburied on sacred ground at Santa Croce in 1737. He was formally rehabilitated in 1741, when Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of Galileo's complete scientific works (a censored edition had been published in 1718), and in 1758 the general prohibition against heliocentrism was removed from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.Oops you got your dates wrong by a century but a clever rebuttal would incidate that the mistake doesn't weaken your point because the church's decision still came a century after Galileo's death. But wait!

Modern science considers Galileo's views on heliocentricity to be no fundamental advance; most of his discoveries were only further advances of Copernicus' views. The heliocentric model that Galileo presented was no better at predicting planetary positions than the Tychonic system model, the main competing theory at the time. Stellar parallax, the first evidence from outside the solar system that the Earth does indeed move, would not be observed until 1838 (Consolmagno 150–152).So, at the time, there was no compelling scientific evidence to show that Galileo was more right than any of the current accepted models. In fact, the first proof that Galileo was correct came nearly a century after the Catholic church accepted Galileo's teachings.

Unless you can cite a more scholarly source than Wikipedia (which honestly doesn't take much) that disagrees with these statements, I do believe you just lost your favorite example.

In short, the Galileo example you use is wrong on two counts: The dates and facts you use do not agree with the facts I have found. The actions of the Catholic church centuries ago do not provide reasonable insight into the actions of religious people as a whole today.

I hope that in the future when you are seeking evidence to indicate the total backwards behavior of religion you are careful to make sure you are correct and not just seeing what you want to see. I understand you think blind faith in religion is irrational but realize you are exhibiting characteristics of blind faith yourself: you read a fact in a book somewhere and took it as truth without seeking evidence yourself. I am reminded of something Carl Sagan said once:

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.The wrong kind of belief in science's ability to explain the unknown can be just as dangerous as the wrong kind of belief in religion.

I cannot understand why you have never acknowledged the crucial argument I make. The basis of my conclusion is this: Belief in science can become a religion itself. Science provides no answers for some questions. The best scientific thought is sometimes wrong and this is only discovered much later.My first conclusion is that blind faith in science is foolish. This conclusion leads me to the ultimate conclusion: unquestioning faith in anything is the most dangerous form of fanaticism.

I strongly believe you believe in atheism a little bit too much to be as rational as you believe you are.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pineconn I believe if you thought a bit about the word "reverent" the Scout Laws would make a bit more sense to you.

feeling, exhibiting, or characterized by reverence; deeply respectfulThat particular portion of the Scout Law does not necessarily indicate respect towards a diety but that at all times a Scout should be respectful to all beings.

The Boy Scouts in general are actually a very fine example of a religion-neutral organization in my opinion. I did a little bit of research to cover myself and I find that the BSA is disturbingly against (http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp) how I have always interpreted the spirit of scouting. The requirements for a scout are actually trivial for an athiest or agnostic to accomplish; in most cases you can replace "God" with "your ethical beliefs" and it fits perfectly well. I have a particular problem with the First Class requirement "lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals" but honestly I had never heard of it. In my troop we ignored that requirement even though the bulk of the members were devout Mormons.

The "duty to God" part of the Scout Law is also being misinterpreted in the cases of those who oppose them. The portion as I remember (Tenderfoot requirement, right?) goes (with emphasis added):
On my honor,
I will do my best
To do my duty
To my god and my country
...
For the athiest/agnostic, god may simply be a code of ethics, but there is no one that truly believes in nothing.

Beldaran

06-03-2007, 07:14 PM

If disagreeing with scientific thought helps you sleep better at night, then have at it.

I am correct. You believe in magic. End of story.

The_Amaster

06-03-2007, 07:43 PM

Well, I missed a lot because I was gone for a few hours, but the third agnostic is here to post. I almost always disagree with anyone who sees anything as black and white, or holds only one view, because everything has a deeper level. I believe that religion is good because it gives many people morals and guidelines to follow, and I believe that science is good because it helps us understand the world around us and make our lives better. Do I wholheartedly believe in one or the other? No. Do I see good and bad in both? Yes. Both sides are capable of being incredibly close minded. Beldaran, you say that religion causes harm to society. How? Do the majority of people who follow it behave differently in a negative way. By negative, I don't mean your whole "belief in faries idea", but in an actual, "harming the world around them" way.

AtmaWeapon

06-03-2007, 07:55 PM

If disagreeing with scientific thought helps you sleep better at night, then have at it.

I am correct. You believe in magic. End of story.If failing to use logic or even acknowledge my questions helps you sleep better at night, have at it.

I am enlightened. You refuse to question yourself and therefore cannot understand yourself or the world around you. };

Actually seriously, provide evidence that I believe in magic. I realize this is a situation where you have to guess the proper question to ask but seriously try me I think you will be surprised that I don't like very many supernatural concepts.

rock_nog

06-03-2007, 08:02 PM

If disagreeing with scientific thought helps you sleep better at night, then have at it.

I am correct. You believe in magic. End of story.
Okay, how does believing in magic contradict science? Maybe it's not scientific, but it's not against science. If I say you go to heaven when you die, it's not scientific because it can't be tested, but it's not anti-science. That in itself seems irrational, saying we can't speculate about what we can never know. Why not? It doesn't hurt anything. The business with Galileo was wrong because his work was verifiable. My problem is just that you treat science like it's a religion itself. If it can't be proven scientifically, it must necessarily not exist. From a pragmatic viewpoint, there's no point in worrying about things that can't be tested, but on the other hand, because it doesn't contradict science, it's harmless speculation.

I just feel it's only when religion blatantly contracts science that it's a problem, whereas you keep saying that even when it doesn't, it's still a problem. I just want to know how it's hurting anything. I'm very much a firm believer that so long as nobody is hurt, anyone should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want. And yes, I know religion has the potential to cause harm, but it's not a given.

Mitsukara

06-03-2007, 10:10 PM

>_> Uhh...does that make me an agnostican christian, or what? A lot of what you just said reminds me of how I function.
Well, you say you're not sure about the existence of the afterlife and follow a theoretical interpretation of the creation of humanity (rather than just saying "the book of genesis is 100% right and not metaphoric at all!"), so in that sense, you seem to be somewhat agnostic. On the other hand you believe in God and have certain tentative beliefs about things.

So "agnostican Christian" might be right. Another way of putting it, though, if my terminology correct, is that you might be more "spirtualistic" than "religious". The way I understand the two terms, religious means you stick to a certain set of rules and laws and stories and say they are 100% right and that you need to have faith in them, which typically (though not necessarily) goes hand in hand with what a lot of people don't like in Christianity today.

Spiritualism, on the other hand, is a bit more open and general. It means you believe there IS something, be it a/some god/ess/e/s, the tao, just something in general, or what have you. But it also tends to mean you don't assume you know much about it for certain, or that you MUST follow overly complicated, especially strict rules and views, and it almost never goes hand in hand with forcing your views on others. Basically, it is a relaxed sort of belief where you do believe or at least practice something, and try to respect what you think is right and follow a few morals or ideals, but are generally pretty open. As I understand it, wicca is almost always practiced this way. I have also seen certain christians who practice their belief in a similar manner (PrrKitty and Glenn being two pretty good examples of what I mean by this- I think).

I've yet to see any nasty behavior connected to spiritualism; none based on it and none justified using it. It's a very passive kind of belief system, and I rather like what I know of it. In fact, I kind of envy it ^^

Also, I try not to be evangelical or absolute about anything. I just tend to state my opinions and views a lot. Sorry if that comes off the wrong way at times >.>

ctrl-alt-delete

06-04-2007, 01:48 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615

:)

Mitsukara

06-04-2007, 01:51 AM

Your link saddens me. For a moment, I thought it was about agnosticism.

Apparently it's propeganda trying to claim atheism makes less sense than christianity/requires some kind of "blind faith" to believe in, in an attempt to convert/retrieve atheists. Glorified reverse psychology. Ugh.

Darth Marsden

06-04-2007, 03:47 AM

Wow, I kicked off a sensitive issue. Good thing?

The reason my initial post had a few contradictions is because I believe I'm at an awkward point at my life where I'm in between two points of view - the scientist and the believer. When I was young, I was taught to believe that God was good, He/She was the divine being and that we should never question His/Her love for us. I suspect a fair number of you were taught the same.

As I got older, I stopped being taught - we never really went to church, and so on, and I guess my parents wanted me to make my own mind up as to whether or not I wanted to take religion more seriously. In some ways they're to blame for how I feel, and in others I should thank them for not forcing a way of life on to me that I probably wouldn't have wanted, had I known what was going on.

Nowadays I sit and think about things like the bible and wonder 'Who wrote this?'. Because that's pretty much what the bible is, if you think about it. One guy, or girl, writing down their beliefs in a book which has become the foundation of an entire collective of faiths. But just because people believe it doesn't make it cold, hard fact. It could well be completely made up.

Science these days has come an awful long way and has disproved a number of ideas mentioned in the bible. And not only does science sound much more logical, it can offer proof. Religion can't. It can only offer stories about how a mystical being created us all, how we're all related if we go back to the very first man and woman, how a man died on the cross and was resurrected three days later, and so on.

But the thing is, science doesn't disprove everything. It can't tell us there is no immortal being watching over us. It can't tell us there is no afterlife. And so forth. Whether you believe in something or not is a matter of choice. And while I respect other people's choices, I don't know what to make of my own.

The point I was trying to make (I think) is that when I went to the wedding renewal and the communion, I personally disagreed with a lot of what was going on. It's like my mind is split in two on the issue. On the one hand, I almost felt revolted at some of the things they were saying - 'We believe God made us', 'His gentle hand he stretches over me', 'Lord you are the Saviour of the world', etc - because, to me, it's rubbish and I cannot believe that people would give their lives to believing it.

But on the other hand, I'm thinking 'Did I ever believe things like that?' And the truth is, I probably did, though not to such an appallingly heavy degree. Now of course I don't, and I'm really not sure where I am, but a part of me used to. And now the two parts are conflicting and I'm not really sure of where I am or what I really believe.

As I said, I really want to believe that there is an afterlife of some sort. That when I die, I'll go to a mystical place where all my loved ones are waiting for me and I can finally meet the grandfather who died before I ever knew him. I really want to believe that. But I don't think I can.

mikeron

06-04-2007, 04:05 AM

I am correct. You believe in magic. End of story.I saw this on The Simpsons, only it went a little differently:

Scientist 1 - "Why did you think a giant bubble would stop him?"
Scientist 2 - "Shut up, that's why!"

phattonez

06-04-2007, 11:33 AM

Darth Marsden

06-04-2007, 11:40 AM

So what, instead of God I'm supposed to believe in Beldaran? Great! I'm probably gonna become an atheist now. You've killed religion for me. I hope you're proud, you heathenistic bastard. ;)

Glitch

06-04-2007, 12:08 PM

Why spend your life trying to appease some mystical being?

You should wake up every morning having faith in yourself, not some god that you fear under the false pretense of a so called heaven.

moocow

06-04-2007, 01:42 PM

Sometimes having something to believe in makes life a little easier.

You don't have to believe in any religion, Beld. No one is making you. But it's unfair to tell people that they're wrong for doing so. You're really being no better than those pushy Christians who badger you to believe in what they believe.

I'm a woman of faith. I don't attend any church services, I don't read the Bible (but I do own one) and I very rarely pray. I believe in a higher power, what or who that is, I don't know. But I have reason to believe in such, and that's proof enough for me.

Beldaran

06-04-2007, 03:30 PM

I'm not asking anyone to believe in me or anything else. I'm saying they shouldn't believe in anything for which there is no evidence.

As magic believers, you are the ones who think you know the answers to these questions. I am pointing out that these answers are not known.

I am sorry you are all so intellectually small that you must believe in magical invisible friends to feel good about yourselves, but don't accuse me of the intellectual sins you yourselves are commiting.

I am completely correct on this issue because I am arguing that you cannot prove your position scientifically. Unless you can prove your assertion of a god scientifically, you must accept that you are wrong and that I am absolutely correct.

Also, you should all read "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. The books that support my position are written by renowned physicists. The books that support your position are written by ancient tribal nomads who believed the sun was controlled by magic, the earth was flat, and that the universe was a dome.

Grasshopper

06-04-2007, 04:33 PM

Darth, if you really want to know something, or if your worried, why not talk to someone who has more experience in that field? I don't think a forum with active members composed mostly of athiests or agnostics will help stengthen your faith in Christ, if that is indeed what you want. If I were you, talk to your pastor, youth pastor, or a friend that goes to your church. They could possibly help answer your questions better than someone on this forum.

rock_nog

06-04-2007, 04:43 PM

I'm not an atheist, I'm a Beldarist. Anyway, honestly, I'm not trying to prove that anything exists. My question was simply, if it can't be proven, and it can't be disproven, what does it matter? The scientists are no more correct than the theologans. Besides, come on, there is no absolute reality, only our perceptions. You, Beldaran, have too much faith that the world even exists. No one's proven it yet, and no one ever will.

