Is There a God?

[EuroTroll]

(This is meant to be a survey of our forumers' spiritual beliefs. I'm not entirely sure the moderators will allow it, but I'm inclined to think they will, so long as we keep it clean and free from personal insults. Yes we can. ;) )

I come from one of the most non-religious countries in the world, where about 15% - 20% of people believe there is a God. It might well have much to do with our Soviet past. Religion was a strict no-no in Soviet times -- you were supposed to believe in Lenin! -- and it's only been 20 years since.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Why? Because I haven't seen any proof of God's existence during my lifetime, and I'm disinclined to just believe. Yet, noone can obviously prove that God doesn't exist, so I'm open to the possibility that He might.

What are you? And why?

Can we have a poll too, please.
Question: Is there a God?
Answer 1: YES; I am a theist.
Answer 2: PROBABLY YES; I'm an agnostic theist.
Answer 3: PROBABLY NOT; I'm an agnostic atheist.
Answer 4: NO; I'm an atheist.
Answer 5: Who cares? I don't.

Thank you.

[Knock-on]

Of course there's a dog.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k177/knock-on/General/20120301_125008.jpg

Prepare for the charge of the 'Loud Brigade' for daring to consider other options than option 1, followed by a bloody battle and ultimatly the closure of another thread.

Should be fun :D

[Knock-on]

Anyway, in answer to your question, of course there's a Dog.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k177/knock-on/General/20120301_125008.jpg

[EuroTroll]

Prepare for the charge of the 'Loud Brigade' for daring to consider other options than option 1, followed by a bloody battle and ultimatly the closure of another thread.

Should be fun :D

No, 'cause we talked about it in Forum Feedback, see. We're going to be nice to each other from now on. After all, we're one big happy family. :D

PS. Good-looking dog.

[Knock-on]

No, 'cause we talked about it in Forum Feedback, see. We're going to be nice to each other from now on. After all, we're one big happy family. :D

Pardon me for being cynical. 10 years experience on here but if this thread goes off without a bun fight, I might become a Beliver :laugh:



PS. Good-looking dog.

And doesn't he know it. As far as he's concerned, he IS God!!

He's just lying on my toes at the moment keeping them warm so I won't say too much otherwise he might move ;)

[Malbec]

As far as he's concerned, he IS God!!

But God is clearly a cat, even dogs know that!

[schmenke]

There is no God for Chirst's sake!

[race aficionado]

We are all Gods! Let's fix this mess up! Pronto!

:s mokin:

[Knock-on]

But God is clearly a cat, even dogs know that!

Shhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I've got cold toes :(

[donKey jote]

no God, but almost as many gods as humans - nearly everybody has his own, in their minds, created in their own images :)

[Zico]

There most likely isn't a God... but I wouldn't rule out the possibility completely, it would be arogant to think I know it all.


That said, there are some pretty interesting NDE stories.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSjzY0s0SM&feature=related

Yes I know people of different faiths have different experiences but its interesting all the same.

[Breeze]

We are all Gods! Let's fix this mess up! Pronto!

:s mokin:

Brilliant. Kudos to you Race. I bow to your omniscience.

[Breeze]

I'm an agnostic atheist. ...... Yet, noone can obviously prove that God doesn't exist, so I'm open to the possibility that He might.
Thank you.

May I remind you that if reason is your means, logic is the method, and in logic you cannot prove a negative. It is incumbent on the arguer making the positve assertion to prove it with evidence. Logically, proof requires evidence, whether empirical or rational, and there can be no evidence for something which does not exist.

[race aficionado]

Brilliant. Kudos to you Race. I bow to your omniscience.

And me to yours. :)

[Dave B]

No god, but I can understand why our non-scientific ancestors invented them to explain the gaps in their knowledge.

[Zico]

No god, but I can understand why our non-scientific ancestors invented them to explain the gaps in their knowledge.

Yep....Or did they have NDE's also that sparked off a belief in the supernatural ? ... I wonder what came first.

[Mark]

I believe in God for I am he :D

[MrJan]

I don't personally believe that there is, but I don't mind if other people choose to believe (unless they try to force their beliefs on me or consider me to be lesser purely because my opinion differs to theirs)

[EuroTroll]

I believe in God for I am he :D

"In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Administrator, Amen." :p :

[ioan]

If a worldwide poll's outcome would look like what our poll results look now, we would be living in a better world.

[MrJan]

If a worldwide poll's outcome would look like what our poll results look now, we would be living in a better world.

"motorsportforums.com users, better than average people" :D

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm unhappy with the options. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god.

I can't disprove that god exists. Atheism isn't not believing because you have evidence that god doesn't exist, it is not believing because there is no evidence.

[N4D13]

I'm unhappy with the options. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god.

I can't disprove that god exists. Atheism isn't not believing because you have evidence that god doesn't exist, it is not believing because there is no evidence.
Personally, I'm an apatheist. This means that, in my opinion, whether a god exists or not is irrelevant, as we do not have any way to know if he does exist and how he could influence our lives. Basically, it's like living inside a black box - you don't know if there's anything outside, and even if it does, you can't really know whether what is going on is caused by what is outside the box (God) or not.

Sorry if you think that was a poor analogy. I've tried to explain my view, but perhaps it isn't as clear as I wanted it to be.

[Rollo]

This is an 11 minute video. It's all purely conjecture but worth discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw

I don't really like the position of hard-Atheism because logically I think it falls over.

If a hypothetical flatlander who exists in the second dimension, passes through the third, their capability of observing things is incredibly limited. Likewise, it can be supposed that we currently observe five dimensions (because time is linear) but anything beyond that is either difficult or impossible to observe.
Since science itself relies on the collection of empirical and measurable evidence, how is it supposed to deal with unobservable evidence? That isn't to suggest that the evidence isn't there though. What if God/god/s are/is a hyperdimensional being who exists in all dimensions or somewhere above?

Part of the problem with this entire debate is that people's perception is entirely skewed. Theists will take evidence as proof of the existence of God, whereas Atheists will take evidence as proof of the non-existence of God.
The word agnostic derives from the Greek "gnosis" which means knowledge and the "a" at the beginning is a negative qualifier. Agnosticism basically holds that there aren't rational grounds and/or reason itself isn't sufficient to prove whether or not God/god/s exist or not.

I myself am a Theist (a Christian) but for the reasons stated above completely understand why an Atheist would find my position just as unalienable. Given that my perception is also entirely skewed, it's entirely rational for both hard-Atheists and agnostic-atheists to reject my position outright.

[Bob Riebe]

But God is clearly a cat, even dogs know that!Hmmm, sometimes I wonder....

They should do another OH GOD movie and have that little wee, wee, wee pig from the Geico commercials play god.

[Bob Riebe]

May I remind you that if reason is your means, logic is the method, and in logic you cannot prove a negative. It is incumbent on the arguer making the positve assertion to prove it with evidence. Logically, proof requires evidence, whether empirical or rational, and there can be no evidence for something which does not exist.

When it is found, then it does exist but universally only if everyone accpets it.
To those who do not, it does not exist.

[Bob Riebe]

They should do another [i]OH GOD[/b] movie and happy that little wee, wee, wee pig from the Geico commercials play god.

[janvanvurpa]

Personally, I'm an apatheist. This means that, in my opinion, whether a god exists or not is irrelevant, as we do not have any way to know if he does exist and how he could influence our lives. Basically, it's like living inside a black box - you don't know if there's anything outside, and even if it does, you can't really know whether what is going on is caused by what is outside the box (God) or not.

Sorry if you think that was a poor analogy. I've tried to explain my view, but perhaps it isn't as clear as I wanted it to be.

Carrying your idea a bit further, "and what if a god, 10,000 gods exist, what of it? What are we to do about it?
And conversely "what if Bogu doesn't exist? What does that mean we are to do about that.?"

In either case we still have just keep on keepin on.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Faith is faith. It does not need scientific evidence. Even so, it has plenty.

[densonvendor]

Yes, i believe in God.

[Dave B]

Faith is faith. It does not need scientific evidence. Even so, it has plenty.
I'd be interested to know what scientific evidence there is for the existence of a god.

[Mark]

Dave,
Lets not get started on 'intelligent design'...

[martynwayn@yahoo.com]

R E Li G I ON !!!!!!
I'd be interested to know what scientific evidence there is for the existence of a god.

[Mark]

R E Li G I ON !!!!!!

Well quite.

[Knock-on]

Using that Logic, I'm going to enrol in Hogwarts :D

[EuroTroll]

By the way, if anyone is interested in watching debates on this topic, there's the excellent Christopher Hitchens Youtube Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/hitchenschannel?ob=4&feature=results_main).

[Rudy Tamasz]

Dave,
Lets not get started on 'intelligent design'...

Mark is right. This is an old debate that we do not have to repeat. Those interested can revisit that thread.

Here I am more interested in the mental approaches to the issue. Sometimes it sounds like believers just believe while atheists tend to rationalize. I am not sure this is entirely true. There's plenty of theologists who rationalize God. On the other hand, those self-styled rational folks do not rationalize everything. They are simply not in a position to do so. Everybody has affinities, loyalties and sympathies that just are there because they are there. A human mind would just get overloaded with a zillion operations if we started rationalizing everything. I.e. there's a lot of things that even folks on the rational side take as is. In this case how could they be consistent when they question the existence of somebody just because they think they haven't seen the evidence yet?

I am a theist and i believe in god because personally i feel that god is everywhere and the smallest help i got from unusual means is by the wish of the god.

[odykas]

http://www.motivationals.org/demotivational-posters/demotivational-poster-13371.jpg


:D :p :

[Mark]

:rotflmao:

[schmenke]

I propose we have Mulder and Scully investigate.

[Knock-on]

If there is a God, what faith or denomination do you think is his. Is he a Christian, Jew, Pagan, Hindi, Islamist, Shintoist etc. He can't be all of them and according to their teachings, some are mutually exclusive.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If there is a God, what faith or denomination do you think is his. Is he a Christian, Jew, Pagan, Hindi, Islamist, Shintoist etc. He can't be all of them and according to their teachings, some are mutually exclusive.

God has no denomination. People do. From their point of view their denomination is right, others are wrong. The difference is the level of tolerance.

[Knock-on]

God has no denomination. People do. From their point of view their denomination is right, others are wrong. The difference is the level of tolerance.

That's if you believe there is only one God.

For example, a fundemental difference between Muslim and Christian faiths is that of Jesus being the Son of God or just another Prophet. If Jesus is the Son then surely, although Christianity is a new fangled religion, it is the only true one. However, if this isn't the case, then the Christian faith is rather a sham isn't it?

Then we can look at other religions that believe in multiple Gods and not one divine being. Look at one of the more established religions based in Anciant Egypt where there are multiple Gods but include the creator, Ra (Re) or the Sun God. Are they wrong?

We could go all the way back to symbolism but there's little point.

So, if there is a creator, it's unlikely he, she or it is religious but more likely to be an energy or creative source IMHO and therefore religion is nothing more than a belief of a communal code of behaviour.

[wedge]

If there is a God then who created God?

[schmenke]

Steve Jobs



:erm:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

God has no denomination. People do. From their point of view their denomination is right, others are wrong. The difference is the level of tolerance.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Dawkins.

