Religion, or the lack thereof

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.

Beldaran wrote: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.

Beldaran wrote: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...

rock_nog wrote: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. 😛 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.

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.

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

Beldaran wrote: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.

Beldaran wrote: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.

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

Beldaran wrote: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.

Because I just hate that science is showing that we can't interpret the Bible literally.

YOU BASTARDS!!!!

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

I was in a rush

Judges 19: 23-6

It encourages people to kill non-believers.

Luke 14:26

Entire Garden of Eden section of Genesis - original sin, etc.

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.

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 bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.

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.

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.

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.

Beldaran wrote: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.

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.

rock_nog wrote: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.

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.

phattonez wrote: 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Beldaran wrote::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.

However, scientifically it is impossible to know that

Amaster42 wrote: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.

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

phattonez wrote:Jews don't go around killing around adulterers.

Ya-huh.

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, 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.

It's highly unfair to lump Richard Dawkins in with conspiracy theorists. You should do some research on him. He's very academically and intellectually legitimate.

You owe it to yourself to read some of his stuff, especially The God Delusion. I think you'll find it's brilliantly written, even if you utterly disagree with all of it. Dawkins is compelling, intelligent, and extremely well spoken. His language is very precise and logical. I love it.

You know who really creep me out? Those people who claim that without religion, we would have no morals and the world would fall into chaos. Seriously - I just get a tad nervous around people who are basically implying that the only thing between them and a homocidal rampage is a belief in God.

On the other hand, what about religion as metaphor? I mean, I could imagine God as being a symbol for our own conscience, and religion just being a life philosophy. In this case, (a) you choose a religion suited to your philosophy (which god or gods is more in line with what you think is most important in life), and (b) the whole thing about it being provable goes out the window 'cause it's just a metaphor. I mean, if I said that life is like an orange, you wouldn't demand me to prove the relationship between life and citrus. Honestly, that's the way I see religion - I've always thought that the message was more important than the messenger. Heretical, perhaps, but it always made more sense to me that way.

And I mean then, God becomes a source of inspiration, and prayer becomes a form of meditation. Here's the thing in terms of prayer and the like. We all know that there are things that we can't normally do, but if we really believe in ourselves, we can accomplish them. The way I've always seen it, it's much easier to believe in yourself if you imagine an omnipotent deity is on your side. Right or wrong, there's a lot of power there, so should we just ignore it?

^^Religion already kind of supports that notion. Have you ever heard this? "God is love."