Just saying, you contradict yourself by saying "I'm right because your position can't be proven scientifically." Yours can't, either. You can confirm the existence of gravity, or dinosaurs, or evolution, the Big Bang, etc., but what you can't do is show that there were no divine forces at work. Hell, it's all a matter of interpretation anyway, because I could turn around and say that the Big Bang was a divine force, as is gravity, and evolution, etc. Your concept of religion is FAR too narrow. Would it be wrong of me to start a religion devoted to things that can be scientifically proven?

lol Never mind. I just noticed your signature, you already do have a religious system based on science. I mean, that's all a religion is, is a system that shapes your perception of the world. I myself prefer to be open minded, so I try to avoid confining myself to any one belief system. For example, I recognize the value of science, but at the same time, science can't help me to be happy, or decide what I want to do with my life, or anything like that, and so I look to other more creative sources for guidance in those areas.

MottZilla

06-04-2007, 05:34 PM

Isn't it stupid to point out the fact that no one really knows what happens to someone when they die other than the phsyical facts we know of? No one knows if anything special happens to people when they die like "going to heaven". People that believe it can't prove it to be true, people that don't can't prove it's not true. Simple as that. I do agree you shouldn't believe things blindly, though mainly if someone else tells you it's true. If someone tells you they spoke with God, you shouldn't believe them, but you knew that didn't you? Mainly I don't like "Holy Books" that dictate what is right and wrong, and have ridiculus stories in them.

But haven't we had these topics 8 million times before?

Glenn the Great

06-04-2007, 05:53 PM

Prrkitty

06-04-2007, 07:21 PM

Darthy, having questions about religion/faith is how a person grows and develops and figures out what they believe and don’t believe. Having the questions and uncertainties that you are having is actually really very normal.

If you will stop and listen to those around you, during the singing of Hymns, I think you will find that not everyone does sing when others are. Same goes for reciting verses… etc. I’m sure there are many reasons why some don’t… sing… recite… etc. So if you don’t… I doubt anyone will think any less of you.

I believe that if you are uncomfortable doing something… don’t do it.
(hug)

If you can't be true to yourself how can you be expected to be true to anyone/anything else? <-- just a thought...

phattonez

06-04-2007, 07:46 PM

Aegix Drakan

06-04-2007, 08:21 PM

Unless you can prove your assertion of a god scientifically, you must accept that you are wrong and that I am absolutely correct.

uhh... ?_? And how does that make any logical sense?

Science can't DISPROVE God's existence any more than it CAN. Therefore, you are not absolutely correct.

Honestly Beldaran, you're beginning to sound like the very same closed-minded zealots you so despise...

ctrl-alt-delete

06-04-2007, 08:54 PM

Beldaran, unless you can prove your assertion of no god religiously, you must accept that you are wrong and that I am absolutely correct.

:)

Gotta love twisted logic.

Pineconn

06-04-2007, 09:13 PM

Don't doubt Beldaran, for He is never wrong. As a matter of fact, I'm going to start worshiping him... but he has to do something for me, like part the Red Sea for me (or was that Moses? :p).

***

Y'know, when I was in a hotel in Orlando a few weekends ago for Disney, we had Bibles in our rooms. I checked it out, and I was seriously thinking, "Why couldn't some guy have just written this a thousand years ago as a work of fiction?"

For all we know, if we would have found some Dr. Seuss book before the Bible, we could be worshiping Ziggalydots and Diggalyzots. ;)

Dechipher

06-04-2007, 09:29 PM

The_Amaster

06-04-2007, 09:49 PM

I don't really believe in this (but I don't not believe) but it kinda ties into Pineconn's post, my ever so favorite TV sitcom "Red Dwarf" featured a short gag whereupon "experts have found what could be a new and radical page to the bible, allegedly to be inserted before the first page. It says, translated 'All peoples and events contained in the following work are entirely fictitious. Any resemblance to other peoples or works, real or imagined is completely coincidental' Naturaly the church has denounced the page as an utter hoax and disgrace"

Jigglysaint

06-05-2007, 01:01 AM

This is a bit off topic(and colour maybe), but it's the best place to post this.

What do you get if you cross a drug addict with a Christian?

A Crystal Methodist!

Sorry, that was horrible. You may now resume your intellectual conversation.

AlexMax

06-05-2007, 02:14 AM

So what, instead of God I'm supposed to believe in Beldaran? Great! I'm probably gonna become an atheist now. You've killed religion for me. I hope you're proud, you heathenistic bastard. ;)

You don't need Belderan to come to those conclusions. I went through a very similar questioning of my faith when I was about 15. Unfortuniatly, I made the mistake of raising my objections with my Youth Pastor, who then went ouf his way to distort my worldview and line of thinking, and for a time period after that I considered myself a religious person. Once I got to college, however, I was out of my church's youth program and began to see how I had been taken advantage of, and now I carry a bitter resentment of all things religious. Your divorce from religion doesn't have to be on such bad terms, but it's not as uncommon a decision as you might think.

Unfortunately any points that you may have on this issue are undermined by your haughty demeanor and negative dialect.

Foo.

Bel is the only person who is allowed to know anything. He is correct in everything, we are worthless scum.:rolleyes:

He may be abrasive in what he says, and I personally don't really like how he states himself as absolutely correct, but he also makes many good points. As the saying goes, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Where I think Bel makes his mistake is trying to absolutely assert his correctness. It's an easily attackable opening, as we've seen in this thread. I sidestep that problem by bringing forth Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). I'd write on it, but I'll just paste the two quotes from the wiki article, as I think they speak for themselves. It's a nice way of demonstratining argument from ignorance without going so far as to claim being absolutely correct.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, writes further

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Darth Marsden

06-05-2007, 04:24 AM

Y'know what? I'm gonna tell you a little story I heard somewhere. And just to make it even more interesting, I'm gonna use people from here to illustrate certain characters. Are we all sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

Oncer upon a time, there was an entire race of people who fervently believed that God was standing right behind them, guiding them through life. No-one else could see this God except the person he was standing behind, but there was a snag. At the very heart of their religion, people believed that if they turned around and looked at this God, they would be denied entry into heaven and the eternal paradise that would come with it.

And so the people went for all of their days, believing that God was watching over their shoulder but being totally afraid to check. Until one day, when Beldaran, in one of his many arguments against the race's religion, could stand it no longer, and looked over his shoulder.

And found no-one.

Convinced that this proved his point, he began spreading the word - there was no God over your shoulder, there was no eternal afterlife. And, slowly but surely, people started to see if it was true. They started looking over their shoulders, and found that God wasn't there. Until eventually there was only one man left who believed that God truly was there. And, unable to face the sheer pressure of those who believed otherwise, he took his own life.

When he woke up, he found that he was in Heaven.

Now boys and girls, what have we learned?

AtmaWeapon

06-05-2007, 07:22 AM

Now boys and girls, what have we learned?Suicide is divinely rewarded?

*edit*AlexMax I just saw your post, and it made me think of something I can maybe illustrate my point with.

There are some athiests, like you, that though I stand in disagreement with on the point of God's existence I can recognize your arguments are based on solid philosophical ground. You seem to have chosen atheism as the result of your life experiences, and though my religion tells me you are wrong my heart and mind tell me you've made the choice that seemed most rational to you at the time. You only really poke your head into religion threads when it seems like things are getting kind of crazy and it's always something intelligent you have to add.

There are others, like Beldaran, who seem to have chosen atheism because it gives them a chance to feel superior to others. So far the only supporting points he has provided rely on either "common knowledge" (that sometimes turns out to be wrong!), "books I read one time", or "you just aren't intelligent enough to understand". Some religions provide a sense of superiority, but I believe no other but atheism can allow and even support one's sense of self-worth so far that one feels like people should be honored that one even deigned to stroke one's e-cock in front of them.

What's fairly interesting to me is that religions display these characteristics too, and so far I believe no one has responded in negation to my belief that athiesm can display all of the negative characteristics of an organized religion and when it does it is every bit as evil as historical atrocities committed in the name of a religion. So far by the time I've attempted to support this point, Beldaran has advanced past his first post and only replies with "I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it."

What's sad is I think the first kind of atheist can be the source of really stimulating philosophical discussion, while the second is too busy patting himself on the back to ponder life's mysteries.

moocow

06-05-2007, 07:25 AM

I'm confused... so he killed himself and went to Heaven... But isn't it a sin to commit suicide? Or did he get the golden ticket since he killed himself because he was the only one who believed and he was too afraid to kick it with those who didn't?

Glitch

06-05-2007, 09:27 AM

Science can't DISPROVE God's existence any more than it CAN.

It can sure as hell disprove the majority of the bible, especially the more common stories that are taught growing up (adam and eve & noah and the ark).

Moo, get your ass in IRC. Now bitch.

Majora

06-05-2007, 09:48 AM

I skimmed over this, so shoot me if what I say sounds.... inaccurate.

Basically, no matter how much we debate, argue, and discuss, it will allways be a matter of Science proving something, and Religion lashing out against it, and also a matter of "Interpretation". If god didn't make the earth and space in 7 24-hour days, why didn't the writers of the bible jutst say that? @_@.

Will edit post, I gotta go.

moocow

06-05-2007, 10:00 AM

We can argue for the rest of our lives... No one will really know until they die. You can't say that a higher being does or doesn't exist when no one can prove nor disprove it. You can't say Adam & Eve, or Noah and the Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, etc. is or isn't real because none of us were there. To continuously argue over what's real and isn't is really just pointless because at the end of all our arguements, regardless of who believes in what... No one knows for sure.

Glitch

06-05-2007, 10:55 AM

Saying Adam and Eve and the Noah's Ark story were true is saying that our (and all animals) whole existence comes from incest.

Do I doubt something happened? Not at all. I bet there was a flood, but not nearly has big as described. The bible is writen by man based on stories passed down through multiple generations. Everytime it passed hands it was exaggerated more and more.

moocow

06-05-2007, 11:06 AM

Saying Adam and Eve and the Noah's Ark story were true is saying that our (and all animals) whole existence comes from incest.

It happens in other cultures all the time.

Personally, I'm more comfortable thinking that we came about by the "Adam & Eve" theory, rather than the Evolution theory... Because really, who wants to think that we used to be monkeys?

That also raises another question. If we supposedly evolved from apes, then why are there still apes alive? Or was this a specific breed of ape that only existed in the stone age or whenever it happend...? Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally when something evolves from something else... doesn't that "something else" just... disappear?

phattonez

06-05-2007, 12:04 PM

Every story in the Bible up to the Tower of Babel is just, I forgot the word for it, but it's not real. Any Biblical scholar will tell you that. So disprove those stories, it really doesn't matter.

In recent times, majoras_wrath, religion has not lashed out against science. There are many religious people who believe in evolution and there was even a pope who supported the big bang. Personally, I think the big bang is a load, but everyone can make up their own minds.

Darth Marsden

06-05-2007, 12:28 PM

Would the word be 'fictional'? 'Exaggerated'? 'Bollocks'?

I may be remembering the end of that story slightly - the guy may have been killed in an accident rather then committing suicide. It's been a while since I heard it.
The point I was trying to make was that by disbelieving the notion of Heaven, the people killed any chance they may have had of getting into it. Whether the guy killed himself or got hit by a truck, he still got into Heaven because he believed in it. Sometimes a little faith doesn't hurt.

Evolution is something I believe in, mostly because there's a hell of a lot of evidence for it, but also because it makes sense. We adapted to suit our environment. We've stopped doing that recently, thanks to technology. We don't change to suit the environment, we change the environment to suit us. I think that's a little wrong, and entirely off topic. But anyway.

moocow: Apes still exist because there is still a place for them. In the jungles and so on. If, as you say, one race disappears when it evolves into another, we'd have nowhere near as many species as we do at present. Just because one creatures evolves from another doesn't mean there isn't still a use for the original.

...and now I'm thinking about what we might evolve into. Homo Sapiens... what could we become. I'm hoping Homo Superior, 'cause if I could develop healing powers, that'd be so awesome.

rock_nog

06-05-2007, 02:21 PM

Awww man, Darth Marsden, you totally stole that story from that crazy-ass dream I had. Except for the ending, that was new. Anyway, I would like to point out that the Bible is not the source of religious information, and I find it a logical fallacy to disprove religion by tearing the Bible apart. I mean, isn't that just a straw man argument? Heck, some religions don't even have religious texts, it's all about what you feel to be true.