[Breeze]

Steve Jobs



:erm:

Wrong. Steve Wozniak. Jobs was just his shill, kinda like the biblical Gabriel.

[Knock-on]

Religion and Apple. All we need is guns on the thread for the perfect forum storm :D

[odykas]

Both Religion and Apple are tools to control the masses ;)

[Knock-on]

Both Religion and Apple are tools to control the masses ;)

At least Apple's useful :D

[janvanvurpa]

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Dawkins.

Nice and gives you a pause, too.
Douglass Addams, the genius who brought us the epic adventure, the 'increasingly inappropriately named "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" wrote a wonderful book on this very subject called "The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul" addressing
The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Dark_Tea-Time_of_the_Soul)

the question "what does happen to those Gods we have created when we no longer need them?

and is a play on the theological treatise Dark Night of the Soul, by Saint John of the Cross.

I got my copy in Heathrow Terminal 4 (or sumpin) years ago, which in the novel was destroyed when Woden encounters an unusually recalcitrant ticket agent and he blows his top..

[ioan]

Faith is faith. It does not need scientific evidence. Even so, it has plenty.

Plenty of what?

[ioan]

Mark is right. This is an old debate that we do not have to repeat. Those interested can revisit that thread.

Here I am more interested in the mental approaches to the issue. Sometimes it sounds like believers just believe while atheists tend to rationalize. I am not sure this is entirely true. There's plenty of theologists who rationalize God.

What if the theologists would rationalize reality instead of God?
Maybe they will not be theologists anymore, however they would finally know something more.

[ioan]

Nah, he would have created the iGod aka Steve Jobs clone.

[donKey jote]

If there is a God then who created God?

Pratchett created small gods...

[J4MIE]

Has nobody else seen the end of Lost? Do you really expect me to believe that that was made up? :dozey:

[schmenke]

...iGod ...

:up: :D

[Tazio]

May I remind you that if reason is your means, logic is the method, and in logic you cannot prove a negative. It is incumbent on the arguer making the positve assertion to prove it with evidence. Logically, proof requires evidence, whether empirical or rational, and there can be no evidence for something which does not exist.


If there is a God then who created God?
Well put my good men! :up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34-1W_9BhoU

[BleAivano]

yes there is, his name is Sebastien Loeb. :P

[Mark]

Asking who created God is like saying what came before the start of the Universe. This is a much more fundamental question IMO.

[odykas]

If there is a God then who created God?

Chuck Norris :o

God wanted 10 days to create the world. Chuck Norris gave him 6.

:p :

[gloomyDAY]

If a worldwide poll's outcome would look like what our poll results look now, we would be living in a better world.That is naive. I'm an atheist too, but I don't think our world would be necessarily better without religion.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That is naive. I'm an atheist too, but I don't think our world would be necessarily better without religion.

It would if religious leaders realise that their beliefs should only govern their own lives and not everyone elses.

BBC News - Catholic cardinal criticises gay marriages plan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099)

[Captain VXR]

If there was no religion, the twin towers would still be standing and there would be no war in Afghanistan

[Mark]

Or would they? If there was no religion perhaps we'd stop hiding behind religion and be more open about what it's all about, power & control.

[Tazio]

Religion is "dying hard"! I don't want to step on anyone’s spirituality. However, there was a time when unexplained natural phenomena and the idea of "causality" were not understood. Our species has evolved. We don't need human sacrifice to appease a rain god to ensure our corn will grow. And personally I don't need religion to know it is improper to take what belongs to someone else. The only thing I want to say about Jesus (not you Gloo) is; at a time when the Romans were ruling the middle east with an iron fist some Israelites were thinking that this may be a good time for the second coming of god. There were many candidates at the time, most were discarded as phonies, and arguably so was Jesus, because the majority of Israelites did not recognize him as "The One"
I don’t even want to get started on Caesar Constantine's promotion of "The Holy Roman Catholic Church", the justice it meted out to non believers, and intolerance of advances in physical science that the church instituted. What I do believe about jesus is that he was a non-violent revolutionary, and possibly the the first significant one.

[Knock-on]

What I do believe about jesus is that he was a non-violent revolutionary, and possibly the the first significant one.

Not too sure about that one but best to let it ride for the sake of the thread ;)

[Tazio]

Please do elaborate!

[Dave B]

There probably was a person called Jesus who did some good works, but centuries of handing down stories through the generations has distorted his history to the point where he's taken on an almost Brian like reverence.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Or would they? If there was no religion perhaps we'd stop hiding behind religion and be more open about what it's all about, power & control.

Exactly. Let us not forget, Hitler and Stalin, the two biggest tyrants were also the biggest iconoclasts ever.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I don’t even want to get started on Caesar Constantine's promotion of "The Holy Roman Catholic Church

That's probably because Constantine and his sons weren't catholic in the first place. Check sources first.

If you need an example of a less tolerant ruler who promoted a certain denomination and persecuted dissidents, Diocletian would be a good choice.

[Tazio]

That's probably because Constantine and his sons weren't catholic in the first place. Check sources first.

You have not taken my reference in the manner in which I meant it.


In 313, the struggles of the early church were lessened by the legalization of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 380, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor.
I never implied that Constantine persecuted Catholics, only that he had it institutionalized.

[Alexamateo]

I am a Christian and therefore a theist.

I won't try to change your beliefs, but there's quite a bit of literature that suggests an inclination towards religion is an evolutionary advantage. For one thing it unites a culture and organizes society. If you read the book Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches, there are very good reasons for the Jews to eschew the pig, and Hindus to not eat their sacred cows. There's a certain culture in southeast Asia whose name escapes me that had an elaborate schedule of religious feasts and celebrations. It was only in modern times that anthropologists discovered (when those schedules were abandoned) that the timing ensured agricultural success and minimized pest problems through strict calendar management.

For one thing, religion promises the "illusion of control" as Howard Bloom would put it in The Lucifer Principle, over the unpredictability of life. He also says the we modern men are no different, bowing to the modern medical shaman we call our Doctors. We read books with all sorts of conflicting advice on Parenting to try and control the uncontrollable, and I see religiosity all over the environmental movement, only now it's not for the sake of our souls, it's for the sake of the planet. In other words we are stillinclined to organize our thoughts this way.

The homily in mass yesterday was based on Romans 8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

I am sure many of you find me foolish, but I pray all the time as I move through life and I find it centers me and helps me make the right decisions, and I have been blessed. Even though I sell products to construction in a recession, I still had my best year ever. Everything is just opening up before me and I am amazed. No it's not perfect, but I could not imagine going through life as an agnostic or atheist. It may sound silly to many of you, but I am not alone.

[FormerFF]

Live the live you love
Use a god you trust
And don't take it all too seriously.

- Love And Rockets

[heliocastroneves#3]

Sheesh, my dog is god guys!

[Mark]

I am a Christian and therefore a theist.

I won't try to change your beliefs, but there's quite a bit of literature that suggests an inclination towards religion is an evolutionary advantage. For one thing it unites a culture and organizes society. If you read the book Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches, there are very good reasons for the Jews to eschew the pig, and Hindus to not eat their sacred cows. There's a certain culture in southeast Asia whose name escapes me that had an elaborate schedule of religious feasts and celebrations. It was only in modern times that anthropologists discovered (when those schedules were abandoned) that the timing ensured agricultural success and minimized pest problems through strict calendar management.

For one thing, religion promises the "illusion of control" as Howard Bloom would put it in The Lucifer Principle, over the unpredictability of life. He also says the we modern men are no different, bowing to the modern medical shaman we call our Doctors. We read books with all sorts of conflicting advice on Parenting to try and control the uncontrollable, and I see religiosity all over the environmental movement, only now it's not for the sake of our souls, it's for the sake of the planet. In other words we are stillinclined to organize our thoughts this way.

The homily in mass yesterday was based on Romans 8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

I am sure many of you find me foolish, but I pray all the time as I move through life and I find it centers me and helps me make the right decisions, and I have been blessed. Even though I sell products to construction in a recession, I still had my best year ever. Everything is just opening up before me and I am amazed. No it's not perfect, but I could not imagine going through life as an agnostic or atheist. It may sound silly to many of you, but I am not alone.

Yes, it's easier to organise a functioning society when there are rules of conduct for daily life. That if you steal your neighbours bread and kill him at the same time, then you'll go to hell is a powerful motivator to keep you in line.

[Knock-on]

Please do elaborate!

What record do we have that Jesus was peaceful? The Bible was written 300 years later by a collection of Religious leaders and influencer's headed by Damascus. The rise of Damascus himself is astonishing with murder, riots, civil unrest and massacres preceding his appointment.

These are the authors of the New Testament. It is an amalgamation of doctrine composed by the politicians of the time to solve a civil problem.

Even so, there are many examples of violence and cruelty associated with Jesus in this fiction. For example, all the guff about respecting other faiths rather flies in the face of the assertion that those not baptised should be cast into the fire, or what about the sanctity of burial but Jesus says to ignore the dead and "let the dead bury their dead". We could even talk about when Jesus cast devils into a herd of swine forcing them to drown and the herders to lose their livelihood and they fled into the town and told what happened.

These aren't choice parts from all parts of the New testament but just a few pages of Matthew; a book about one of the disciples which was probably originally written about 100 AD and nobody knows the author even before it was incorporated into the New Testament.

We can look at acts of violence and teachings of cruelty by Jesus in other books but the most prophetic is probably that Jesus will cause Brother to kill Brother and Father to kill Son. This one at least has come true.

This is all in the sanitised version known as the New Testament and not the Blood and Guts, incest, rape, murder and sodomy read known as the Jewish Scripture or Old Testament whichever you prefer.

Was Jesus a peace loving Prophet? Dunno. However, I wouldn't rely on the New Testament to prove your point as I have many, many more examples.

All of which has little to do with God ;)

[Hawkmoon]

In debates like these I always wonder whether people would have "faith" if the formal religions didn't exist? If children weren't taken to church and told by their parents that God exists, how many would come to that conclusion all by themselves?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In debates like these I always wonder whether people would have "faith" if the formal religions didn't exist? If children weren't taken to church and told by their parents that God exists, how many would come to that conclusion all by themselves?

That is why Dawkins really dislikes children being labelled a 'Christian child' or a 'Muslim child'. You wouldn't label a child of tory parents a 'conservative child'.

[Robinho]

I saw something the other day which used the phrase "Faith is a euphemism for gullibility"

I don't believe in a god, I am not religious, I see no need for it in modern society. I don't believe in fate or that I don't have control over my life. I don't wish to feel that some unseen force is guiding me or my decisions. People can influence my life, and it bothers me that some believe that they are guided by some unseen force and use it as justification for their actions.

You are resonsible for you actions.

You have one life. Live it. We have one planet. I don't believe that this is preparation for something else. I don't believe that there is a god waiting to reward/punish our decisions or on hand to save the human race (or the other inhabitants of this planet). I honestly believe that the word would be vastly improved if people did not use religon and faith as a doctrine of control and political will.

I could not believe in a god that can allow people to act as they do to each other.

I also believe that despite the number of people who may refer to themselves are "Christian" etc on a census form or if stopped in the street, most of these don't actually practice nor believe in the foundation of their stated religon

[Firstgear]

I could not believe in a god that can allow people to act as they do to each other.