Really, I think the problem is that people don't understand the point of religion. You make some argument about fundamentalist Christianity, claim that's true of all religion, and say "See, I'm right." Another straw man argument. I mean Beldaran here sits and belittles religion, all the while missing the point that he has his own religion, too, though he may not see it that way. Religion (or spirituality, I guess) is far more about how you live your life than God and sin and heaven and hell and all that jazz. Many people use these notions to define how they live their lives, but that doesn't mean that there's nothign else to religion.

Beldaran

06-05-2007, 04:06 PM

I don't feel superior to you guys. It's just that you think the universe was created by an invisible magic being that cares about you. This logic is embarassingly sad and unsupported by scientific evidence.

If this makes you feel inferior to me, then too bad. I would rather everyone was better, more intelligent, and more informed than I was. The world would be a lot better place. Unfortunately the earth is ruled by people who still cling to their tribal magic beliefs.

Also, I think religion is disgusting and evil, and I do think that anyone who believes in god is a mindless, drivelling pawn of a powerful virus; a form of intellectual software that downloads itself into susceptible hosts and destroys their lives and the society they live in. So yes, if you believe in god I find you an abhorrent intellectual wretch and I laugh with sadness and derision at the deplorable state of your mind. I also fear and distrust anyone who believes in god.

Fortunately, you can still be saved by the gospel of rational, obejctive thinking and a natural view of the world. Repent now ye mental sinners, and be saved from your own delusions. [the church organ strikes a chord and several congregation members faint]

Mitsukara

06-05-2007, 04:06 PM

Selfish tangent question.

I've seen only the most conservative, or as some might say fanatical Christians in most of my experiences. My parents utterly believe every last thing in the bible is true but somehow some of it "doesn't apply" and because it's all god's plan it's okie-dokie (I have trouble stomaching the old testament that way, and seriously question to myself whether they've actually read the monstrous thing). They say if you don't believe and get saved, you're pretty much screwed.

What I'm wondering is, though, do most Christians thinks Agnostics are just as bad as Atheists? For being unsure when "the answers are apparent" for me if I'd listen, does that mean I'll be going to hell purely on that basis?

Of course, I'm also a lot of other things that the bible and some people say are hell-worthy. I'm in love with a semi-wiccan (Sarria, formerly known as Skeeve22 and KingArthur here, for those who don't know what I'm talking about- but you probably still don't given how many years it's been since she was at AGN XD) whose body is currently the same sex as mine (and we both want to defile our holy temples with all that sex change rubbish), I say parts of God's word seem evil to me (the old testament), and I've even worked on the sabbath day, eaten pork, and shaved the hair on the sides of my face.

But I'm just curious, since the main debate here has been christianity versus atheism, what people think about agnostics and agnosticism in general.

In my own perspective, which can be quite blinding, I think agnosticism is pretty unintrusive, the closest thing to a compromise that exists, and for me it seems the easiest, most honest outlook, because I really don't feel like I can answer unprovable questions (but by no means do I assume I'm right and that I definitely can't answer them- and the same lack of assumption applies to everyone else, of course). But of course, religion is one of those places where a compromise is often considered.... compromising. So I'm not too sure what other people at large think about it.

phattonez

06-05-2007, 04:16 PM

Also, I think religion is disgusting and evil, and I do think that anyone who believes in god is a mindless, drivelling pawn of a powerful virus; a form of intellectual software that downloads itself into susceptible hosts and destroys their lives and the society they live in. So yes, if you believe in god I find you an abhorrent intellectual wretch and I laugh with sadness and derision at the deplorable state of your mind. I also fear and distrust anyone who believes in god.

So I'm a retard because I disagree with you? Doesn't that make you proud? Take a look at the smaller quote in my sig and tell me what you think about it.

The_Amaster

06-05-2007, 04:37 PM

I do think that anyone who believes in god is a mindless, drivelling pawn of a powerful virus

And yet you don't consider that below you? Wow, Bel, you must have horrible self esteem.

More on topic, why do we keep having these threads? The only reason is that they're kinds fun, as not here or in the real world will Religion ever convince Science and vice versa The entire argument is pointless, as we never get anywhere. Re-reading this thread, no-one has changed their viewpoint in the couse of things.

rock_nog

06-05-2007, 04:41 PM

So, Beldaran, what great sin have agnostics committed? You seem to despise anyone with an open mind just as much as you despise religion. And honestly, you seem far more close-minded than most religious people I know. Most people I know will at the very least tolerate other belief systems, but you won't even concede that much. Is that your point, to show the ridiculousness of such close-minded people? 'Cause I get it if it is.

Mitsukara

06-05-2007, 05:07 PM

More on topic, why do we keep having these threads?
Well, I didn't start the thread, but lately I do keep adding to these threads.

This is a weird thing to say, but I think in my case, it might be part of a strange form of something I deem narcissism that I have. That is, I seem to looooooooooove stating my opinions and expressing my identity and soforth and so on. This worries me because it seems selfish and, well, narcissistic. I think I do it because so far, I've never really been able to express such things in real life (which will change drastically when I move out of this place, which incidentally I have plans to do very, very, very soon).

But give me an opportunity to talk about agnosticisim, or transsexuality, or prejudice, or the old testament, or Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda (it's initial greatness followed by it's horrific and violent decline into retardedness), or to compare the different titles of the Zelda series (or jut to complain about Majora's Mask), or whatever I have opinions on, and I'll yap. I love to yap about such things. And I love especially to express my identity and the things I consider important parts of it, almost all of which I have to hide.

That's just me.

AlexMax

06-05-2007, 05:21 PM

So I'm a retard because I disagree with you? Doesn't that make you proud? Take a look at the smaller quote in my sig and tell me what you think about it.

The problem Bel has with religious opinions is equivilence. To him, the answer is so blindingly obvious, that we should live our lives based on what we can actually see and understand. After all, we can see, understand and most importantly verify it. On the other hand, you have religion, which has a couple of holy books that was written by humans thousands of years ago, some 'biblical scholars', all of whom have their own interpertation of the holy text, and they're all supposed to be right. And what's more, science is held to far stricter standards than religion, with science you have to verify verify verify and even a minor discrepancy can destroy it. Religious views, on the other hand, are given a free pass, if someone wants to beleive in something, they are supported, even when such beleifs directly contradict the world around them or are exceedingly unlikely). And if there's a contradiction? Oh, must be the devils work, or we didn't really mean what we said.

That's not intellectually fair in the least. Therefore, Bel thinks that not all opinions are created equal. And to be honest, so do I, because without standards, there is no theoretical end to the number of viewpoints you can come up with to further muddy the waters. Think and talk about them them all you ilke, but why should you expect everyone to simply respect them at face value? Bel has defended his viewpoints, and all you do is go "Oh well you're a big meanie, we have things called OPINIONS :rolleyes:" as if that was a satisfactory rebuttle to anything at all. Come on, man, you can do better than that.

And yet you don't consider that below you? Wow, Bel, you must have horrible self esteem.

Or maybe he's not the asshole you people are making him out to be.

More on topic, why do we keep having these threads? The only reason is that they're kinds fun, as not here or in the real world will Religion ever convince Science and vice versa The entire argument is pointless, as we never get anywhere. Re-reading this thread, no-one has changed their viewpoint in the couse of things.

D.M. had a very valid "questioning his religion" post that spiraled into religious debate. If this was a normal religious debate thread, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you, this sort of thing has been tred over time and time again, but there have been some good advice mixed in with the bickering back and forth.

Beldaran

06-05-2007, 06:08 PM

I don't think any of you are below me... just like I don't think people with AIDS are below me. I just think they are sick and unfortunate.

Thanks Alexmax. :)

Dechipher

06-05-2007, 06:14 PM

I think these threads are good for AGN, because they inspire intelligent thought and self-doubt, two things that help individuals grow (as opposed to the "I stole Pineconn's avatar" threads.)

Belderan, I don't understand your extreme point of view. I understand how you can believe that there is nothing out there and that the only things that are real are what can be proven by science. I totally understand that, it makes sense. However, what I don't understand is how you can possibly say that there isn't a higher power (I'm talking about a generic being, not specific religions.) You seem to have built your philosophy on a fallacy (that because the Bible and other holy texts are so ridiculous and because the actions of some religious people are ridiculous that there is no way any kind of higher being can exist.) True, you can't see it or scientifically prove it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I guess I just don't understand how you be so presumptuous to think that you can possibly ever prove that a higher power doesn't exist.

For the record, I don't hold any beliefs, so please don't respond with "If you want to believe in magic and faeries, then by all means do so while I believe in cold, hard, scientific fact (regardless of the fact that at any moment it can be disproved or changed.)"

AtmaWeapon

06-05-2007, 07:10 PM

Bel has defended his viewpoints, and all you do is go "Oh well you're a big meanie, we have things called OPINIONS :rolleyes:" Seriously I strongly oppose this statement and ask you to cite proof. So far the most I've seen out of Beldaran is misuse of facts, attacks on people rather than arguments, and a blatant refusal to respond to honest questions about his position.

You speak of intellectual fairness and support the views of a person who refuses to clarify his viewpoints beyond stating that they are better than ours?

Beldaran

06-05-2007, 07:31 PM

I don't understand is how you can possibly say that there isn't a higher power (I'm talking about a generic being, not specific religions.)

I doubt the existence of a higher power for precisely the same reason you doubt the accuracy of astrology. No evidence. If I ever see evidence that is testable and observable, I will completely change my mind. Until then, there is no evidence whatsoever to look beyond the natural world for explanations. For thousands of years people have come up with supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon and time and time again science has provided natural explanations and time and time again the mystics have moved the god-line back, claming another unassailable frontier of mysticism. I think that line is imaginary and I think that because of the towering mountain of scientific data that supports the notion of a natural universe, and the invisible nothing that repsents the sum total evidence that suggests a pervading magic power.

Atma, I have not misused a single fact whatsoever. The only facts I have quoted at all came from literature by Carl Sagan. If you want to argue with his works, then go take it up with his bibliography.

For someone whose religion is based on the bible, possibly the most idiotic book ever written, you certainly are picky about factual accuracy.

Sam Atoms

06-05-2007, 07:44 PM

(Sarria, formerly known as Skeeve22 and KingArthur here, for those who don't know what I'm talking about- but you probably still don't given how many years it's been since she was at AGN XD) whose body is currently the same sex as mine (and we both want to defile our holy temples with all that sex change rubbish)

Are you kidding me? I remember seeing a pic of Skeeve22/KingArthur and he looked as male as they come. Gee whillickers, just when I thought I'd seen everything.

Glenn the Great

06-05-2007, 07:54 PM

I used to think that Beldaran was a champion of open-minded values, but it seems he's come full circle back to closed-mindedness.

Yes, it is scientific to doubt something because of lack of evidence.

However, it is never scientific to rule anything out, even because of lack of evidence. There is always the unforeseen possibility of new information presenting itself, often unexpectedly, that changes your view on everything.

This is my problem with atheism. Atheism requires more faith than should be allowed by a logical and scientific mindset. Athiesm is a presumptuous declaration that one KNOWS something. It's a jump to conclusions in the same manner that religious people can be accused of.

Agnosticism is the true scientific perspective. It is the open-minded perspective. It acknowledges that we don't have the evidence, but keeps the experiments going, always searching for it. It's the perspective I respect.

rock_nog

06-05-2007, 08:00 PM

But Beldaran, no one is claiming that God is a substitute for science... Just that the possibility exists that there is some sort of divinity. There are times when I wonder if God and science are the same thing... I can't see the difference, honestly. I mean, I think it'd be handy to just sum up all the forces of the universe and call it God. Maybe not the kind of God most people have in mind, but to each his own. And you still won't answer my question of as to why it all matters. Why does anything have to be proven? I can't see what it could possibly affect to believe one way or the other. So long as one does not substitute for the other, seems fine to me.

SUCCESSOR

06-05-2007, 08:02 PM

It isn't possible to be entirely open-minded. It is more practical to be open-minded when the necessity becomes apparent.

Any discussion of any topic that lacks sufficient evidence is a debate of preference. Nothing about the outcome of such discussion can be considered judgment simply which idiot is more pig-headed and belittling.

Why does anything have to be proven?

Because facts are building blocks that have allowed you to participate in this conversation. Progression.

Pineconn

06-05-2007, 08:53 PM

I think these threads are good for AGN, because they inspire intelligent thought and self-doubt, two things that help individuals grow (as opposed to the "I stole Pineconn's avatar" threads.)

:D :D

1

I have a quick exercise that we did in school a few days. Before you read on, write down your signature like you would normally.

Got it written down? Good.

No, really, you'll ruin it if you haven't written it down.

.
..
...
..
.