So you would want a god that controls what you think & what you do?

[dunes]

I dont find my answer in your poll. I dont go to church but i do practice the teachings and the verses. I read i believe, and i live the word of god.

[EuroTroll]

I dont find my answer in your poll. I dont go to church but i do practice the teachings and the verses. I read i believe, and i live the word of god.

Sounds like option 1 to me.. ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

You have one life. Live it. We have one planet.

Are you sure? And why?

[Hawkmoon]

Are you sure? And why?

Are you sure there's an afterlife? Why?

[F1boat]

In my life I have been atheist, fundamentalist, I have researched various branches of Christianity, Buddhism and Wicca. My personal opinion is that God exists and has created the Universe. I believe that He is One, but also unknowable to us and it is far more advanced to humans as we are to ants. So different people see him in different ways. Hence different religions. I wouldn't force my beliefs on anyone, though.

[Tazio]

What record do we have that Jesus was peaceful? The Bible was written 300 years later by a collection of Religious leaders and influencer's headed by Damascus. The rise of Damascus himself is astonishing with murder, riots, civil unrest and massacres preceding his appointment.

These are the authors of the New Testament. It is an amalgamation of doctrine composed by the politicians of the time to solve a civil problem.

Even so, there are many examples of violence and cruelty associated with Jesus in this fiction. For example, all the guff about respecting other faiths rather flies in the face of the assertion that those not baptised should be cast into the fire, or what about the sanctity of burial but Jesus says to ignore the dead and "let the dead bury their dead". We could even talk about when Jesus cast devils into a herd of swine forcing them to drown and the herders to lose their livelihood and they fled into the town and told what happened.

These aren't choice parts from all parts of the New testament but just a few pages of Matthew; a book about one of the disciples which was probably originally written about 100 AD and nobody knows the author even before it was incorporated into the New Testament.

We can look at acts of violence and teachings of cruelty by Jesus in other books but the most prophetic is probably that Jesus will cause Brother to kill Brother and Father to kill Son. This one at least has come true.

This is all in the sanitised version known as the New Testament and not the Blood and Guts, incest, rape, murder and sodomy read known as the Jewish Scripture or Old Testament whichever you prefer.

Was Jesus a peace loving Prophet? Dunno. However, I wouldn't rely on the New Testament to prove your point as I have many, many more examples.

All of which has little to do with God ;)
Knock-on wrote:
What record do we have that Jesus was peaceful? The Bible was written 300 years later

You are right here; so I guess it is quite possible that the legacy he left although very subjective is one of advocating amoung other things peace. No one can speak with authority of his day to day life or even what specifically he said. So I guess it depends on whose story you believe.


Jesus, the messiah, will bring God's new age into being and herald the outpouring of God's salvation by suffering and dying. That the messiah's victory involves his own suffering confounds the people's expectations. It confounds Peter's expectations. Jesus, the messiah, does not stand for power-over others. Jesus, the messiah, does not stand for easy victory and glory before human beings. Jesus, the messiah, has to do with consistent, persevering love and compassion and openness - even in the face of violence from those who resent that kind of love.

(2) We believe Jesus is the model human being, who asks us to follow his way of living. Practical life is central to theology. How we live and what we believe go together hand-in-glove. What do we believe about Jesus Christ? We believe that our confession of Christ as savior and our following Christ in discipleship together make up our Christology. What matters about Jesus Christ includes his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus matters because he won us salvation by dying for our sins and because he showed us how to live.

(3) We believe that Jesus is God-with-us, who shows us that the power of love is the most important kind of power. In Jesus' life, we see God's chosen one revealing human life as it is meant to be lived. In Jesus' death, we see Jesus' faithfulness standing the ultimate test, the "rulers of this age" crucifying him (1 Corinthians 2:8). In Jesus' resurrection, we see God's vindication of Jesus' life. We learn just how faithful God is to his promise of eternal life for those who trust in his mercy. Jesus shows us that the power of love is the most important kind of power


I'll take this opinion that refers to:
Mark 8:27-38; Philippians 2:1-11; I Corinthians 2:1-10
As you say we know very little about the man!
BTW I believe this could all be BS ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

Are you sure there's an afterlife? Why?

No. I'm not sure. But I have doubts. That's why when I talk about such issues I do it like " I think that..." not like " I believe that..."

[gadjo_dilo]

I don’t think someone could be a true atheist without a solid religious education. Otherwise he could be only the prisoner of an irrational idiosyncrasy and has no credibility.
On the other hand to have a mature talk about faith require ample readings of sacred texts, a speculative apparatus and a complicated experience of life.

Don’t think that most of us are in this position. Unfortunately most of those who proudly claim themselves atheists have an attitude like: God should look for me and persuade me and if he finds me I’m assured a warm place in heaven without any effort. Personally i don’t have to do anything. I have nothing to find, nothing to doubt. I’m just happy to meet myself.

Some people pretend evidence of God’s existance..... But there are many other unknown things about the Universe. We also dont’t have evidence of life in other parts of Universe but we still admit it may exist.

[Tazio]

@ Knock-on I found this Top 10 Peaceful Men (http://listverse.com/2011/06/05/top-10-peaceful-men/)
I should be more specific and say that Jesus' legacy is peace and who is to say when a revolution of humanity ends?

[Knock-on]

Knock-on wrote:
What record do we have that Jesus was peaceful? The Bible was written 300 years later

You are right here; so I guess it is quite possible that the legacy he left although very subjective is one of advocating among other things peace. No one can speak with authority of his day to day life or even what specifically he said. So I guess it depends on whose story you believe.



I'll take this opinion that refers to:
Mark 8:27-38; Philippians 2:1-11; I Corinthians 2:1-10
As you say we know very little about the man!
BTW I believe this could all be BS ;)

Totally agree. We can choose to 'believe' parts of the Bible that reflect our individual beliefs, morals and convictions while ignoring those passages that contradict our principles. It's human nature after all. Look at the arguments we have on here with some Americans cherry picking parts of their constitution to suit their arguments and ignoring others that contradict them. Similarly, I personally get irate and judgemental about bloody mothers that park on School Zone lines and make the entrances dangerous for children but other driving laws such as speeding at 80 MPH on the motorway i quite readily flaunt. Hypocritical non?

The Bible is no different is it? In many ways it is a subjective work of fiction with little basis in fact other than the underlying framework similar to a Dan Brown novel.

Nope the Bible, or any religious teaching for that matter, is no evidence of fact or fiction, right or wrong. It's just a teaching from the past that we can learn lessons from but should be used advisedly.

As to whether Jesus and the early Christians were peaceful and non-aggressive? Very unlikely when the socio-economic situation at the time would rather preclude this. Could you imagine that any such tribe would survive without fighting and conquering it's enemies? Peace and Love? Yeah right! Tell that to the Romans ;)

Either way, all of this has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of a God. In my opinion, a God and Religion are mutually exclusive. It's beyond reason and logic that any organised Religion is derived from the existence of a supreme being or whatever God is (if it exists).

[Tazio]

Good post knockie
We know most of both the old and New Testament was cherry-picked. And there is no doubt that that there was ugly goings on after Jesus' death and before Christianity was the official religion of Rome. But what is cherry picked about jesus in his life points to him being very strong on the side of non-violence. I don't think we will ever really know however.
:s ailor: Peace bro ;)

[EuroTroll]

If Jesus had had a machine gun, would he have won? ;)

[wedge]

If Jesus had had a machine gun, would he have won? ;)

Last week I found this sticker when I was in Ghent, Belgium:

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee519/spinners888/P1010448.jpg

[Knock-on]

Good post knockie
We know most of both the old and New Testament was cherry-picked. And there is no doubt that that there was ugly goings on after Jesus' death and before Christianity was the official religion of Rome. But what is cherry picked about jesus in his life points to him being very strong on the side of non-violence. I don't think we will ever really know however.
:s ailor: Peace bro ;)

Cheers mate.

As for whether Jesus was peaceful, it matters little if the people that choose to follow Christianity adopt the "good" parts of the bible's teachings. What has or should have been is not as important as what is or shall be. Can't change the past but the future is ours to command.

Same is true about the past of Countries and Race. We can't influence what happened before we were born but are responsible for what we can influence and change ;)

If religion has an important role to play in tody's world, it is to make things better for everyone and not to be a weapon in conflict to prove one sides beliefs are more relevant than anothers.

All of which has no bearing on any type of God of course.

[Tazio]

:s ailor: Amen!! ;)

[Rollo]

Religion according to the OED is:
2. "a particular system of faith and/or worship",
3. "a controlling influence on a person's life"

Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it. That definition is flexible enough to include many/few/one/zero God/god/s.

If all of this is logical, then even I must concede that religion breeds intolerance and ignorance, because: "everyone from the lowliest peasant, to kings and princes are motivated by self-interest"
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1.

The thug who robs a 7-Eleven, a lazy plumber who takes too long to do a job, the bankers on Wall St, even the priesthood who do "naughty things", are all "motivated by self-interest"; because of this, the religion that has caused more mistreatment and unhappiness than any other is surely the religion of self-interest? I'd say that it's caused both far more bad and good than any organised church, or codified religion ever has. Even if you want to look at the examples of jihad and the crusades, we still find people operating from the motivation of self-interest.


Either way, all of this has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of a God. In my opinion, a God and Religion are mutually exclusive. It's beyond reason and logic that any organised Religion is derived from the existence of a supreme being or whatever God is (if it exists).

I think that the two questions of "is there a God?" and "what is a religion? are separate and distinct but not necessarily mutually exclusive. The answer of how one goes about their religion is predicated by the first question. I can for instance be argued that Richard Dawkins as an atheist is following his own brand of religion because his practices (including putting adverts on buses) are the result of what he believes in; likewise I go to work five days a week based on the belief that the rewards derived from working pay for the electric, gas, grocery bills etc. Is it a religion? Under the loosest definition that it is a set of practices based on I believe, it is.

[BDunnell]

Totally agree. We can choose to 'believe' parts of the Bible that reflect our individual beliefs, morals and convictions while ignoring those passages that contradict our principles. It's human nature after all. Look at the arguments we have on here with some Americans cherry picking parts of their constitution to suit their arguments and ignoring others that contradict them. Similarly, I personally get irate and judgemental about bloody mothers that park on School Zone lines and make the entrances dangerous for children but other driving laws such as speeding at 80 MPH on the motorway i quite readily flaunt. Hypocritical non?

I don't see how any human except the most tiresomely righteous moralist could have the slightest objection to any of this.

[BDunnell]

May I make an important theological contribution here?

"God is... a gas."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49j2Y_680D0&

[Tazio]

Y'awl boys are cracking me up :laugh:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don’t think someone could be a true atheist without a solid religious education.

Indeed, the more I learn about different religions the more odd religious beliefs appear to me.

[steveaki13]

Yes I think there is. And his name is

Lionel Messi

[JackSparrow]

Yes there is,his name? Who else but Hef. Forget about virgins he sleeps with twins.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't think someone could be a true atheist without a solid religious education.