There were several different criteria, but one criterion was this: If you have one or more letters that aren't completely connected, you are open-minded. If all of your letters are connected, you are said to be close-minded.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/PokeMaster/letterz.gif

This was only a study done by some psychologists, don't look at me if you think it blows. :shrug:

So yeah, that was a bit random, but that's me.

SUCCESSOR

06-05-2007, 09:01 PM

My O's or 0's sometimes look like 6's what does that mean?

Pineconn

06-05-2007, 09:14 PM

That you have bad handwriting. ;)

Aegix Drakan

06-05-2007, 10:51 PM

I seem to looooooooooove stating my opinions and expressing my identity and soforth and so on. This worries me because it seems selfish and, well, narcissistic. I think I do it because so far, I've never really been able to express such things in real life.

>_> I that's why most of us are here. Because we want to state our opinions and expres our thoughts. Not Narcissistic at all. In fact, wanting to leave our personal imprint is part of human nature.

And I have very, VERY bad handwriting, so...aside from the Y at the end of my last name, I have no open letters...

But I'm pretty open minded.

And I personally don't mind other people's beliefs. Everyone can believe what they want to believe. Heck, most of my friends follow a buddhist line of thinking. Of course, they all admit that they PHAIL at folowing it. :P

And Beldaran, I respect you and your position, but...

You just need to accept that other people belive what THEY think is right, and your point of view seems to label anyone with religious beliefs as "dangerous". I am FAR from dangerous (pacifist here!), plus I'm open minded, PLUS I can be trusted with stuff. I'm not some nut-job.

It's only the closed minded Zealots that cause problems. Not all religious people. As long as they're not forcibly trying to convert people, it's fine.

Beldaran

06-05-2007, 10:57 PM

"One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant." - John Locke, 1690

That is why I don't believe in the supernatural... because it's based on nothing but human fancy. People who use their imagination and emotions as a decision making tool are dangerous because they have a history of violence, dictatorship, oppression, burning people at the stake, mass suicides, sexual repression, ostracizing innocent members of society, abusing women, abusing children, spreading fear, spreading hatred, destroying entire civilizations who refused to accept their beliefs, and just plain acting like obnoxious ass holes. (ie jerry falwell).

To hear you call me closed minded is totally laughable. Yes, I am closed minded. I have closed my mind to BULLSHIT.

Mitsukara

06-05-2007, 11:17 PM

Are you kidding me? I remember seeing a pic of Skeeve22/KingArthur and he looked as male as they come. Gee whillickers, just when I thought I'd seen everything.
It's amazing what you can do with effort, care, and hormones. Plenty of successful transsexuals really, really didn't look it beforehand.

Have you seen pictures of me (http://mitsukara.galxeth.net/Me_Chicago_8-06.jpg)? I don't want to be conceited, but I'm bloody lucky.

I've known Sarria for years and we're... let's just say, very, very close, and have been for a while now. I've seen quite a bit of her because we both actually have webcams (I was able to buy one and bring it home unnoticed when I was working at Wal Mart), and in my opinion, she can be pretty cute when she tries... but even if that weren't the case, I'll say again what I've been saying for years: what matters to me is who a person is in their heart and mind. No one can do all THAT much to pick out their own body; it's just a coincidence, it's not who they are. If it's nice, great, bonus. If it's not, it doesn't matter. What matters is who we are.

Taaaaaaangent. Sorry about that.

Agnosticism is the true scientific perspective. It is the open-minded perspective. It acknowledges that we don't have the evidence, but keeps the experiments going, always searching for it. It's the perspective I respect.

blahblahspiritiualismblahblahniceversionofchristia nityblahblahgoodthing
When did we become a mutual admiration society? XD Not that that's not cool.

>_> I that's why most of us are here. Because we want to state our opinions and expres our thoughts. Not Narcissistic at all. In fact, wanting to leave our personal imprint is part of human nature.
Wow, thank you ^.^

My handwriting varies a lot. I usually get the "o"s connected buy not the "a"s, but sometimes I get them. But you know what I really do wrong? I tend to write "t"s that resemble "l"s, like a loop with a line through it. In general my writing has way too many loops and when I go fast, it has little squiggly connectors where I started to do the wrong thing and changed it, resulting in too much of a line between, say, a double consonant or somesuch. I also screw up on "n"s and "m"s and "r"s, they tend to look way too similar.

Beldaran

06-05-2007, 11:33 PM

Glenn, agnosticism is not truly scientific. Are you agnostic about Zeus? Are you agnostic about a cosmic teapot at the center of the galaxy filled with pink elves that created everything?

Just as you are atheistic about these retarded ideas, I am atheistic about one more retarded idea; that of a personal god. If I see some scientific data demonstrating he exists (ie he shows up and says hi) I will gladly change my mind. But until then I'll remain sane.

Glenn the Great

06-06-2007, 12:18 AM

Glenn, agnosticism is not truly scientific. Are you agnostic about Zeus? Are you agnostic about a cosmic teapot at the center of the galaxy filled with pink elves that created everything?

Just as you are atheistic about these retarded ideas, I am atheistic about one more retarded idea; that of a personal god.

Hold up. I am agnostic about those things. I accept that there is some strange chance that Zeus or pink elves are real.

A retarded idea is a relative thing. You are thinking about it as being something absolute. Much of todays truth was yesterday's retarded idea.

Beldaran

06-06-2007, 01:37 AM

The chance of Zeus being real is so incomprehensibly remote that it approaches zero. Same with Jesus's claims.

Dechipher

06-06-2007, 02:59 AM

The chance of Zeus being real is so incomprehensibly remote that it approaches zero. Same with Jesus's claims.

Once again you're arguing against the specifics of Christianity. Try stepping outside of the box of a particular religion. How can you argue that there is NOTHING out there? No higher being at all. Or even other beings. Do you believe that alien beings cannot exist, because we haven't encountered them?

Beldaran

06-06-2007, 03:02 AM

On what basis can I argue they do exist? I don't know for a scientific fact there isn't a god, but I'm not ignorant enough to believe there is without evidence.

For me, "I do not believe in god" = atheist.

I also do not believe in highly intelligent extra terrestrials. However, I think the odds of their existing is very high given the vast number of star/planet combinations. I still don't "believe" in them though, because I think belief is an irrational and ultimately ignorant impulse.

Dechipher

06-06-2007, 03:12 AM

Beldaran

06-06-2007, 03:40 AM

I don't think there is a difference between:

"I do not believe" and

"I disbelieve"

They mean the same thing. I think you're worried that I "believe there isn't a god", which is not what I'm saying. I have no belief in anything whatsoever. Everything I think, every assumption I make on a daily basis, is the result of a sometimes unconcious appraisal of the probability of something occuring.

I don't believe I will die tomorrow because logic tells me my neighborhood is moderately safe and the odds of a catostrophic event are very, very small. I don't believe that I will live through the day, but I think it is very likely that I will. It's all about logic, probability, and situational analysis.

For me, faith has no place in my mind. It is a malfunction. I only think. Sometimes I think incorrectly, sometimes I think correctly but with incorrect information, but what I am preaching is the power of clear, analytical thought.

It is my position that this type of concise, scientific reasoning about everything leaves no place for magical fantasy about what is, really, nothing more than "The Force" from Star Wars, except people really believe in it. I find this logically untenable.

Darth Marsden

06-06-2007, 04:35 AM

Smacks Beldaran round the head with a mackerel

You are entitled to your opinions. If you think religion is stupid and pointless, then fine. But stop insulting people because they don't think the same as you. I admit you've cooled down in your latest posts and I appreciate that. But your language throughout this thread, and others like it which have touched on the subject of religion, has been, quite frankly, condescending and insulting.

Everyone has the right to believe whatever the hell they want - I believe that's an extension of Freedom of Speech, or something. But when you start belittling people because they don't have the same thoughts on God as you, that's Religious Discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_discrimination). You're walking a very thin line here, Bel. Please don't cross it.

I started this thread because I was having a minor crisis of faith. In some ways I still am. Having read what some of you believe, I've been comforted by the fact that I'm not alone. You've no idea how much better that makes me feel. Knowing what my parents think of religion also helps (Mum believes in a God and that Jesus died for us, but that's about it, and my Dad doesn't really believe anything), but having people I can relate to (yeah, that's you guys) tell me that they aren't sure about this is more reassuring then I can say.

I'm still a little baffled about the issue, but nowhere near as much as I was, and for that I thank you all.

Well, everyone except Beldaran. :p

Dechipher

06-06-2007, 10:25 AM

\

Everyone has the right to believe whatever the hell they want - I believe that's an extension of Freedom of Speech, or something.

Dude, you don't have Freedom of Speech. You're not American. Only Americans have Freedom.

Duh.

Beldaran

06-06-2007, 02:04 PM

well if it makes you feel better, it must be true.

Pineconn

06-06-2007, 02:53 PM

All right, that's it. I'm starting my own religion. Pineconnizanity. I'm a Pineconnizanian. I believe in whatever I want, and I'm free to switch among believing in a god, not believing in a god, and not caring if there is one or not. Because most of the time, I really don't care if there is one. It's not going to affect my life.

Oh, and I'm free to believe if War Lord is my god if I want. ;)

Mitsukara

06-06-2007, 08:30 PM

biggiy05

06-06-2007, 08:38 PM

What? You're making up your own religion on the spot but not appointing yourself either god or some big all-important hero? Seems unambitious.

I'm his God. Now your god wants a cookie. GET TO IT!

rock_nog

06-06-2007, 09:47 PM

You know Beldaran, your concise, scientific thinking sounds boring. I mean, I prefer to make decisions based on intuition. Heck, sometimes I just pick at random what the hell I'm gonna do. I just find that analyzing whatever situation I'm in only stresses me out. To each his own, though, I'm sure your system works fine for you. I'd rather be happy than right any day. Seriously, in the end, does it really matter who was right, so long as you had a good time?

phattonez

06-06-2007, 11:10 PM

Darth Marsden

06-07-2007, 04:42 AM

Be good to your fellow man, do not covert thy neighbour's ass, etc. Yeah, that's fair enough.

Pineconn: You know that Jedi is an actual religion (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/105/story_10570_5.html) now, right? And I quote:

"Jedism" appears to be the fourth most popular religion in the UK, with 390,000 adults (0.66% of the population) identifying themselves as followers of this religion. This refers to the spirituality expressed by the characters in Star Wars. These are the "May the force be with you" folks. Very few subjects who marked this "religion" during the poll are actually Jedi. They probably intended their vote to be a statement about their opinion of religion, religious polls, or the government census. A hoax E-mail circulated around the Internet stating that if 10,000 people put "Jedi" on the census form, it will become "a fully recognized and legal religion." The Office of National Statistics...assigned the response "Jedi Knight" a numeric code to simplify the process of tabulating census results, as is typically done when many people answer a question by writing in a response not offered as a choice on the census form. Since the government does not recognize Jedism as an actual religion, the Jedis were finally lumped together under the "no religion" category.
I am so tempted to put this on my next aplication form.

Beldaran

06-07-2007, 06:03 AM

do not covert thy neighbour's ass

hehe (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=covert)

moocow

06-07-2007, 11:34 AM

hehe (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=covert)

I wonder if he meant covet.

DESIRE YOUR NEIGHBOR'S ASS

AlexMax

06-07-2007, 11:57 AM

Seriously I strongly oppose this statement and ask you to cite proof. So far the most I've seen out of Beldaran is misuse of facts, attacks on people rather than arguments, and a blatant refusal to respond to honest questions about his position.

You speak of intellectual fairness and support the views of a person who refuses to clarify his viewpoints beyond stating that they are better than ours?

Are you even paying attention?

Darth Marsden

06-07-2007, 04:53 PM

I wonder if he meant covet.

DESIRE YOUR NEIGHBOR'S ASS

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Animal of the same genus as the horse and the the zebra, widely known in its domesticated state as the donkey. True wild asses are still found in Africa and in Asia but some are thought to be nearly extinct. Wild asses are gregarious, swift, and long lived; they are found in mountainous and desert regions and feed on rough and dry forage.

This is not the first time my occasional bad spelling has let me down. So much for my razor sharp wit.

Pineconn

06-07-2007, 09:51 PM

I'm his God. Now your god wants a cookie. GET TO IT!

Yes, my Lord. I got You eight types of cookies because I am so awesome.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/PokeMaster/cookie.png

Oh, I definitely want to put down Jedism as my religion on state exams now. I can smell the bonus points. :D

AtmaWeapon

06-08-2007, 09:53 PM

Are you even paying attention?Well then find where he addressed the Galileo thing because I'm not combing over the rest of this thread for it.

Also Pinconn you fool! He asked for a cookie not several! You are going to be sooooooo smitten!

Pineconn

06-08-2007, 10:15 PM

Aha! But that is okay! One of the perks of my religion is that I can switch between whether or not I believe in a god, so I now believe in no god! Now biggiy can't smite me. :D

I believe in whatever I want, and I'm free to switch among believing in a god, not believing in a god, and not caring if there is one or not.

There's an 'e' in my username, btw. ;)

biggiy05

06-08-2007, 11:01 PM

Yes, my Lord. I got You eight types of cookies because I am so awesome.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/PokeMaster/cookie.png

Oh, I definitely want to put down Jedism as my religion on state exams now. I can smell the bonus points. :D

First of all some of those cookies look like someone took a shit and threw it in the oven. You fail!

Aha! But that is okay! One of the perks of my religion is that I can switch between whether or not I believe in a god, so I now believe in no god! Now biggiy can't smite me. :D

No but I can hit you with a stick.:whap: I'll teach you not to believe in me.

Beldaran

06-08-2007, 11:30 PM

I didn't address the Galileo thing because nothing you said about it threatened my argument at all.

are we to believe that religion has not changed in the past two centuries?

Muslims are currently murdering people for religious ideas. It has not changed at ALL. Catholicism has changed, only because science has driven them back from the abyss of horror and stupidity over which it stood astride for five hundred years. Now they just fritter around the edges saying retarded nonsense like "birth control is evil".

So, at the time, there was no compelling scientific evidence to show that Galileo was more right than any of the current accepted models.

Explain how this excuses burning people alive for heresy.

Also, the irony of you demanding compelling scientific evidence is not lost on me, since you are defending the notion of a magic superfriend.

Furthermore, your facts do not check out and since you cite no sources I can't cross-check to see if perhaps mine are wrong.

I am quoting Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space by Carl Sagan.

The Galileo example is poignant and correct, and you can't escape it. Religion is a disgusting, evil disease. It is completely different from science, which is not a religion, but a recognition that logic and reason are superior to mysticism and fiction.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by arguing with me. There's no way you are going to convince me to ignore logic and believe in your imaginary friend. You will also never convince me that religion isn't wholly evil, from the ancient to the modern. The best you can hope for is to earn my intellectual respect, and I highly doubt that's of much value to you. Also, you won't be able to by arguing the merits of personal fantasy.

rock_nog

06-09-2007, 12:42 AM

RELIGION IS NOT MEANT TO SUBSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE! Sorry for shouting, but once again, Beldaran, I think you miss the point. Okay, so maybe mainstream religions try to imply that the two are interchangable, but look harder, and you'll see religions that don't try to meddle in the affairs best left to science.

Beldaran

06-09-2007, 01:35 AM

religions that don't try to meddle in the affairs best left to science.

Any philosophy that makes a claim about the reality of the universe, expects people to believe that claim with no evidence and then alter their living habits based on that claim, is meddling in affairs best left to science. I think all, or very nearly all, religions or belief systems fall under this description.

The only system I can think of that doesn't do this is deism, which is belief in a creator of some kind but offers no dogma and views the universe naturalistically. I still think that belief in the creator is unfounded by evidence.

phattonez

06-09-2007, 02:08 AM

^^Except that the Big Bang theory makes no sense and offers no explanation to where the energy required for such an explosion came from.

Beldaran

06-09-2007, 02:15 AM

^^Except that the Big Bang theory makes no sense and offers no explanation to where the energy required for such an explosion came from.

Correction: it makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to people with advanced degrees in theoretical physics. Just because you don't understand a scientific idea does not make it invalid. Do you fully understand quantum mechanics? Do you doubt it's veracity?

And the question of where the energy came from currently has no answer, much in the same way as the question of what the moon is once had no answer. History has shown that making up delusional fantasies to answer difficult scientific questions is not an effective mechanism for determining the truth.

biggiy05

06-09-2007, 02:25 AM

You believe in religion or you don't believe. That simple.

If someone wants to believe there is a higher being then let them, it's not hurting you. It gives people hope like moocow said and a good example is terminally ill patients. Some pull through and go on to live another 10-20 years and a few believe it was the work of God. Let them believe that if it makes them happy.

The people in this world are like two kids fighting over who is right. Science vs. Religion. Fuck you're both right if you wanna be.

/random 2am rant.

Darth Marsden

06-09-2007, 05:49 AM

Beldaran: While I believe you have the right to free speech, I also think you have the right to get beaten round the head with Fillet o' Fish if it makes no sense.
Most scientists believe that the moon is the result of a planet-sized meteorite colliding with the Earth back when it was still young and cooling. The collision almost destroyed the Earth (though thankfully it did recover), and the resulting dust and rock formed over a period of a month or so to form the Moon. So says the Museum of Natural History's Planetarium. My trip to America was not in vain! More info here (http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/earth_moon.html). This is not a delusional fantasy, this is a generally accepted and scientifically supported theory. Admittedly, yes, theory is not fact, but it's pretty much impossible to prove what actually happened without building a time-traveling spaceship to go back and see for ourselves. Or, y'know, just asking The Doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(Doctor_Who)).

phattonez: The energy for the big bang came from God lighting a fart on fire. Do you not watch Family Guy?

AlexMax

06-09-2007, 07:09 AM

If someone wants to believe there is a higher being then let them, it's not hurting you.

A single person, no. However, when you have shown that you can check your critical thinking at the door in the name of a 'gut feeling', what else are you capable of? Do you ever consider how easily you could be manipulated by those who in a pulpit precisely because of said qualities? You might think that atheist 'dogma' or beleifs are on equal terms with your religious ones, but where is your scientific method?

How can you figure out for sure if you are living a truely blessed life if there have been so many disagreements over silly little things, like if you're allowed to have a picture of the very thing you worshop, with no way to find out for sure.

Maybe Jesus really wants you to picket soldiers funerals? No? The Phelps family sure thinks so. You don't think that's a very christian thing to do? They're convinced it is. How do they know? Because their god told them so? How do you know? Because your god told you so? What's going on here, is your god two-timing you and trying to pit people against each other for his own amusement to find out later it's all just a three's company-esque misunderstanding? Maybe they didn't really hear the voice of their god? How do you know you heard the voice of your god?

And then you bring out "Faith" and all the wonderful things it does, as if that answers anything at all or is any better than just saying "Your gut feeling". And do I really have to bring what blind obedience and faith can do to ordinary people, because I really don't feel like pulling the tired old Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia analogies out. The bottom line is that if you're tossing out inconvenient parts of reality and prefering to believe in the improbable because you have a gut feeling about it, you're quite capable of hurting other people and not even realizing it because your faith has no mechanism of any meaningful sort of sanity check. Does this not bother you?

It gives people hope like moocow said and a good example is terminally ill patients. Some pull through and go on to live another 10-20 years and a few believe it was the work of God. Let them believe that if it makes them happy.

Studies are inconclusive. I can think of at least one study where those who were religious or had prayed beforehand actually on average developed more complications after surgery than those who had none. Irony.

Game_boy

06-09-2007, 08:17 AM

Although, yes, science cannot determine if God exists or not just the same as it can't determine with 100% certainty that your left arm exists.

However, it can say something about the likelihood of God existing.

One point is that God is exactly as unlikely to exist as, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is no exception to this even if one grants God the right to defy science and chance, because you would have to extend the same argument to the Flying Spaghetti Monster too. The truth is we only believe in God over the Flying Spaghetti Monster because that's what's been taught in our public institutions for so long now.

If someone tries to claim that God is probable because he is "simple" i.e. has few attributes, this is a deception of language. Any God who designed the entire universe must be at least as complicated as his creation, and therefore as unlikely.

Aside from this, there is no evidence FOR God existing other than looking at the by-products and rationalising. Everything we know about the world stems from the principle that the simplest hypothesis is the best when both are equally supported by secondary evidence. We have two hypotheses, apparently equally supported in their outcomes: evolution and design. Design requires a massively complex and unlikely entity who is capable of processing information at universe-scale. Evolution requires random fluctuations followed by a simple process of natural selection over time. We must prefer the simplest hypothesis, and so God is now both unneccesary and extremely unlikely.

Finally, God and religion cause active harm in this world by consuming resources, causing wars, conflict and justification of unjustfiable actions like suicide bombing. I don't see many secular suicide bombers today, but we hear about the frankly evil actions caused by religion every day on the news. It is more consistent and better for the world's population if we derive our moral values from social consequences rather than improbable, intangible beings.

rock_nog

06-09-2007, 08:32 AM

There is no absolute reality, though, and that's the problem I have with science. If we believe something is real, then in a way, we make it real. If I claim that God exists, then in my perception of reality, God's existence matters. Now, obviously this has GREAT potential for abuse, but it also has great potential as a powerful tool. I mean, rather than submit to the beliefs of others, you could create your own beliefs, ones that do not hurt you but rather help you.

Now my take on religion doesn't have much to do with whether or not some divine being is really out there, personally I don't think it matters, 'cause we'll never know, so why worry about it? It's more about how the belief in such things, whether real or not, can greatly change your life. The beings in question could be utterly made up, but that's not the point. We all, I think, recognize the power of religion. I mean, I feel it's like atomic power, only magnified a million-fold. It's incredibly dangerous, if used incorrectly, but it has the potential to change the world.

Now to be sure, Beldaran, you're on to something there with your idea to cut out the middle man, and be totally in charge of your own life. However, it's not possible for a lot of people. Maybe religion's a placebo, maybe we all have the strength within ourselves to accomplish whatever task we set out to do, but the fact is, religion is a very handy way to access that inner strength, so should we really discount it is quickly?

Beldaran

06-09-2007, 02:24 PM

Beldaran: While I believe you have the right to free speech, I also think you have the right to get beaten round the head with Fillet o' Fish if it makes no sense.
Most scientists believe that the moon is the result of a planet-sized meteorite colliding with the Earth back when it was still young and cooling. The collision almost destroyed the Earth (though thankfully it did recover), and the resulting dust and rock formed over a period of a month or so to form the Moon. So says the Museum of Natural History's Planetarium. My trip to America was not in vain! More info here (http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/earth_moon.html). This is not a delusional fantasy, this is a generally accepted and scientifically supported theory. Admittedly, yes, theory is not fact, but it's pretty much impossible to prove what actually happened without building a time-traveling spaceship to go back and see for ourselves. Or, y'know, just asking The Doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28Doctor_Who%29).

phattonez: The energy for the big bang came from God lighting a fart on fire. Do you not watch Family Guy?

Darth I don't get your point. I know what the moon is. I was saying that at one time, people did not know. Religions made up a bunch of ridiculous answers, and then science eventually answered the question.

Rock Nog:

The idea that there is no reality is really insane. I suppose if I kidnap you and cut off your genitals you won't mind since it's not real, right?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

AtmaWeapon

06-09-2007, 04:19 PM

Guys what are we really arguing here anymore? I was typing up some rebuttals to points but then I realized I had no clear goal other than attempting to disagree with the point or pointing out false logic behind the support. In this post I'll try to stick to my major argument, which is as follows:

A person who follows scientific practices runs the risk of holding science as a religion; in this state of mind the One True Path involves everything scientific and any who believe in something that is, as of now, supernatural, is wrong and must be chastised as a failure.

A case
I believe science as religion is guilty of the same follies as the more traditional forms of religion. Let's take something completely supernatural like ghosts for my illustration. Enough people through history have recorded ghostlike phenomenon that one would be foolish to assume all accounts were completely fabricated. Religious views on the subject vary widely. Some believe ghosts are the spirits of the dead, others believe in demons/angels, and many other explanations exist. The appropriate scientific approach to ghosts is to state that they are obviously a phenomenon that is not understood by current scientific understanding.

My question
Now, as I understand it, Beldaran and most atheists have a particular distaste for those who would say that ghosts are angels or spirits. To me, the distaste is not necessarily wrong but I feel like whether it is correct or not depends upon the individual's reaction to being proved wrong.

I'll try to illustrate with preposterous examples from both viewpoints so as not to appear biased.

Let's say some real-life Egon Spengler stumbles upon a previously-unknown form of energy/brain reactions and that the appearance of apparitions can be reproducibly produced in repeatable experiments. The scientist who believed ghosts were an explainable phenomenon has no struggles here. Someone who interpreted a religious text as indicating ghosts were the spirits of the departed now has some choices to make: Completely ignore the research on the basis that it clashes with religion. Take note of the fact that apparitions are only one form of supernatural event, and believe that other phenomenon such as poltergeists are what the religious text meant as manifestations of the dead. Decide the religious belief of the afterlife was perhaps an allegory or a theological device to promote ethical living via the promise of a reward for selfless actions. Abandon the religion entirely.I will discuss them out of order. To me the second and third choices indicate the most mentally healthy individual. The person is comfortable enough with their faith that they are able to accept scientific evidence that contradicts it, yet they only let it discount a particular aspect of their beliefs. The last choice, to me, is not as desirable as the previous two because it indicates the person's sole reason for keeping the religion was to explain the existence of ghosts, which is not the primary function of a religious system. The first choice is completely wrong; when valid scientific evidence is presented one cannot ignore it. Sometimes the theory presented is a poor model that happens to be correct in a particular case but this is so rare I'd consider anyone who routinely uses it to resolve religion/science as kind of weak.