I don't agree. A religious education simply means that you've studied the doctrine of a particular religion. All that will allow you to do is consider the merits of one religion against another. As somebody pointed out earlier, there is a difference between religion and faith. To believe in god(s) you have to have faith. You don't have to follow a religion.

Personally, I don't believe in god(s) so I guess that makes me an atheist. The reason I don't believe in god(s) has nothing to do with religion but is rather a reflection of the fact that I simply don't need faith in a god to live my life.

[Alexamateo]

Atheism in America: Why won (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_u_s_accept_its_at heists_.html)

It is interesting reading this thread as an American, because while I can certainly understand agnosticism, atheism seems completely foreign to me and unnatural. Here's an interesting quote from the article linked:


A Gallup poll last year showed that, while 9 per cent of Americans would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, 22 per cent wouldn’t support a Mormon and 32 per cent would not vote for a gay or lesbian candidate, 49 per cent would refuse to back an atheist for president.

[EuroTroll]

Atheism in America: Why won (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_u_s_accept_its_at heists_.html)

It is interesting reading this thread as an American, because while I can certainly understand agnosticism, atheism seems completely foreign to me and unnatural. Here's an interesting quote from the article linked:

The difference between Europe and America is certainly interesting when it comes to religiousness in politics. As the article implies, an atheist can pretty much forget about being President in the US. Or he has to lie..

Not so in many European countries.

I know that in Estonia -- as perhaps an extreme example, but nevertheless -- if a presidential candidate started talking about God and faith, he/she would be seen by most as some sort of dangerous nutter. Even at Christmas when politicians make a point of being seen in church, it comes across as somehow unnatural.

[Knock-on]

I must admit, when I see politicians going to church in the UK, it makes me uneasy.

I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me.

[BDunnell]

I must admit, when I see politicians going to church in the UK, it makes me uneasy.

I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me.

I agree completely. Look at how Blair only converted to Catholicism after he ceased to be Prime Minister, and attempted always to deflect questions about his faith. When he was asked by Jeremy Paxman whether he and George W. Bush had prayed together, all he could do was refuse to answer what he said was a stupid question, or words to that effect. Not being stupid, he knew that a lot of people, right across the political spectrum, would consider him a religious nutter if he discussed his faith publicly. Some may consider this sad; I see it as entirely sensible. It was one matter on which he was entirely right.

[Knock-on]

You're right Ben. In America, you're weird and unelectable if you're not religious. In the UK, the opposite is true.

[Alexamateo]

I must admit, when I see politicians going to church in the UK, it makes me uneasy.

I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me.

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

[BDunnell]

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

I'm afraid I consider your point of view quite offensive, personally. In no way do I consider my own atheism 'nihilistic'. What do you, with respect, know of the motivation behind my lack of religious belief?

And, quite honestly, how dare you suggest that the sense of judgement of someone who has made up their mind that there is no higher being must be rendered somehow inferior to that of any believer? I would rather people, including politicians, took decisions based on fact and reason rather than religious belief of any form. Your sense that religious belief makes an individual superior to a non-believer is not just patronising, but also groundless. In the context of politicians, how sad that you, and those like you, would ignore any good an atheist politician had ever done in favour of a spurious moral judgement in which their lack of religious beliefs overrides all other personal qualities they may have.

[janvanvurpa]

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

And therein is perfectly encapsulated the problems of religion in policy.

Some, because they have picked a few things to fixate on and who rationalise ignoring huge portions of their own sacred commandments, believe that they are superior and have superior judgement---in advance---because ultimately they believe their ONE WAY is the ONE WAY for all people, all questions...

While others who see their extremely selective concentration on just a few points in their Holy Book, while utterly ignoring direct commands from their Savior, believe those people to be cynical hypocrites at best, and dangerous and delusional people ready to do anything somebody might convince them is their Gods Will"

In short: "those that can make you believe in absurdities and concince you to commit atrocities".


You are a dangerous person Alex M. Your belief in a Zombie Jesus puts my liberty, my 2 little girls liberty and indeed the political process in this country in danger.

Why do you hate America?

[Rollo]

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison were probably all atheist.
Political Nihilism at least is based on the assumption that governments, the law and the enforcement of law, be done away with (and possibly replaced). It's funny that especially over the course of the primaries of late, we've seen supposedly Christian candidates, espouse and trumpeting policies which fit very very well within the philosophy of Political Nihilism. Yet in the case of Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison, they wanted to build a "more perfect" system of government.
Currently we have a Prime Minister in Australia who is an openly declared Atheist. I wouldn't say that she's necessarily groundless and lacking a frame of reference either.

[BDunnell]

In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from.

Another question. I do not go out and commit crime. Does this surprise you, given the lack of 'anchor points' I as an atheist supposedly have as regards decision-making?

[Tazio]

You're right Ben. In America, you're weird and unelectable if you're not religious. In the UK, the opposite is true.
Knockie that is not a belief held unilaterally. The west coast and other eastern urban areas are more than tolerant. Yes some of "my fellow Americans" understand that they are not promoting a candidate because of his religion or lack of it. We have a lot of citizens that are pro choice in this country and I bet a good proportion of those are non believers. It is true as you say though, given the entire demographics of the US, a belief in god is a requisite to getting elected President, or at least it has been until now.
Its freakin’ evangelists gone wild up in here :laugh:

[Robinho]

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

i too am quite offended by the thought that because i lack religous belief i lack the grounding to make moral or other decisions. I don't need religon to tell me not to kill, steal, discriminate or how to treat people generally. general common decency is plenty of a grounding, relying on someone elses "anchor points" just seems to be refusing to take personal responsibility for your actions or decisions imo.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't agree. A religious education simply means that you've studied the doctrine of a particular religion. All that will allow you to do is consider the merits of one religion against another. As somebody pointed out earlier, there is a difference between religion and faith. To believe in god(s) you have to have faith. You don't have to follow a religion.

Personally, I don't believe in god(s) so I guess that makes me an atheist. The reason I don't believe in god(s) has nothing to do with religion but is rather a reflection of the fact that I simply don't need faith in a god to live my life.

I agree. One does not need to read Alice in Wonderland to know that it is not true.


Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from. Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

No, just no.

What you are basically saying here is that you wouldn't like a politician who can think for himself/herself.

[Tazio]

Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison were probably all atheist.

I have read similar historic assertions, and believe them to be true. I think the biggest misconception about our inalienable rights endowed by god, also referred to as "Natural Rights" is the intent of the meaning. I think the intent of these very determined men included these words with a full understanding that if there is not a god than there is no one left to deny them; i.e. all bases are covered

[BDunnell]

What you are basically saying here is that you wouldn't like a politician who can think for himself.

What also seems to be being said is that they would be perfectly happy with a radical Muslim politician, but not an atheist.

[Rollo]

i too am quite offended by the thought that because i lack religous belief i lack the grounding to make moral or other decisions. I don't need religon to tell me not to kill, steal, discriminate or how to treat people generally. general common decency is plenty of a grounding, relying on someone elses "anchor points" just seems to be refusing to take personal responsibility for your actions or decisions imo.

I know that you do not lack the grounding to make moral or other decisions, precisely because you are a person. That grounding is innate. To be honest I think that Mr Mateo's position is a little myopic.

The difference between you and I on this subject I suspect is where we each think morality derives from. I would suggest that the fact that morality exists is the hallmark of some moral being which was responsible for the universe in the first place, whereas you would suggest that it exists due to a series of symbiotic evolutionary reasons - both of which are perfectly rational but ultimately both also require an a priori position.

I do not think for a second that deists and theists have a monopoly on morality and it's certainly evidenced by the utter hideousness perpetrated by mankind, including inside institutions supposedly upholding standards of morality. Then again I also see this as evidence of a fault in human nature. In that respect in some instances I've seen atheists uphold a far better standard of morality than some theists.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The difference between you and I on this subject I suspect is where we each think morality derives from. I would suggest that the fact that morality exists is the hallmark of some moral being which was responsible for the universe in the first place.

I just find that explanation/argument inadequate. It simply doesn't answer the question of where that 'being' got its morality from.

If morality had one source it would suggest that morals are absolute. But this can't be true as morals are constantly evolving.

[airshifter]

I'm afraid I consider your point of view quite offensive, personally. In no way do I consider my own atheism 'nihilistic'. What do you, with respect, know of the motivation behind my lack of religious belief?

And, quite honestly, how dare you suggest that the sense of judgement of someone who has made up their mind that there is no higher being must be rendered somehow inferior to that of any believer? I would rather people, including politicians, took decisions based on fact and reason rather than religious belief of any form. Your sense that religious belief makes an individual superior to a non-believer is not just patronising, but also groundless. In the context of politicians, how sad that you, and those like you, would ignore any good an atheist politician had ever done in favour of a spurious moral judgement in which their lack of religious beliefs overrides all other personal qualities they may have.


I find it interesting that you have taken such offense to statements Alexamateo has never made. Just where does he state that lack of religion means that people have no moral fiber or ability to pass sound judgement? He does not state such things, only that for him it is an anchor point in his thought process and decisions.

Every person has some anchor point for their decisions. If not I would be very worried about their thought process.

[airshifter]

And therein is perfectly encapsulated the problems of religion in policy.

Some, because they have picked a few things to fixate on and who rationalise ignoring huge portions of their own sacred commandments, believe that they are superior and have superior judgement---in advance---because ultimately they believe their ONE WAY is the ONE WAY for all people, all questions...

While others who see their extremely selective concentration on just a few points in their Holy Book, while utterly ignoring direct commands from their Savior, believe those people to be cynical hypocrites at best, and dangerous and delusional people ready to do anything somebody might convince them is their Gods Will"

In short: "those that can make you believe in absurdities and concince you to commit atrocities".


You are a dangerous person Alex M. Your belief in a Zombie Jesus puts my liberty, my 2 little girls liberty and indeed the political process in this country in danger.

Why do you hate America?

Just a reminder, but the above post with some substitutions on point of view, could easily be expected to come out of Bob Reibe's mouth. Not only do you insult his belief system, but also the God he chooses to believe in. You then equate such beliefs to erosion of your freedom and dangerous to the country.

Bravo Bob, Bravo!

[Alexamateo]

Well, I have been gone afternoon. I am in the nursery business and spring is the busy time of course. I'll just say there has been quite a bit of overreaction and defensiveness to things not actually said.

I first posted the Slate article about the Gallup poll showing that over 1/2 of all Americans would not vote for an atheist.

Then studiose said if a politician started mentioning faith, they would be seen as nuts.

Then knock-on said "I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me."

That is what I was responding to. If the person doesn't believe in anything, What are his reasons, facts and logic based on? What are they grounded in? When a person is an atheist, I don't know. That is all I intended. :)

My apologies if I have offended anyone, it was never my intent. Forgive me for not being clear. Thank you Airshifter and Rollo for your excellent posts, I agree with them completely (well, except for the myopic part :p )

[FormerFF]

A while back. Carrie Fisher said something about wishing she could believe in God, but she just couldn't. I'm feeling the exact same. The more I live, the more I observe, and the more I learn, the less I can believe that there is some particular order to things. Science and random chance explain things so much better than the idea that the is a benevolent creator who chooses to have things work just like random chance. I'd like there to be something more, I'd like their to be some grand purpose, and I'd like to matter to the creator of the universe (yeah, I know, some ego trip, eh?) but my observation of the world just won't let me. It probably doesn't help that I was raised in a Christian tradition that holds out the idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, and that I find the Christian mythology so difficult to believe.

Speaking of Christian mythology, let me detail what bothers me about it. It all starts with God creating the universe, and the earth, and all that's on it. (picked that up from the Nicene Creed) Also, God hates sin. If God hated sin, why did he create it? Then, God creates man and woman, puts them in a garden with a tree that they're not supposed to eat the fruit of. God, having made people, would have to know that they are curious. Then, on top of all that, one of the angels he created goes rogue, and God lets him into the garden to nudge the people to eat that fruit. I'm sorry, but doesn't God know how this is going to come out before it happens? Doesn't God seem a little conflicted? For a perfect being, he seems rather mediocre.

Quite honestly, it gets weirder. So God picks out one small tribe, the Israelites, and decides they are his favorite, kind of like picking out a football team to cheer for. He lets them get away with all kinds of atrocities, then decides to redeem them by sending part of himself to be born as a man, and having them kill him. After that, things will be all better. Now, this is the most important event in all of human history, but it's only observed by a subset of this small tribe, and it isn't even written down until decades after it occurred. Now, most of the rest of the Israelites don't accept this person as their Messiah as none of the events that are supposed to occur when their Messiah arrives actually happen. Now after all this, those followers are supposed to spread the word, and those who don't find it compelling are to be tossed into the lake of fire once they die. And, after this event, there are others who are convinced that they've received divine revelation and continue to create new faiths. Am I the only one for which this makes no sense?

Having said all that, I'm very impressed with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, I'm just not convinced he's God.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I would rather people, including politicians, took decisions based on fact and reason rather than religious belief of any form.

Perfectly legitimate. Would you please elaborate then on how you tell fact and reason from their opposites?

[gadjo_dilo]

Quite honestly, it gets weirder. So God picks out one small tribe, the Israelites, and decides they are his favorite, kind of like picking out a football team to cheer for. He lets them get away with all kinds of atrocities, then decides to redeem them by sending part of himself to be born as a man, and having them kill him. After that, things will be all better. Now, this is the most important event in all of human history, but it's only observed by a subset of this small tribe, and it isn't even written down until decades after it occurred. Now, most of the rest of the Israelites don't accept this person as their Messiah as none of the events that are supposed to occur when their Messiah arrives actually happen. Now after all this, those followers are supposed to spread the word, and those who don't find it compelling are to be tossed into the lake of fire once they die. And, after this event, there are others who are convinced that they've received divine revelation and continue to create new faiths. Am I the only one for which this makes no sense?



Despite this tivial interpretation your post makes me think why the christianism managed to become a worldspread religion. Because after Jesus's doctine, God is no longer the God of a single "tribe" ( liked this term! ). According to christianism all nations are equally entitled to enjoy the love, care and protection of God.

[BDunnell]

I find it interesting that you have taken such offense to statements Alexamateo has never made. Just where does he state that lack of religion means that people have no moral fiber or ability to pass sound judgement? He does not state such things, only that for him it is an anchor point in his thought process and decisions.

Same difference, surely? He said that he feels people who do not have religion in their lives do not, in his opinion, have sufficient 'anchor points' when it comes to decision-making. Argue about semantics all you like, but this is what was said, and I consider it offensive to non-believers.

[BDunnell]

Perfectly legitimate. Would you please elaborate then on how you tell fact and reason from their opposites?

A fair example would be going to war on the basis of a military assessment of a threat rather than 'because God told me to'.

[Rudy Tamasz]

A fair example would be going to war on the basis of a military assessment of a threat rather than 'because God told me to'.

I was addressing the question to you asking about how you get your facts straight and how you come up with a certain line of reasoning to make the right decision. Do you imply then that you have something to do with the military or high level politics?

Speaking about wars, I tend to think most wars in 20th and 21st centuries were started based on perfectly rational thinking, rather than beliefs in supernatural forces. More often than not that kind of thinking let the political and military leaders down badly. Stalin thought he would easily crush Finland in 1939. Wrong. Britain and France thought they would easily contain Hitler in the same year. They were wrong. Hitler planned to defeat the Soviet Union in one campaign. Things went wrong for him. The U.S. thought Saddam had WMD (he didn't) and was a threat to neighbors (he wasn't after his 1991 defeat). The rest of the reasons that led the U.S. to the war in Iraq were perfectly rational. To sum it up, the "fact and reason" type of thinking performed slightly less than brilliantly. I believe it needs some improvement.

Continuing the topic, you might want to allocate some 90 minutes of your time and watch a BBC movie "In the Loop" that sheds some ironic light on the decision making process regarding going to war in the UK and the U.S.

[gadjo_dilo]

i too am quite offended by the thought that because i lack religous belief i lack the grounding to make moral or other decisions. I don't need religon to tell me not to kill, steal, discriminate or how to treat people generally. general common decency is plenty of a grounding, relying on someone elses "anchor points" just seems to be refusing to take personal responsibility for your actions or decisions imo.

I can agree with you until one point. Because not all the values we based our lives on are argumentable. I reckon that exactly the cardinal values, those we don't get by education but by coutume, are unargumentable. We can demonstrate that living in a community require to obey the laws and things like stealing, cheating, lieing or killing are unacceptable. But what arguments do I have that I should be generous, respectful, warmhearted? And why should I love my neighbour as myself? Of course, you'll say it's common sense but while all of us will claim that education is good ( although its principles may vary), it's not undercurrent that such feelings are valid.
To the unargumentable values we can always ask a tumultous "why not?" as an expression of our freedom.
And let's not forget that each of us have different doses of unadmitable.

[Hawkmoon]

To sum it up, the "fact and reason" type of thinking performed slightly less than brilliantly. I believe it needs some improvement.

You are absolutely right. No decision making process is perfect. But all the examples you gave were cases of people looking at the situation and making a decision based on the cards they were dealt. The fact that they got wrong points to the fact that human beings are fallible, nothing more.

This type of reasoning is much better, in my opinion, than a leader making a decision based on 'God's will'. That kind of reasoning simply isn't rational and has lead to as much bloodshed, if not more, than 'fact-based' reasoning. Religious extremists have been using their religion as a moral anchor point to justify killing innocent people for centuries. Your kind of thinking needs much more than "some" improvement.

[BDunnell]

I was addressing the question to you asking about how you get your facts straight and how you come up with a certain line of reasoning to make the right decision. Do you imply then that you have something to do with the military or high level politics?

No, and I'm unsure of where you got any implication that I was, though I do have some knowledge of military matters and have worked in politics.


The U.S. thought Saddam had WMD (he didn't) and was a threat to neighbors (he wasn't after his 1991 defeat). The rest of the reasons that led the U.S. to the war in Iraq were perfectly rational.

Were they? Was the widespread belief amongst sections of the American populace that Saddam and Iraq had something to do with '9/11' rational? That belief did unquestionably exist, and it was patently nonsensical. And I believe there to have been a strong religious fervour behind George W. Bush's desire for a war with Iraq at any cost.



Continuing the topic, you might want to allocate some 90 minutes of your time and watch a BBC movie "In the Loop" that sheds some ironic light on the decision making process regarding going to war in the UK and the U.S.

I have already seen it.

[Rudy Tamasz]

human beings are fallible

Hey Hawkmoon, I really like this point of yours. You might want to try developing it in the right direction, if you see what I mean. ;) Extremists made the wrong conclusion from it, but you can get it right! I believe in you! C'mon, you can make it! ;)

[Rudy Tamasz]

Were they? Was the widespread belief amongst sections of the American populace that Saddam and Iraq had something to do with '9/11' rational? That belief did unquestionably exist, and it was patently nonsensical. And I believe there to have been a strong religious fervour behind George W. Bush's desire for a war with Iraq at any cost.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it wasn't bubbas from the Bible Belt who made the call. It was D.C. politicians. Speaking within your own logical framework, do you have hard facts to prove they made their decision based on beliefs or religious fervour?

[Knock-on]

Then knock-on said "I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me."

That is what I was responding to. If the person doesn't believe in anything, What are his reasons, facts and logic based on? What are they grounded in? When a person is an atheist, I don't know. That is all I intended. :)

This is a fundamental difference that I hope we can discuss further.

My decisions are based on many things just as yours are. My upbringing, my family, experiences I have had whether good or bad. Morality and values I hold. These things are pertinent to me and go to make up who I am and what I 'believe' in. I can make mistakes, learn, feel compassion, hope, love, joy, despair and at no time will I have to go to 2nd hand information handed down by a 1800 year old book.

I find it strange nd a matter of concern that someone will not use all these factors and influences when making a decision and would rather resort to an out of date book instead. When someone says something is 'Gods will' or 'God is on our side' as grounds for making decisions rather than logic, facts and reason, then I get very jumpy.


My apologies if I have offended anyone, it was never my intent. Forgive me for not being clear. Thank you Airshifter and Rollo for your excellent posts, I agree with them completely (well, except for the myopic part :p )

Haven't offended my my friend. Anyone willing to discuss a subject openly will never offend me no matter if I fundamentally disagree with them. By discussing and debating, we lessen the chances of offence and conflict :)

[Hawkmoon]

Hey Hawkmoon, I really like this point of yours. You might want to try developing it in the right direction, if you see what I mean. ;) Extremists made the wrong conclusion from it, but you can get it right! I believe in you! C'mon, you can make it! ;)

And the right direction is the one that matches your opinion? Forgive me for being a little slow, it's getting late here in Australia, but what's your point?

[BDunnell]

Sorry to disappoint you, but it wasn't bubbas from the Bible Belt who made the call. It was D.C. politicians. Speaking within your own logical framework, do you have hard facts to prove they made their decision based on beliefs or religious fervour?

With respect, you now seem to be falling into the trap of seeing things that aren't there. In referring to the many Americans who believed there was a link between Iraq and '9/11', I was clearly not saying it was they who made the decision. I was using it as an example of irrational thought flying in the face of facts. As for your question, it is impossible to say without questioning every one of them, but nor have I claimed that my view on their decision-making is anything other than my point of view.

[Rudy Tamasz]

And the right direction is the one that matches your opinion? Forgive me for being a little slow, it's getting late here in Australia, but what's your point?

Admit somebody might know better than you, maybe the one who deals the cards.

[Rudy Tamasz]

With respect, you now seem to be falling into the trap of seeing things that aren't there. In referring to the many Americans who believed there was a link between Iraq and '9/11', I was clearly not saying it was they who made the decision. I was using it as an example of irrational thought flying in the face of facts. As for your question, it is impossible to say without questioning every one of them, but nor have I claimed that my view on their decision-making is anything other than my point of view.

In brief, you believe that they believed. It's quite amusing that rational thinking in your rendition looks like mounting assumptions on top of other assumptions. For practical purposes of decision making, how are assumptions better than religious beliefs?

[BDunnell]

It's quite amusing that rational thinking in your rendition looks like mounting assumptions on top of other assumptions.

What rot. Better my reasoning for my views, surely, than basing them on an ancient text in which water allegedly gets turned into wine?

[BDunnell]

Admit somebody might know better than you, maybe the one who deals the cards.