Now let's consider an alternate example. This time Egon Spengler discovers ways to manipulate a previously undiscovered form of energy that leads to communication with voices that can speak in English. The voices indicate they are the spirits of those who have died. The experiment is reproduced by other scientists, and historians who are present are satisfied that the knowledge the voices present are knowledgeable about enough things that their claim must be true (or perhaps another historian playing a prank on them). Several religious viewpoints are now validated. Now, the scientist (and several religions) have choices to make: Declare the experiment wrong and continue believing what it disproves, because the concept of an afterlife is irrational. Decide that the previous views of the afterlife must be reconsidered. Convert to a religion that supports the notion of an afterlife.The second choice is the most mentally healthy in my opinion; it represents a person who is not afraid to admit their beliefs are wrong in the face of valid proof. The last choice is wrong because it indicates an individual who seeks religion out of a need to belong, rather than an attempt to understand the supernatural. The first choice is completely wrong.

The point
My problem is everything about Beldaran's arguments seem to suggest to me he would be completely unwilling to accept, as unlikely as it is, any scientific discovery that would support the validity of a religion. The generalization was made that all people who practice religion are irrational and mentally defective. I pointed out my opinion that some people do not turn to religion for scientific knowledge but for explanations of the supernatural, and suggested that this too was a healthy viewpoint so long as the individual is willing to: Support scientific research in topics that might disprove their beliefs Acknowledge scientific knowledge that does contradict their beliefs Avoid holding others in low esteem because they hold a different theory to explain the supernatural. My secondary point is that many of the atheists I have encountered are completely unwilling to cooperate with this third point and are therefore every bit as wrong as those who turn to religion for their explanations.

To me, the primary purpose of religion is to provide ethical and moral guidance. I didn't choose Christianity because of pressure or because it provided a convenient explanation for things I don't understand; I chose it because I felt like if everyone else acted as Jesus taught and lived then perhaps there'd be less jerks in the world, and I felt like if I'd work on being a better person in general then perhaps people would be more inclined to be nice to me. I do believe in the existence of my deity, but if the existence were disproved I would still argue the teachings of Jesus would remain an important guide to correct behavior.

In short, my faith is not based on whether man was created or evolved; it is not based on whether there was once a flood that wiped out all life on the planet; it is not based on the notion that after death there is a great reward for believers. The core of my faith lies on the teachings of a man who suggested that if everyone worked to hurt each other as little as possible then the pain of self-sacrifice would be outweighed by the benefits of peaceful living and the assistance of others. I like the concept of and do believe in a reward/punishment type of afterlife, but at the same time I could comfortably continue with my Christian beliefs if science built an Elevator to Hell and a Stairway to Heaven but when they tried to take either they were out of service, suggesting that the destinations do not exist. I fail to see how this is an unhealthy or irrational belief, since it is one I am willing to change in the face of proof.

Also Beldaran way to distill rock_nog's argument to a straw man. You should really buy his argument more because it is a very useful tool for the atheist. It's a complicated philosophical and psychological thing but it actually holds water. What he suggests is the idea that if a group of people get together and decide that some deity guides their actions, and they appoint individuals to interpret the wishes of the deity, then in the minds of the believers the deity does exist. Despite the fact the deity was completely fabricated, all it takes is the right amount of belief and people will attribute the unexplainable events in their daily lives to the actions of this deity. This concept was explained well by example in a "choose your own adventure" type of book I read once where you got time-warped back to ancient Greece. At one point, you had to leave a valuable artifact (an amulet that granted you superhuman strength) as an offering to an oracle. Later you had the choice to retrieve the amulet while still in ancient Greece and if you did so it triggered a plot line where you were killed and when people recognized you had retrieved your offering it was seen as punishment from the gods. However, if after you got back to the present you retrieved the amulet, there were no consequences because "no one really worshiped those gods anymore" therefore they had no power.

It is a powerful argument against the existence of God, because as AlexMax pointed out with references to the Nazi party and Stalin's regime people can obviously be stirred to do things they otherwise wouldn't when they believe in something. Belief in this concept does undermine my religion in that it suggests that all of the "evidence" for God's existence could simply be false attribution of cause to a deity that was created as a means to control a people. However, as I previously stated, I'm completely comfortable with continuing to believe in the teachings of Jesus if it were to come out that he was nothing more than an ascetic philosopher, so I don't really struggle with it.

Darth Marsden

06-09-2007, 04:42 PM

Beldaran: I mis-interpreted your point. Kindly ignore said response.

Religion is a series of beliefs about the universe, how it came to be and how it works. In that respect, you could also call science a religion, albeit a very well proven one. But who's to say all our logical explanations about how the universe work aren't wrong? What have we to prove otherwise? Scientific proof could just as easily be as false as a Muslim's explanation of how the world works. We've only got a bunch of machines, programed by us, to say otherwise. In the long run, that's not hard, physical proof, and if we're taking a long, hard look at Religion, we shouldn't take it as such.

If one person believes in a God and the other doesn't, then both have their own individual beliefs, and they are both perfectly entitled to them. I started this topic because I wasn't sure what mine were anymore. I still don't. But to be honest, I don't actually care anymore. God, Heaven, Science, whatever. I don't know, and I don't want to.

I'm out.

Pineconn

06-09-2007, 11:00 PM

I almost (:D) hate to disrupt this scholarly (:D) debate of religion, or the lack thereof, but I have found an excellent cookie for biggiy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/PokeMaster/mmmcookie.png

There, now eat your dang single, normal-looking cookie.

Game_boy

06-10-2007, 05:41 AM

AtmaWeapon: No. Although you admit religion does not explain our world, you then say religion is a your source of ethical or moral guidance. religion is not nor will it ever be a source of ethical and moral guidance. Have you read the Bible? It punidshes people for daring to question God by saying "God is a jealous god" and then smiting people. It rewards those who give up their wives so they can be essentially abused overnight while the husband is safe. It encourages people to kill non-believers. Jesus demands all those who join him hate their mothers and fathers. It punishes people on the basis of what their distant ancestors did slightly wrong once because they were tricked. Have you read the Qur'an? It encourages people to beat their wives if they're not overtly subordinate and obedient. It encourages jihad in the name of God and to capture women for personal use in battle. It wants theives' limbs to be cut off on the first offence. It encourages slavery. Other religions all have excessive torture, cruelty, war, smiting, prejudice and other such guidance. The only religions that doesn't is one with no God, no holy book, no hiearchical structure and no strict moral code. That's not much of a religion though.

If we all used religion as an absolute guide to morality, the world would be a very cruel place indeed.

So where do we get our morality from? Science. We behave according to evolved responses i.e. being nice to people because we might get something in return, caring fr our family because they share our genes and believing in equal opportunities because we wouldn't like to be discriminated against ourselves.

Result: Science is the only consistent and reliable guide to the world around us. It is also the only consistent moral guide. If I am proved wrong by evidence then the resulting evidence is also science, not religion, and I will believe that with equal conviction and questioning as all scientists. There is almost no place for religion but we must be tolerant because people, however misguided, must be entitled to think freely.

Beldaran

06-10-2007, 07:06 AM

For a guy with 4 posts, you are smart. I like you.

Dechipher

06-10-2007, 10:44 AM

For a guy with 4 posts, you are smart. I like you.

Because we all know that post count = intelligence.

;)

The_Amaster

06-10-2007, 10:49 AM

believing in equal opportunities because we wouldn't like to be discriminated against ourselves.

How is that at all science?

Majora

06-10-2007, 12:05 PM

The science of Logic and Economics

AtmaWeapon

06-10-2007, 02:00 PM

Oh dear I am sorry man I feel kind of bad about this but you should really think about what you are typing when you write it. The structure of your logic is poor enough I'd almost think you're a Beldaran parachute account but I don't think he's that ridiculous.

I will also participate in slight ad-hominem by highlighting grammatical and spelling errors in your posts since the ignorance displayed by your points makes me sad.

No. Although you admit religion does not explain our world, you then say religion is a your source of ethical or moral guidance. religion is not nor will it ever be a source of ethical and moral guidance. You completely misinterpreted my point. I believe that religion does not explain the scientific phenomenon that influence the universe. Attempting to state that religion is not a source of ethical and moral guidance shows a fairly complete ignorance of religion's function throughout history. One needs only to consult a dictionary to see that religion can be:

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:which suggests that religion is related to ethics in some way. The issues of morality and ethics are so important to religions that every religion I have studied devotes a large portion of their sacred texts to the discussions of what is right and wrong, why they are right and wrong, and the punishments one receives for committing wrongs. In fact, religions devote so much material to morals and ethics you reference their morality statements in your post, misinterpreted as they are.

For the Biblical statements I see nothing more than standard verses that are cherry-picked and fired at Christians time after time even though they are easily defeated. I'm not going to bother researching the source AND the rebuttal, could you kindly give me chapters and verses for the following Biblical points: It rewards those who give up their wives so they can be essentially abused overnight while the husband is safe. It encourages people to kill non-believers. Jesus demands all those who join him hate their mothers and fathers. It punishes people on the basis of what their distant ancestors did slightly wrong once because they were tricked. I vaguely remember some of the last ones and have some preliminary arguments but I don't like (and you shouldn't either) discussing points of Biblical theology without precise verses, chapters for context, and at least two translations to catch archaic wording.

For the Qur'an I have less authority but I am familiar with the larger theological foundations of Islam. I'd also like to know the locations of the things you mention, as it would help me decide for myself whether they are being misapplied. I can however dispute some claims:

It encourages jihad in the name of God and to capture women for personal use in battle.Jihad is a very complicated concept that is still under interpretation by the followers of Islam. As evidenced by two (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_jihad.htm) sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) I found rather easily, jihad has been constantly reinterpreted throughout the history of Islam. Hopfe and Woodward's Religions of the World, a rather scholarly examination of many major religions, offers some interesting insight as well and I highly recommend the book in general. The book states:
The real meaning of the term "jihad" is struggle in the path of God. It can mean struggle in the physical sense, which can include building mosques or leaving home to work for the spread of Islam or to avoid religious persecution, as well as armed struggle. It can also mean struggle against the human passions and instincts that can prevent people from acting in accordance with the commandments of the faith.
[...]
Muslim scholars teach that only defensive wars are truly jihad. Muslim leaders have, however, often used the concept of "holy war" to justify their actions, usually with mixed results.It goes on to discuss several major Muslim wars and how some were hailed as appropriate jihad (defense in the Crusades) but how many were largely ignored by the Muslim community (conflict in Turkey during World War I; struggles for independence in post-WWII Algeria, Egypt, and Indonesia; Iraq's invasion of Kuwait).

Based on this evidence I would believe you are making your points either from personal ignorance, or because you heard a friend tell you they read in a book some points about religion. If one wants to discuss things in a scholarly way, one must be willing to defend statements of fact with a source. Sadly, I have only seen one source used against me while I have cited several. You'd think rational scientists would be used to defending their claims with independently researched materials.

Other religions all have excessive torture, cruelty, war, smiting, prejudice and other such guidance. The only religions that doesn't is one with no God, no holy book, no hiearchical structure and no strict moral code. That's not much of a religion though.Most band-level and tribe-level cultures in the world still practice their indigenous religions. Many of these religions are animistic (no real gods; nature itself is worshiped), they are passed by oral history (no holy book), people become shamans by voluntary choice (no structure), and issues of morality are reserved for the judiciary practices of the community (no moral code). Despite the fact that religions that meet this criteria exist, the cultures that practice these religions still engage in warfare with other camps and practice prejudice against outsiders. Sadly, I have misplaced the textbook I want to cite, but the people I was going to use as an example are the !Kung. I believe your point that organized religion itself leads to undesirable traits is invalid based upon the existence of both disorganized religions (!Kung) with these traits and "lack of religion" (Nazi party) with these traits. Perhaps cruelty is human nature, but that's more of a philosophical issue.

Also for these two:
It wants theives' limbs to be cut off on the first offence. It encourages slavery.You missed that Christianity and several other religions do both of these. A possible explanation is that their similarity to The Code of Hammurabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi) are not coincidental. When the religions were developed their codes of justice would logically be something the people were comfortable with, and most of them were developed in the Middle East in similar timeframes. I believe this would not be a good avenue for you to pursue since this law predates both Mosaic Law and the entire religion of Islam, and the Code of Hammurabi was not created for religious reasons. Therefore we see that it is possible for non-religious entities to come up with "atrocious" concepts of morality as well.