And who might that be?

[EuroTroll]

And who might that be?

I think we've established it's either Sebastien Loeb or Lionel Messi. :)

[BDunnell]

I think we've established it's either Sebastien Loeb or Lionel Messi. :)

In gas form.

[EuroTroll]

In gas form.

...and sleeping with twins. :)

[Rudy Tamasz]

What rot. Better my reasoning for my views, surely, than basing them on an ancient text in which water allegedly gets turned into wine?

Based on the history examples I tried to show you that with a virtual inability of human beings to know all the facts, and deficiencies in human thinking, any reasoning is inherently flawed. Believers cope with this problem by factoring in things beyond human control and understanding, while atheists just tend to ignore those. In my book ignorance has never been a good strategy.

[BDunnell]

Based on the history examples I tried to show you that with a virtual inability of human beings to know all the facts, and deficiencies in human thinking, any reasoning is inherently flawed. Believers cope with this problem by factoring in things beyond human control and understanding, while atheists just tend to ignore those. In my book ignorance has never been a good strategy.

So, merely by virtue of my not believing in God, you consider my powers of reasoning and decision-making inherently inferior to your own? And would you extend your view to take in, for example, Abu Hamza or bin Laden, or is it merely belief on your terms that renders one a superior decision-maker?

[Knock-on]

Jihad is a religious calling and more than that, a religious duty. It could be based on a Fatwa or ruling which is a decree based on religious grounds.Do we accept and condone religious wars based on the teaching of the Quran or is that one of the bad religions?

When we talk about politicians being influenced and governed by religious principles, doctrine and teachings, do we just mean Western politicians and Clergy?

[BDunnell]

Jihad is a religious calling and more than that, a religious duty. It could be based on a Fatwa or ruling which is a decree based on religious grounds.Do we accept and condone religious wars based on the teaching of the Quran or is that one of the bad religions?

When we talk about politicians being influenced and governed by religious principles, doctrine and teachings, do we just mean Western politicians and Clergy?

Precisely! I have posed this question a number of times here, curiously without any response as yet.

[Tazio]

Back a few years ago a Judge had the ten commandment prominently displayed in the courthouse, it caused quite a ruckus. I'm not sure but I think it was in Alabama.
I couldn't help imagining some poor rube going into the courthouse with a traffic violation, reading the Ten Commandments and thinking "Damn!! I'm guilty of violating one through five, as well as ten.
Hell fire y’awl boys are gonna throw the book at me". :s mokin:

:s ailor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqaf2wP7hQE&feature=related&skipcontrinter=1

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Based on the history examples I tried to show you that with a virtual inability of human beings to know all the facts, and deficiencies in human thinking, any reasoning is inherently flawed. Believers cope with this problem by factoring in things beyond human control and understanding, while atheists just tend to ignore those. In my book ignorance has never been a good strategy.

No, Just no.

Leaving what we don't understand to be in the hands of the supernatural is ignorance.

[ioan]

That is naive. I'm an atheist too, but I don't think our world would be necessarily better without religion.

Ever been to the middle east? You might want to reconsider what you posted.
Also it has been religion that kept people away from science for centuries. How does that sound?

[ioan]

Religion is "dying hard"! I don't want to step on anyone’s spirituality. However, there was a time when unexplained natural phenomena and the idea of "causality" were not understood. Our species has evolved. We don't need human sacrifice to appease a rain god to ensure our corn will grow. And personally I don't need religion to know it is improper to take what belongs to someone else. The only thing I want to say about Jesus (not you Gloo) is; at a time when the Romans were ruling the middle east with an iron fist some Israelites were thinking that this may be a good time for the second coming of god. There were many candidates at the time, most were discarded as phonies, and arguably so was Jesus, because the majority of Israelites did not recognize him as "The One"
I don’t even want to get started on Caesar Constantine's promotion of "The Holy Roman Catholic Church", the justice it meted out to non believers, and intolerance of advances in physical science that the church instituted. What I do believe about jesus is that he was a non-violent revolutionary, and possibly the the first significant one.

:up: Nice one!

[ioan]

I saw something the other day which used the phrase "Faith is a euphemism for gullibility"

I don't believe in a god, I am not religious, I see no need for it in modern society. I don't believe in fate or that I don't have control over my life. I don't wish to feel that some unseen force is guiding me or my decisions. People can influence my life, and it bothers me that some believe that they are guided by some unseen force and use it as justification for their actions.

You are resonsible for you actions.

You have one life. Live it. We have one planet. I don't believe that this is preparation for something else. I don't believe that there is a god waiting to reward/punish our decisions or on hand to save the human race (or the other inhabitants of this planet). I honestly believe that the word would be vastly improved if people did not use religon and faith as a doctrine of control and political will.

I could not believe in a god that can allow people to act as they do to each other.

I also believe that despite the number of people who may refer to themselves are "Christian" etc on a census form or if stopped in the street, most of these don't actually practice nor believe in the foundation of their stated religon

We rarely agree on anything, this time though I fully agree.

[ioan]

No. I'm not sure. But I have doubts. That's why when I talk about such issues I do it like " I think that..." not like " I believe that..."

You're on the right way.Thinking is better, much better than being a believer.

[ioan]

May I make an important theological contribution here?

"God is... a gas."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49j2Y_680D0&

:D

[ioan]

The difference between Europe and America is certainly interesting when it comes to religiousness in politics. As the article implies, an atheist can pretty much forget about being President in the US. Or he has to lie..

Not so in many European countries.

I know that in Estonia -- as perhaps an extreme example, but nevertheless -- if a presidential candidate started talking about God and faith, he/she would be seen by most as some sort of dangerous nutter. Even at Christmas when politicians make a point of being seen in church, it comes across as somehow unnatural.

Exactly.
US politicians have been using religion as a means to support their careers, yet people continue to vote for such hypocrites. Funny eh?

[Knock-on]

Back a few years ago a Judge had the ten commandment prominently displayed in the courthouse, it caused quite a ruckus. I'm not sure but I think it was in Alabama.
I couldn't help imagining some poor rube going into the courthouse with a traffic violation, reading the Ten Commandments and thinking "Damn!! I'm guilty of violating one through five, as well as ten.
Hell fire y’awl boys are gonna throw the book at me". :s mokin:

:s ailor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqaf2wP7hQE&feature=related&skipcontrinter=1

I think Uncle Fousto is Hank Williams. :laugh:

The 10 commandments are a fascinating point of this subject. To say they are a foible in the Christin faith is an understatement in the extreme.

I think all will agree that the 10 commandments are a cornerstone of the 3 major western faiths; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is the most clear example of divine intervention and details where God directly interacted with man and unquestionably instructed man the fundamental principles that they should live their life by. They are described as The Royal Laws and The Laws of Liberty, these are the unbreakable rules, the set in stone laws, the cornerstone of principles of the 3 faiths. If you're a follower of the Christian, Jewish or Islamic faith, these are the basic principles of your faith which you MUST follow aren't they?

Exodus 20:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Exodus%2020.1-17)


1. You shall have no other gods before me.

Pretty self evident that God should be the most important thing in your life. Not money, not family and not other Gods. Sounds a bit insecure if you ask me and none of this respecting other faiths and beliefs business. There is one God and that's it.


2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Hang on. Isn't that why we get annoyed with Islamic fundamentalists. Because they get upset when we draw pictures of Heaven etc. I know what heaven and hell looks like from pictures in Christian texts or Churches. If you ask me, this God fella seems a bit OTT by persecuting the 3rd and 4th generations of people that don't follow him. Bt of a nasty bugger really.


3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

God damn it. For Gods sake. God help us. Any of us never used these oaths. Bit shakey all these principles aren't they?



4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Hang on a minute. This is getting silly now. What about Co-op on a Sunday or the Sunday papers. What if you need fuel or the Police or to make a train journey. This Sabbath thing isn't serious is it? Surely the fundamental Laws of Christianity aren't meant to be taken seriously are they?

5. Honour Father and Mother.... well, unless you have better things to do of course. Stick them in a home. It'll be better for them and they wont cramp your style.

6. Murder... Well, if it's pedo's or Rapists or enemies or someone that might be a threat so we must have a gun to blow them away just in case eh?

7. Adultery.... Well, unless your a Catholic priest in a boys school.

8. Steal.... Apart from the Government in tax evasion or a few hours off the boss to play golf.

9. Lie.... Nobody lies do they. I'm just waiting for someone to come on here and claim they adhere to the 10 commandments :laugh:

10. Wanting something someone else has. A car, a House, a woman or a beer. Jealousy is part of life. Christ on a bike, even God admitted he was jealous earlier in these commandments.

Now come on. What committed Christian doesn't break most of these or is complicit in violating them on a regular basis? And these are the 10 commandment set in stone by your GOD!!

Yet, you're quite happy picking up a vague bit of ambiguous text such as on homosexuality and shouting it from the tallest steeple but can't abide by the basic principles.

Isn't this a tincy wincy bit hypocritical?

[ioan]

Conversely, I would see a politician with no faith as groundless and lacking a frame of reference. In other words, there would be no anchor points from which to make decisions from.
Atheism just seems so nihilistic.

Allow me to be honest and tell you that what you posted is rubbish.
As an atheist I find my reference in my own knowledge and capabilities, and I know that I can count on them to live the life I want to live.

[ioan]

What also seems to be being said is that they would be perfectly happy with a radical Muslim politician, but not an atheist.

Funny part is that the Muslim have the very same view.
If you need a Visa for Saudi Arabia you have to provide them a certificate of baptism, if you say that you are atheist you'll be considered very dangerous and never get a visa.

[ioan]

I just find that explanation/argument inadequate. It simply doesn't answer the question of where that 'being' got its morality from.

If morality had one source it would suggest that morals are absolute. But this can't be true as morals are constantly evolving.

Exactly, it is all about evolution.

[ioan]

Perfectly legitimate. Would you please elaborate then on how you tell fact and reason from their opposites?

Knowledge and common sense?

[airshifter]

This is a fundamental difference that I hope we can discuss further.

My decisions are based on many things just as yours are. My upbringing, my family, experiences I have had whether good or bad. Morality and values I hold. These things are pertinent to me and go to make up who I am and what I 'believe' in. I can make mistakes, learn, feel compassion, hope, love, joy, despair and at no time will I have to go to 2nd hand information handed down by a 1800 year old book.

I find it strange nd a matter of concern that someone will not use all these factors and influences when making a decision and would rather resort to an out of date book instead. When someone says something is 'Gods will' or 'God is on our side' as grounds for making decisions rather than logic, facts and reason, then I get very jumpy.



I think this would be a good example of how lack of religious basis could affect the through process of someone not religious. There are those who see all actions as being the will of God. Thus if they used the same influences as thought processes that you name such as upbringing, personal experiences, moral standards, etc they would see those events as acts willed by God, thus could place weight on all of them and still see it as "the will of God".

An aethiest or agnostic might view these same influences as random choice of the universe, coincidence, chance, karma, whatever and find no tie to God or religion.



It seems to me that many are making it sound as though people with religious beliefs and those without will always come to different conclusions, or if they come to the same conclusion the reasoning of one group is flawed. I would find this very thought process flawed myself. If a believer, an aethiest and an agnostic come to the same conclusion regarding a moral issue that does not make the decision valid in the eyes of all, nor flawed in the eyes of all. They would often come to different conclusions based on a number of things and the whole of their personal beliefs system.

I would think that most people, religious or not, are influenced by a great number of factors. Any or all of those factors can be flawed, taken to extremes, misguided, etc. Many younger people are primarily influenced by their families and social circle, but as they grow older in life often differ in opinion from those forms of guidance that were the primary core of their moral though process for years. I suspect many of them realize at some point that virtually everyone has biases of some sort, differing opinions of moral right and wrongs, and other such individual traits. Otherwise we would see little if any change over the years in racial and religious tolerance, stereotypes, sexual discrimination, and many more such issues.

I find it interesting that some people could think that the decisions of others are flawed, even though those people have in many cases made the same decision, just based on different influences.

[ioan]

Admit somebody might know better than you, maybe the one who deals the cards.

Maybe, but proof is needed, and there is no proof to it.

[ioan]

Based on the history examples I tried to show you that with a virtual inability of human beings to know all the facts, and deficiencies in human thinking, any reasoning is inherently flawed. Believers cope with this problem by factoring in things beyond human control and understanding, while atheists just tend to ignore those. In my book ignorance has never been a good strategy.

Just a question:
IS there any proof in history, which you are using a lot (you're a historian most probably), that the decisions that were taken under influence of a belief in whichever god were better/righter than those that were taken based on knowledge and common sense?

My wild guess is that there is no such proof.

[ioan]

No, Just no.

Leaving what we don't understand to be in the hands of the supernatural is ignorance.

Exactly! And isn't just that what religion has mostly produce for many centuries? An enormous bunch of ignorants?

[BDunnell]

As an atheist I find my reference in my own knowledge and capabilities, and I know that I can count on them to live the life I want to live.

Very well put.

[BDunnell]

Exactly! And isn't just that what religion has mostly produce for many centuries? An enormous bunch of ignorants?

Not necessarily. There are many very wise people who are also deeply religious. Let's not tar one group with the same brush, no matter what we may think of religion per se.

[ioan]

Not necessarily. There are many very wise people who are also deeply religious. Let's not tar one group with the same brush, no matter what we may think of religion per se.

Sure there are exceptions, I fully agree, but the bunch of ignorant was quite impressive in centuries past by, and only the knowledge that was made available to people has made a difference in the last couple of centuries. Before that you risked your life if you dare to imply that the Earth is a sphere and the Sun does not orbit the Earth, but the other way around.

[BDunnell]

One further thing worth pointing out is the continued existence in some countries of blasphemy laws. Were a government to impose laws forbidding criticism of itself, it would rightly be considered a dictatorship, yet there are those of various religious beliefs — including Christianity — who deem such laws perfectly acceptable as a means of protecting religion from its critics.

[race aficionado]

Yes, There is a God and she is black.

:s mokin:

[ioan]

Yes, There is a God and she is black.

:s mokin:

Worthless without a picture!

[BDunnell]

I find it interesting that some people could think that the decisions of others are flawed, even though those people have in many cases made the same decision, just based on different influences.

You make some interesting points, and do so very well. I'm not sure about the above, though. It's not all about making decisions, but general reasoning. I have no objection to someone believing that a person has recovered from illness as a result of divine intervention, but the thought process behind such reasoning utterly fails me given the nature of modern medical understanding. One may as well blame a nearby magician or the alignment of the stars.

[airshifter]

You make some interesting points, and do so very well. I'm not sure about the above, though. It's not all about making decisions, but general reasoning. I have no objection to someone believing that a person has recovered from illness as a result of divine intervention, but the thought process behind such reasoning utterly fails me given the nature of modern medical understanding. One may as well blame a nearby magician or the alignment of the stars.

But.... there are many instances where modern medicine still does not understand nor can they explain many exceptions to the modern medical norm. My mother in law lived almost a decade after a number of highly qualified doctors told us that she would be quite lucky to survive the next 6 months.

If everyone lived in a world of absolutes, I would have to assume that modern medicine is ignorant of medical facts and misguided. Or I could accept the fact the the world has very few absolutes.


If aetheists and those of religion often come to the same conclusions on moral issues, it doesn't concern me in the slightest how they came to that conclusion. All of them have guidance of some sort in the making of their decisions and it could easily be said that some if not many of us overcome guidance that at some point we deem was incorrect and/or inapropriate. There are also quite a number of educated people that should know better that remain without much moral fiber.

[Alexamateo]

.....
If aetheists and those of religion often come to the same conclusions on moral issues, it doesn't concern me in the slightest how they came to that conclusion. All of them have guidance of some sort in the making of their decisions and it could easily be said that some if not many of us overcome guidance that at some point we deem was incorrect and/or inapropriate. There are also quite a number of educated people that should know better that remain without much moral fiber.

I have been thinking about this and yes, of course atheists and those of religion would come to the same conclusion on moral issues. C. S. Lewis wrote that moral law exists as surely as the laws of nature exist except that those laws can be ignored or broken. That was the basis of his book, Mere Christianity, which was based on radio talks given on the BBC in 1942-1944. C.S.Lewis as many may or may not know, was an atheist who converted to theism, and finally to Christianity. I had forgotten this. I have the book somewhere and may just be compelled to reread it.

[Hawkmoon]

As an aside, there is an advert for a Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne this April. What the hell is a "Global Atheist Convention"? A bunch of people getting together to agree with each other that gods don't exist? WTF?

[race aficionado]

Worthless without a picture!

Always a scientist . . . . . .

;)

[Rudy Tamasz]

So, merely by virtue of my not believing in God, you consider my powers of reasoning and decision-making inherently inferior to your own? And would you extend your view to take in, for example, Abu Hamza or bin Laden, or is it merely belief on your terms that renders one a superior decision-maker?

Okay, first incomplete facts and assumptions, now judging people (me) by association. I wonder how much you've progressed with defending your point of view.

[BDunnell]

Okay, first incomplete facts and assumptions, now judging people (me) by association. I wonder how much you've progressed with defending your point of view.

A pretty rubbish rebuttal of what I had to say, in my view. Could you address the points in hand, please?

[race aficionado]

Oh god ......


Sent from my iPhone in my bullet proof bunker

[Eki]

Yes, There is a God and she is black.

:s mokin:
And lesbian. And she's on everybody's side, not just on "our side".

[Tazio]

Yes, There is a God and she is black.


And lesbian. And she's on everybody's side, not just on "our side".
My goddess is also hot in a Black /Latino "mixed ethnicity" kind of way :s ailor:

http://hiphop.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Zoe-Saldana-Swimsuit-Pictures.jpg

[Rudy Tamasz]

Knowledge and common sense?

My whole debate with BD was about showing how actually limited and flawed the notions of knowledge and common sense are. No matter how "rational" you try to be you still end up relying on second hand knowledge and authority. Believers are in a far better position at least because they recognize their reliance on authority and factor it in. Based on that I see that the alleged comparative advantages of the "fact and reason" thinking are non-existent.

[Rudy Tamasz]

A pretty rubbish rebuttal of what I had to say, in my view. Could you address the points in hand, please?

I did not mean that my thinking is superior to yours. One thing Christianity teaches is being humble. :) On the individual level our thinking is as good as our mental ability is. Theists can be just as terribly wrong on any given account as atheists could be. The difference is theists have a different big picture of the world, know there are certain things beyond their control and accept that. Moreover, they have a plausible explanation of why things go wrong or right.

On a different note, evoking the examples of Muslim extremists was still questionable. Every half-decent professor would tell you it is a weak technique of arguing.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

My whole debate with BD was about showing how actually limited and flawed the notions of knowledge and common sense are. No matter how "rational" you try to be you still end up relying on second hand knowledge and authority. Believers are in a far better position at least because they recognize their reliance on authority and factor it in. Based on that I see that the alleged comparative advantages of the "fact and reason" thinking are non-existent.

What?

If being rational relies on second hand knowledge then what on earth is relying on the bible? A book based on 3rd or 4th hand tales of different myths.


I did not mean that my thinking is superior to yours. One thing Christianity teaches is being humble. :) On the individual level our thinking is as good as our mental ability is. Theists can be just as terribly wrong on any given account as atheists could be. The difference is theists have a different big picture of the world, know there are certain things beyond their control and accept that. Moreover, they have a plausible explanation of why things go wrong or right.

On a different note, evoking the examples of Muslim extremists was still questionable. Every half-decent professor would tell you it is a weak technique of arguing.

Christianity is humble?

Many of the practices that christians take part in, such as praying, are anything but humble. It actually assumes that given the impossible size of the universe and all of the species that have ever existed, god actually wants to have a personal relationship with you and is willing to change his 'devine plan' if you pray to him. That is what I call arrogance and selfishness.

[ioan]

My whole debate with BD was about showing how actually limited and flawed the notions of knowledge and common sense are. No matter how "rational" you try to be you still end up relying on second hand knowledge and authority. Believers are in a far better position at least because they recognize their reliance on authority and factor it in. Based on that I see that the alleged comparative advantages of the "fact and reason" thinking are non-existent.

Pardon my direct expression but that is BS.
What I see with my eyes, what I can demonstrate with my own thinking is not second hand knowledge or authority.
Maybe to you science is 2nd hand knowledge, when in fact it is first hand knowledge based on factual proof.

So let's cut the crap, do you think that your car runs on holly ghost instead of fuel, on a cycle based on basic physics principles? Looking forward to a clear and factual answer no daydreaming.

[ioan]

I did not mean that my thinking is superior to yours.

You just meant it. Which is about the same to anyone who can read you posts.

[ioan]

What?

If being rational relies on second hand knowledge then what on earth is relying on the bible? A book based on 3rd or 4th hand tales of different myths.

Well said.




Christianity is humble?

Many of the practices that christians take part in, such as praying, are anything but humble. It actually assumes that given the impossible size of the universe and all of the species that have ever existed, god actually wants to have a personal relationship with you and is willing to change his 'devine plan' if you pray to him. That is what I call arrogance and selfishness.

Now you've got yourself a ticket to hell! :D ;)

[BDunnell]

I did not mean that my thinking is superior to yours. One thing Christianity teaches is being humble. :) On the individual level our thinking is as good as our mental ability is. Theists can be just as terribly wrong on any given account as atheists could be. The difference is theists have a different big picture of the world, know there are certain things beyond their control and accept that. Moreover, they have a plausible explanation of why things go wrong or right.

Spare us the sanctimonious drivel at the start of those comments, said as though Christians have a monopoly on being humble. The rest of it is what's important, and it betrays a far from humble attitude, which directly contradicts your denial of supposed superiority.



On a different note, evoking the examples of Muslim extremists was still questionable. Every half-decent professor would tell you it is a weak technique of arguing.

Again you fail to answer the question, perhaps because you are afraid to say in public what I would suggest you think — namely that the superior reasoning (for that is what it is) with which you credit believers only applies to those who share your own religious beliefs.

[airshifter]

So let's cut the crap, do you think that your car runs on holly ghost instead of fuel, on a cycle based on basic physics principles? Looking forward to a clear and factual answer no daydreaming.