So where do we get our morality from? Science. We behave according to evolved responses i.e. being nice to people because we might get something in return, caring fr our family because they share our genes and believing in equal opportunities because we wouldn't like to be discriminated against ourselves.This point requires the concept of universal ethics and morality to be true. However, many cultures developed in such a way that the examples you stated were not held in high esteem. Some cultures encourage harsh behavior towards individuals of different social status. In some cultures, kinship rules have nothing to do with genetic descent therefore the people one considers worth protecting have little to do with genetic makeup. Equal opportunity is a very new concept only practiced in few Western cultures. I hardly believe this establishes the existence of a universal code of morality that is only exposed by science.

Furthermore, some of the world's great atrocities were committed in the name of science. Unit 731 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) and Josef Mengele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele) come to mind as examples where scientific research was done in a less-than-humane manner with no religious pretext.

If I am proved wrong by evidence then the resulting evidence is also science, not religion, and I will believe that with equal conviction and questioning as all scientists.This was actually a really intelligent point to make and so long as you earnestly meant it then you are enlightened as well.

Game_boy

06-10-2007, 02:41 PM

For the grammar and spelling, I was in a rush.

As for the verses:

* It rewards those who give up their wives so they can be essentially abused overnight while the husband is safe. - (Judges 19: 23-6)
And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light." ((and all the other translations were even more graphic))

*It encourages people to kill non-believers.
"But tear down their altars, crush their sacred stones, and cut down their poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah"
"but ye shall demolish their altars, shatter their statues, and hew down their Asherahs"(Exodus 34:13-17)
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."
"They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city,38 including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys. "(Joshua 6:21)
((and basically all holy wars mentioned))

* Jesus demands all those who join him hate their mothers and fathers.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
"And turning round, he said to them, If any man comes to me, and has not hate for his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even for his life, he may not be my disciple."
(Luke 14:26)

* It punishes people on the basis of what their distant ancestors did slightly wrong once because they were tricked. - ((Entire Garden of Eden section of Genesis - original sin, etc.))

---------------------------------

But that's not the point. The point is that our morals cannot literally come from religion (and yes, some religions don't have this sort of moral code but they're not the popular ones are they?) so they must come from the world around us. Crimes may be commited in the name of science but what I meant by "morals coming from science" was that our behavioural code is built-in because it evolved to continue the species. Sometimes an individual is selfish and goes against that, but it tends not to pay in terms of reproductive success later on. When numerous cultures are faced with dilemmas like "Should you kill one person deliberately to save five?", the answer is almost universally no across religious and non-religious people. - M. Hauser and P. Singer "Morality without religion" Free Inquiry 26: 1, 2006, 18-19

rock_nog

06-10-2007, 03:32 PM

You know what I've never really understood... Why does it matter what other people believe? Do those beliefs somehow invalidate your own? I mean, it seems like everyone with a set of beliefs is always trying to convert everyone else to those beliefs, whether they be religious or atheist. I tend to lean toward agnostic, because frankly, I don't know and I don't really care. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what's out there, because there's no way of knowing, and so it can't possibly affect my life (if it did, that would be proof).

Beldaran

06-10-2007, 05:52 PM

Why does it matter what other people believe?

Because they fly planes into buildings. They try to make teaching evolution illegal. They burn people at the stake for making telescopes. They encourage a society of backwardness and non-thought. They make life miserable for smart people who realize that the universe, real or not, is real enough that it must be understood and lived in if we are to avoid pain and nothingness in our lives.

People who believe in magic are mentally incompetent and are a danger to a rational society that desires progress and growth.

rock_nog

06-10-2007, 06:42 PM

Oh, right, good call! I dunno... I know a few people who are religious but are tolerant of others' beliefs. Of course, can you really say they're beliefs if you acknowledge the beliefs of others?

Pineconn

06-10-2007, 10:47 PM

People who believe in magic are mentally incompetent and are a danger to a rational society that desires progress and growth.

You see, it's statements like these that exploded this entire thread into what it is.

If a=b and b=c, then a=c.

Now, substituting what you have been saying during this entire thread...

"If you believe in a god, you believe in magic. If you believe in magic, then you are mentally incompetent. Therefore, if you believe in a god, you are mentally incompetent."

I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

Albert Einstein definitively believed in a god. But you cannot say that he was mentally incompetent, can you?

Beldaran

06-10-2007, 10:50 PM

Pineconn

06-10-2007, 11:02 PM

Hm, I suppose he was slightly agnostic then.

Okay, then pick your favorite college professor. I'm sure he practiced a religion.

The point is that you are labeling all people that believe in a god as mentally incompetent. I don't feel like doing the research, but I'm sure I can find some microbiologist that discovered 100 breakthroughs about cell and germ development and is also fully religious.

Before you start labeling me as pro-incantation, I'll restate that I am agnostic. So I'm sort of on your side, but not fully.

rock_nog

06-10-2007, 11:04 PM

Yeah way to blow that einstein quote out of context. I have actually discussed this in person with a nobel prize winning chemist (Harold Kroto, discoverer of carbon-60 molecule, pioneer of nano-tech) and he explained that basically Einstein believed in physics, math, logic, order, and thought and he called the collection of those things "god". He did not believe in magic like most people.
See, I've had the same thought, honestly. That's where I get muddled, though, because technically, it means I believe in God, I'm just defining God differently than others would. Shoot, I don't even know how you're supposed to define God, anyway. I always defined God as the Creator, which means that if the universe created itself, then the universe is God, which just... Oh boy, I'm going cross-eyed. Once again, I think the moral of the story is that our limited viewpoints and narrow-mindedness hurts us.

Dechipher

06-10-2007, 11:08 PM

Because they fly planes into buildings. They try to make teaching evolution illegal. They burn people at the stake for making telescopes. They encourage a society of backwardness and non-thought. They make life miserable for smart people who realize that the universe, real or not, is real enough that it must be understood and lived in if we are to avoid pain and nothingness in our lives.

People who believe in magic are mentally incompetent and are a danger to a rational society that desires progress and growth.

Good call, Jack Thompson...

Pineconn

06-10-2007, 11:14 PM

See, I've had the same thought, honestly. That's where I get muddled, though, because technically, it means I believe in God, I'm just defining God differently than others would. Shoot, I don't even know how you're supposed to define God, anyway. I always defined God as the Creator, which means that if the universe created itself, then the universe is God, which just... Oh boy, I'm going cross-eyed. Once again, I think the moral of the story is that our limited viewpoints and narrow-mindedness hurts us.

That's the point I was trying to make, I'm just way too lazy and uncaring to do so. :p Einstein still believed in a "god" even though that "god" was based on science, but a "god" is a "god" nonetheless... And when I get to this point in thinking (especially of the universe), I just want to grab some Cheez-Its and turn on SportsCenter.

But I have a feeling that neither I nor anyone else won't be able to convince Beld.

Beldaran

06-10-2007, 11:42 PM

Pineconn

06-10-2007, 11:48 PM

There have been many people who are way more intelligent than I am who believed in god. I do not deny this at all. However, that doesn't mean believing in magic without evidence is correct. It is a disorder. That it was what I think.

And your opinion is completely fine with me, whatever I think of it.

I've lost track what each of us is even trying to prove or disprove anymore.

I think it's turned into a virtual rave room of religious/scientific anecdotes, nothing more.

Beldaran

06-11-2007, 12:10 AM

Yeah, well science's dick is bigger than religion's dick.

phattonez

06-11-2007, 12:31 AM

AtmaWeapon

06-11-2007, 03:10 AM

I've lost track what each of us is even trying to prove or disprove anymore.I'm there too man, I'm there too. game_boy did provide a gem among his verses though so I feel compelled to discuss it.

I was in a rushTo do what? Do you get more style points for finishing your post in a certain time period? Was there pressing business you should have been taking care of instead of posting on a forum? Don't you know circlejerks work better when you drag them out? I'm an hour late to bed and in a pretty big hurry to get there but I still take the time to ensure that the credibility of my points is not in question from my prose.

Judges 19: 23-6Go read the entire chapter. And the one after it. Even without commentary (http://enduringword.com/commentaries/0719.htm) it is rather obvious by the conflict this action created that neither God or the nation of Israel endorsed the behaviors of any involved. Usage of this verse is a textbook case of cherry-picking and out-of-context verses.

It encourages people to kill non-believers.While there is ample Biblical evidence that God commanded the Jews to engage in warfare, you have yet to provide proof that the Bible commands either the Jews or Christians to murder non-believers on first sight. Such a command would contradict the sixth (fifth for Roman Catholics apparently) commandment. All I have ever seen is that the act of killing another human is only acceptable in warfare and as punishment for crimes.

Luke 14:26This, I believe, is the result of a language barrier. My initial interpretation is that Jesus' intent (given the following subject matter) is that one must be fully committed to following Him and can let nothing, even familial bonds, stand in your way. This commentary (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html) suggests that the language did not support anything but extremes with regards to relationships: one was either hated or loved, and the word "hate" was often used in the sense of "loved less". Another, (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke14.htm) less in-depth source seems to agree with my initial interpretation.

Entire Garden of Eden section of Genesis - original sin, etc.First, remove original sin as a general Christian example. There has been conflict over the notion of original sin for centuries, and it is one of the reasons for the many denominations that exist today.

The reason for the existence of original sin (to those who subscribe to it) is to further support the need for man's atonement. Regardless of original sin, every man is responsible for every sinful action he makes. Jewish theology used blood sacrifice as the means of atonement; one who regularly performed sacrifice would gain atonement and be righteous. Christians see Jesus' sacrifice as atonement for the sins of all mankind with the condition that one must believe in His sacrifice to be saved by it. With this in mind, original sin serves to remind even the most pious that there is always sin on them and they should never feel as if they can approach righteousness without atonement.

In fact, Jesus Himself seems to reject the idea that one is punished for the sins of one's ancestors in John 9:
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.Verse 1 shows the disciples assuming the man's misfortune was possibly divine punishment for the sins of his parents. Jesus dismisses this and indicates the man was blind so he could be healed. This contradicts Exodus 20:5:
you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;...but if you are careful to read further to verse 6:
but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments. we see that the righteous are able to not only reverse the punishment of previous sin, but bestow blessings among their offspring.

I personally further believe the Exodus verse is weakened because Christian doctrine is established primarily in the New Testament, with the Old Testament serving as a record of the events leading to Jesus' birth, evidence that God fulfills his promises regardless of his followers' mistakes (Israel turned from God numerous times, but their savior was still provided), and establishment of behavioral standards both moral and ethical. The "old law" may not apply due to Jesus' atonement, but the law still remains God's commandments and it is unwise to ignore them completely. In this case, God is obviously suggesting that His wrath is great but His mercy is greater.

Beldaran

06-11-2007, 03:34 AM

rock_nog

06-11-2007, 06:02 AM

phattonez

06-11-2007, 10:39 AM

God is evil if old testament law is his idea of justice. It's so screwed up and horrible. Puting a woman to death for commiting adultery is horrendous. So is putting a child to death for talking back to his father. Those people were screwed up morons.

Just an observation, what gives you the right to decide what is evil over God?

And to defend religion, I don't see Jews going out and killing adulterers.
Jesus taught love, not strict regulation of law and tradition.

That law was for that time, it obviously does not work now.

Game_boy

06-11-2007, 11:03 AM

As you've pointed out yourself, AtmaWeapon, the Bible and all religious texts have sections which we're not supposed to take literally if we are to do what is right and good. This means we must have a standard of morality seperate from any religious text. Therefore religion is unneccesary. As Beldaran has said, religion is undesirable too because of the evil things often done in its name.

My point is that if we don't subscribe to a God, religious people cannot claim to be morally superior or logically superior. This doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean they shouldn't say that everything would be better if we followed religion X.

And with the quotations you dismissed, I agree, they're taken out of context. But when people follow what their holy text or standards say, they also take it out of context because language is not perfect.

Beldaran

06-11-2007, 03:20 PM

You know, the actual truth is more horrible. A vengeful God wouldn't be too bad, but Beldaran, you act as if these ideas come from on high, even though you detest religion. And we must realize that religion is not at fault for this horrible truth, which is that human beings actually came up with this nonsense all on their own, without any help from any divine being. Oh sure, they went back and used God to justify it, but religion didn't inspire them to create the rules, as they were the ones to create the religion.

I know it's something of a chicken vs. egg argument, but it seems to me that it's human nature that's screwed up, and religion is merely a symptom, not the disease.

I completely agree. The insane garbage in the bible lends itself to the notion that people made it up.

Phattonez, I don't need the "right" to decide what is evil. I have a brain and I can make decisions for myself. I think killing children is evil. If you would allow a magic book to convince you otherwise, then you truly are mentally vacant.

phattonez

06-11-2007, 05:19 PM

Bel, you're missing my point because of one statement. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean that religious people follow it word by word. Jews don't go around killing around adulterers. They can obviously make up their own minds. That law was a product of its time.

Beldaran

06-11-2007, 05:49 PM

Jews don't go around killing around adulterers.

But they used to, which further demonstrates the depravity of belief. Also, muslims still do this. I've seen multiple stories of women being stoned to death by the community in which they live because of accusations of adultery, even when those accusations had no proof at all.

Religon is despicable and vile, and anyone who believes in anything is an accomplice.

phattonez

06-11-2007, 06:20 PM

But it shows that they obviously don't follow the law blindly. Look at the teachings we've had since then, especially what Jesus said about "let he who is without sin throw the first stone." It's something that all of us should follow.

I guess that shows why I'm not a Jew and why I follow the teachings of Jesus. You can't say that there's anything wrong with what Jesus taught.

You know, I don't even know what I'm arguing anymore. Bel, I can't account for every religion. It all comes down to who is responsible. Is it my fault that I'm a murderer, or is it because of what someone taught me?

AtmaWeapon

06-11-2007, 08:11 PM

Beldaran I still believe you commit a fallacy of composition by suggesting that since some religions commit atrocities, all religions are atrocious.

But if there's anything this thread has taught me it is that you are completely unwilling to consider, even in the slightest, the opinion of other people. I really don't see much evidence that you've even read a word I posted. I've left a pretty easy hole in my points in the hopes that just once, you'd argue from a position other than "Yarr I'm Beldaran and my massive cock means I am correct!" but you failed to respond. The point just got brought up again and I can spell it out for you, because whether you completely missed it or refuse to read my posts the cause is still the ignorance of a bigot.

Judaism was developed in the Middle East alongside several other religions; in fact many customs of Zoroastrianism carried over into Kabbalah, the Judaic mysticism. I stumbled upon one of the similarities in Church, actually. When people begged Jesus to heal Lazarus, He quite literally killed time and put it off and didn't arrive until Lazarus had been dead for four days.

Why wait so long? Well, the commentary I happened to read that day pointed out that there was a Jewish belief at the time that the spirit of the dead lingered around the body for three days, only proceeding to the afterlife on the fourth. By waiting until the fourth day, Jesus demonstrated His power was great enough to pull a soul back to its body even after it had departed the Earth.

Now, what's quite interesting about that is Zoroastrianism, which predates Judaism by a decent margin, always held the belief that the soul lingers near the body for three days, pondering the works it had done in life. Could it be that all this time I've been a follower of Zoroaster, worshiping Ahuramazda under a different name and a belief system that was modified by a culture that saw fit to change it? Who knows.

Also of interest are the numerous times I hinted at how similar all of the religions that developed in the Middle East are with respect to harsh punishments for seemingly innocent crimes. However, we live in a day where a loaf of bread costs less than the average (Western) man's 10 minutes of work. Furthermore, we have advanced medical care and capability to diagnose, treat, and hinder the spread of diseases. People in ancient Middle Eastern cultures had no such luxuries. A thief who stole a loaf of bread could potentially robbed an entire family of their meal for a night; if his theft were committed enough it is possible it could lead to the death of innocents. Of course the punishment for theft was harsh! What of adultery? The most common form of marriage in human cultures is not monogamy. I forget if it is polygyny or polygamy that is more common but that is moot. Why would the Middle Eastern religions all take great pains to punish deviation from what seems to be the natural human relationship pattern? Could it be that someone somewhere realized the spread of many diseases could be hindered by people reducing the number of sexual partners they kept? Could it be that to develop a strong sense of property, their culture needed very strict and clear paternal relationships?

Everything about the "cruel" justice practiced by these religions is a fairly good example of how to maintain political order in an environment where resources are scarce. There is a distinct possibility that everything I hold sacred is nothing more than an elaborate method of establishing a government.

The thing is, even if I'm wrong, I like my system of belief. While I have certainly encountered tough times since becoming a Christian, the decision brought about changes in my life that I believe were positive and crucial in putting me in the position I am in today. I see a lot of unhappy people every day, but lately even when I have several misfortunes happen at once I maintain my chill and go about my life. I believe this calm is of divine origin, but if you want to believe it is just a well-adjusted view of the world that's great.

If you wish to discuss religion with me further you can eat a heaping bowl of dicks with a side of testicles, because I refuse to waste any more time on someone who doesn't even extend the courtesy of listening politely.

rock_nog

06-12-2007, 03:10 AM

I think, though, that the argument could be made for the idea that people would be stupid, no matter whether they had beliefs or not. You think that if religion went away, suddenly people would start to act in a sane manner? I sure as heck don't get that impression. People would blindly follow science just as much as they blindly follow faith today, never questioning, fighting, killing over conflicts of opinion. Like I said earlier, religion is the symptom, not the disease.

Beldaran

06-12-2007, 03:51 AM

Atma: I read your posts, I just think the "my cock is huge" argument holds enough water to preclude in-depth responses. No, really though, I read your posts. I just don't see anything in them that elevates religion from the swamp of mysticsm to the beautiful plateau of rational thought. I know you make lots of good points. There is a lot to say and consider when you are trying to defend millenia old tribal mysticsm in a century of science and progress. I'm sure your beliefs do make you feel better. I bet I'd feel great if I knew there was a big magic friend waiting to take me to ultimate paradise and that nothing bad really mattered. However, scientifically it is impossible to know that. Personally, I'd rather go to hell with Richard Dawkins than go to heaven with all the ignorant mystics I see going to church. I think a truly scientific mind has to acknowledge there is no scientific evidence for any of the claims of religion, and a truly scientific person does not hold beliefs without evidence. If being logical in this way is a sin that offends god, then I don't care to know that god. I am perfectly comfortable with my unanswered questions. I don't need a magic answer. I don't respect magic answers.

rock_nog: I agree that religion is a symptom of human stupidity. Where it makes itself a distinct and manifestly dangerous meme is the way it behaves like a software virus. It spreads itself from host to host, corrupting mental function, altering behavior in often negative ways, and causing a cancerous intellectual growth on organs of society that might otherwise contribute to progress.

Despite my harsh and bitter tone, I do not hate religious people. Like I said, I view them as suffering from a disease; a mental virus. My bitterness comes from my disgust and heated revulsion at having been raised in fundamentalist religion, and all the ways it has hindered my intellectual growth. I think religion is child abuse. I think that because I am a 25 year old man who accepts the scientific method as the only correct way of understanding and prospering in the universe, and yet I still have recurring nightmares of being tortured forever in hell because from the time I was old enough to speak, the adults in my community continued to teach me that if I ever deviated from my belief I would suffer a fate infinitely worse than death.

That is abuse. It is horrible. The world would be better if every religious person were put on a spaceship and shot off into the cosmos. Would there still be stupidity? Yes. Would there still be horror and war and dispute? Yes. But at least one of the zits of human history would have been cleansed.

Religion has been one of the most horrifying things I've ever experienced, and now that I'm old enough and educated enough to look back on it for what it really is, I have nothing but bile in my mouth. It sickens me, and it should sicken anyone who values reason and truth.

AlexMax

06-13-2007, 11:06 PM

:words:

When you go into personal issues with religion, you get the standard "Well, not all religious people are like that, you just got unlucky." from believers. And to be honest, I agree with them, in fact I have a number of good friends who are all highly religious (my roomate is baptist), and I'm sure we all know a few gigantic assholes who are athiests or are at the very least apathetic.

I do have a problem with religion as a whole, but I've been trying to the past half hour to formulate my thoughts, and have only suceeded in writing a few paragraphs about how systems that don't encourage skepticisim are bad, so if anyone can bring a rebuttle to the table about how christianity encourages debate and free thought, please do so, because I certianly can't find any evidence for it.

EDIT: And I am aware that not all religious types are indoctrinated crazy people, but it seems like any 'free thought' in a religious community happens at the pleasure of whoever is in charge of the church or family.

The_Amaster

06-13-2007, 11:13 PM

However, scientifically it is impossible to know that

Exactly! Can't prove it, can't disprove it, no one can know. Hence Agnosticism.

AlexMax

06-17-2007, 06:11 PM

Exactly! Can't prove it, can't disprove it, no one can know. Hence Agnosticism.

My problem with the common use of the word "Agnostic" is that it commonly is understood as a weak word, as if to say that both possabilities have an equal probability of being correct, a 50/50 shot as it were. To do so almost seems to undermine Bel's and my stance on the subject. No, we as a species have not been able to scientificly figure out "The God Hypothesis", but that doesn't mean that we won't be able to do so in the future, and I certianly can't think of anything else in the sciences that lends any sort of evidence in the hypothesis favor.

Of course, we're simply arguing back and forth over semantics, which obfuscates the issue at hand. The first couple of chapters of The God Delusion seem to iron out many of the semantics issues inherant in discussing religion quite nicely, and I recomend everyone, even those who don't agree with its subject matter, should give the first few chapters a whirl.

Beldaran

06-17-2007, 07:59 PM

Richard Dawkins is one of my intellectual heroes. He is so awesome. I'm currently reading The Selfish Gene.

Masamune

06-17-2007, 08:53 PM

Jews don't go around killing around adulterers.

Ya-huh.

AtmaWeapon

06-18-2007, 01:52 AM

Hey is this The God Delusion thing an original work or does it have some cited references too? Basically I get a big boner for books with radically different opinions where the author at least took the effort to find other individual research to back up their claims.

I'll probably read it, but I think there's an inherent problem even if it cites sources well. Allow me to illustrate.

This conspiracy theorist I worked with bought me You Are Being Lied To (http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Being-Lied-Disinformation/dp/0966410076/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-0151797-6405257?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182144473&sr=8-1), a book chock full of conspiracy theory essays. I wasn't even going to read any of it but then I noticed Noam Chomsky was one of the authors and I at least read his piece, which I admit had a good point. Anyway what impressed me was that even the most loony essays in the book had several sources cited.

The problem is, the sources that were cited were, more often than not, sources that could only be considered credible if you already subscribed to the theory. While I lack a concrete example, in general it was as if a documentary on the existence of sasquatch were using Art Bell as a serious reference. If I already have a strong belief in sasquatch, then odds are I view Art Bell as more credible than the average person.

This is the reason why I think it is futile for a Christian to argue with an atheist. The Christian makes the fundamental assumption that the Bible is a sacred text and anything that disagrees with it is wrong. The atheist makes the fundamental assumption that the Bible is at best a history of the Jewish people mixed with folklore and mysticism, and anything in it is suspect.

Because of the opposing assumptions, the argument between a devout Christian and a devout atheist is a stalemate. The Christian's only source of evidence is the Bible*, a book the atheist does not accept as a credible reference. The atheist's strongest source of evidence is scientific facts that discredit interpretations of the Bible, which the Christian is already prepared to disbelieve**.

In short, I believe everyone makes a personal decision to follow something that works for them. I believe everyone gets along better when the discussion of these beliefs is voluntary and welcomed. Because of this, I've never believed in door-to-door evangelism; if someone wants to hear about Jesus they will ask me or someone else. Life is much better when we let each other be, and honestly I think that was a big part of Jesus' message. I think what He really wanted is what I kind of have always wanted out of atheists: make your point, provide your evidence, concede that your evidence only proves the point in the context of your beliefs, then let the other individual decide if your beliefs make sense to them.

Does this mean there are many paths to Heaven? Not in my opinion, but I do think it means that some of the more aggressive evangelistic Christians will be held accountable for the souls they have turned away from Christ. Trust me, I hold them with pretty much the same contempt that I believe you do.

*Logic is not a tool of religious debate, or, more appropriately, religious debate is not something that can be debated with proper logic. Every logic class I took discussed early on that in matters of faith, the conclusions are based on hypothesis that may not be logically provable. Because of this, matters of faith are not to be considered topics of logical debate. Any "logical" proof that God must exist almost always relies on the implicit belief that He exists in the first place, which is a fallacy. The only way in which logic may be used against an atheist is to point out fallacies in the atheist's arguments, taking care to avoid "fallacies" that are only fallacies if you implicitly believe in God's existence.

**Because matters of faith are, by their nature, illogical, a believer has usually encountered many of the arguments an atheist could put forth and found a way to resolve them with their beliefs. In some cases, the believer is willing to stand against scientific proof; this is a show of good faith but possibly a sign of poor thought. However, I believe the only entities with the authority to judge a belief system as correct are the individual and the deity(ies) that may or may not exist. We'll all find out one day.

--EPILOGUE--
Also I really hate this argument because, try as I might, I always spell "atheist" the wrong way and have to correct it.