But let's face facts. The vast majority of people wouldn't know that a car runs on fuel unless they read about it in a book. It's not as if all people with an understanding of the internal combustion engine found the same conclusion by tinkering with one. Instead they read about it, form an understanding of it, and then put it into practice.

There are very, very few things that are absolutes that a person learns on their own from life experiences. Most of what we do learn is passed down as second hand information, and a great deal of that comes from books.

It doesn't sound to me like there is a lot of difference between that and the various religious texts. ;)



Once again I find it interesting that those without belief seem to insult any of those with belief so quickly, and discard their views as rubbish. Yet they cling to their beliefs as having not been influened by others which in many cases could easily be proven to not be true.

[airshifter]

Spare us the sanctimonious drivel at the start of those comments, said as though Christians have a monopoly on being humble. The rest of it is what's important, and it betrays a far from humble attitude, which directly contradicts your denial of supposed superiority.



Again you fail to answer the question, perhaps because you are afraid to say in public what I would suggest you think — namely that the superior reasoning (for that is what it is) with which you credit believers only applies to those who share your own religious beliefs.


Maybe it's just me, but you are doing nothing but putting words in his mouth, and contradicting what he has actually stated. If you are going to debate based on complete assumptions, then you aren't dealing with facts. It's rather difficult to defend something you have never said. ;)

[BDunnell]

There are very, very few things that are absolutes that a person learns on their own from life experiences. Most of what we do learn is passed down as second hand information, and a great deal of that comes from books.

It doesn't sound to me like there is a lot of difference between that and the various religious texts. ;)

A slightly important difference is the way in which the tenets of belief are expected to be taken at face value (unless one belongs to the modern school of thought which suggests that they are merely parables). To take this example of the internal combustion engine, its workings can be researched and a conclusion reached on that basis. Research as to whether water can be turned into wine as if by magic would probably indicate that the Bible cannot stand such detailed scrutiny.



Once again I find it interesting that those without belief seem to insult any of those with belief so quickly, and discard their views as rubbish. Yet they cling to their beliefs as having not been influened by others which in many cases could easily be proven to not be true.

Excuse me, but those of us who are non-believers keep on being told that we lack a certain 'something' in our powers of reasoning, which those of faith mysteriously possess. Quite insulting in its own way.

Do you not agree with the concept of fact?

[EuroTroll]

There are very, very few things that are absolutes that a person learns on their own from life experiences. Most of what we do learn is passed down as second hand information, and a great deal of that comes from books.

It doesn't sound to me like there is a lot of difference between that and the various religious texts. ;)

The obvious difference of course is the age of the text. The bible was written by people whose understanding of how the universe works was primitive compared to ours, and mostly just plain wrong. Are we really supposed to accept divine "truths" from people who thought the Earth was a disc, and the Sun went around it? Isn't that a bit like asking your cat to teach you how to play chess?

[BDunnell]

Maybe it's just me, but you are doing nothing but putting words in his mouth, and contradicting what he has actually stated. If you are going to debate based on complete assumptions, then you aren't dealing with facts. It's rather difficult to defend something you have never said. ;)

Please inform me as to where I have done this. Let's spare the semantics — he is saying that those with religious beliefs are, on certain grounds, superior to those without. I don't see how his words could be interpreted any other way, except by those who share his point of view and seek to justify it.

[airshifter]

Christianity is humble?

Many of the practices that christians take part in, such as praying, are anything but humble. It actually assumes that given the impossible size of the universe and all of the species that have ever existed, god actually wants to have a personal relationship with you and is willing to change his 'devine plan' if you pray to him. That is what I call arrogance and selfishness.

If you think praying is self centered, then surely you can give examples in which aetheists and agnostics accept their place of being inferior in the world, and acknowledge and gives thanks to the person they consider their primary form of guidance? If sitting before a meal and giving thanks for that meal is arrogant and selfish, how does not displaying thanks for it make one less arrogant?

[BDunnell]

The obvious difference of course is the age of the text. The bible was written by people whose understanding of how the universe works was primitive compared to ours, and mostly just plain wrong. Are we really supposed to accept divine "truths" from people who thought the Earth was a disc, and the Sun went around it? Isn't that a bit like asking your cat to teach you how to play chess?

Exactly. I know nothing of quantum physics, so wouldn't expect any views I were to offer on the subject to be considered of the slightest value, or even worth listening to. Those of an expert in the field should quite rightly be given more weight. Yet some of the arguments being deployed here would seek to deny the superiority of genuine knowledge and expertise. Were I to say I passionately believe that the secret of the universe is to be found in cat urine, I would expect to be laughed out of sight, yet apparently I'm wrong about this.

[BDunnell]

If you think praying is self centered, then surely you can give examples in which aetheists and agnostics accept their place of being inferior in the world, and acknowledge and gives thanks to the person they consider their primary form of guidance? If sitting before a meal and giving thanks for that meal is arrogant and selfish, how does not displaying thanks for it make one less arrogant?

I don't consider myself as an atheist inherently superior to anyone merely on the grounds of my not believing in God. I consider my lack of belief in God to be accurate and those who believe that one exists to be inaccurate, but it goes no further — unlike the views of those who consider that, somehow, I am lacking certain qualities simply because I have made up my mind to be a non-believer.

[airshifter]

I am heading up to see my Step Father today as we were told a couple of days ago his Leukaemia has reached its final stages. Knowing how depressed and frightened he is by the prospect of his battle coming to a sad end, nothing has convinced me more that god does not exist. I just can't get my head around what is happening and why it is allowed to happen.

I say live your life the way you want to, but be aware of the feelings of others while you do it. Everyone has a fair sense of right and wrong whether they obey it or not. Eat healthily, exercise often as only you have a hand in your future along normal lines. Following the guidance from religion is fine by me as it can produce strong moral values, but I fear for people who think it determines their destiny by their level of committment to it. Thats just my opinion.

One of the most respectful post in this entire thread IMO. I find no reason to insult another if they form their opinons and beliefs on a basis other than the one I use. At the end of the day people from all walks of life and belief systems can be very good or very bad people. I just try to surround myself with only good people, as there is enough bad and evil in the world already.

I'm sincerely sorry to here about the situation with your father in law Henners. It can be very taxing to deal with such things but sometimes for whatever reason miracles can and do happen. And if they don't the only thing people can do is use the time left to let those ill know they were cared about, appreciated, and loved. I certainly hope that the day I take my final breaths I am at peace with myself and those around me.

[BDunnell]

One of the most respectful post in this entire thread IMO. I find no reason to insult another if they form their opinons and beliefs on a basis other than the one I use.

I see no insults; what I see here are differences of opinion. I also see a lot of perfectly legitimate questions being avoided.



I'm sincerely sorry to here about the situation with your father in law Henners. It can be very taxing to deal with such things but sometimes for whatever reason miracles can and do happen.

Can you answer why the God who supposedly makes possible such miracles also allows people to fall ill in the first place, and on what basis certain individuals are allegedly 'chosen' to be the subject of 'miraculous' cures whereas others suffer a horrible death?

[airshifter]

Please inform me as to where I have done this. Let's spare the semantics — he is saying that those with religious beliefs are, on certain grounds, superior to those without. I don't see how his words could be interpreted any other way, except by those who share his point of view and seek to justify it.

How can you possibly take the following quote and see it as arrogant?


I did not mean that my thinking is superior to yours. One thing Christianity teaches is being humble. :) On the individual level our thinking is as good as our mental ability is. Theists can be just as terribly wrong on any given account as atheists could be. The difference is theists have a different big picture of the world, know there are certain things beyond their control and accept that. Moreover, they have a plausible explanation of why things go wrong or right.

On a different note, evoking the examples of Muslim extremists was still questionable. Every half-decent professor would tell you it is a weak technique of arguing.

He acknowledges fault in the finding of theists being the same as those of aetheists. He simply states how a theist accepts such faults and deals with them differing from that of an aetheist. One could just as easibly state that any aetheist explaining their grounds for reasoning is arrogant, and I've given examples that much of that reasoning is still second hand or later.

As for the assumption that I share such beliefs and wish to justify them, it's simply an incorrect assumption. But I find no reason to insult anyone for their beliefs, regardless of what the basis for them is.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If you think you have witnessed a miracle there are two possible reasons:

1) The laws of nature and the universe have temporarily been suspended in your favour

or

2) You are either under a delusion or misapprehension.

Both of these possible answers should be weighed up against each other to see which is more likely. It is also worth highlighting that the human mind is very susceptible to hallucinations and there is a lot about medicine that we don't yet know.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If you think praying is self centered, then surely you can give examples in which aetheists and agnostics accept their place of being inferior in the world, and acknowledge and gives thanks to the person they consider their primary form of guidance? If sitting before a meal and giving thanks for that meal is arrogant and selfish, how does not displaying thanks for it make one less arrogant?

Thanking the person who cooked/paid for the meal would be good manners, but one would do this because they are a decent person, not because they want to please god.

Most of the atheists I know accept that we are insignificant beings on an insignificant planet in an insignificant galaxy. Thinking that the 'creator' of all this cares about whether we eat or not is a bit self-centered in my opinion.

[BDunnell]

How can you possibly take the following quote and see it as arrogant?

This statement: 'The difference is theists have a different big picture of the world, know there are certain things beyond their control and accept that. Moreover, they have a plausible explanation of why things go wrong or right.'

None of this is exclusive to believers. It suggests to me a superiority inherent in belief.

[tstran17_88]

I believe in God for I am he :D

You're Lemmy from Motörhead???

[airshifter]

Thanking the person who cooked/paid for the meal would be good manners, but one would do this because they are a decent person, not because they want to please god.

Most of the atheists I know accept that we are insignificant beings on an insignificant planet in an insignificant galaxy. Thinking that the 'creator' of all this cares about whether we eat or not is a bit self-centered in my opinion.

So you don't have any examples of when a non believer openly accept their place as being insignificant?

[Robinho]

Humanity has created thousands of gods in it's history in an effort to explain what it didn't understand. What makes the current set any different from others?

Religion and god are nothing more than human constructs and only exist in the minds of their believers.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk

[airshifter]

This statement: 'The difference is theists have a different big picture of the world, know there are certain things beyond their control and accept that. Moreover, they have a plausible explanation of why things go wrong or right.'

None of this is exclusive to believers. It suggests to me a superiority inherent in belief.

So anyone with a different opinion is assumed to be arrogant and self centered, and thinks themselves superior? If that is the case the inverse is true, that all aetheists assume themselves superior due to a different reasoning and explanation of events.

Only if you view the statement with great bias did he state anything that the aetheists did not.

[Robinho]

On a lighter note, did you hear about the agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac? He used to lie awake at night wondering if there was a dog!

Oldie but a goodie

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk

[ioan]

But let's face facts. The vast majority of people wouldn't know that a car runs on fuel unless they read about it in a book.

Cause they do not need to fill it up every now and then?

[BDunnell]

Cause they do not need to fill it up every now and then?

A very reasonable point that I feel stupid for having missed.

[BDunnell]

So anyone with a different opinion is assumed to be arrogant and self centered, and thinks themselves superior? If that is the case the inverse is true, that all aetheists assume themselves superior due to a different reasoning and explanation of events.

Only if you view the statement with great bias did he state anything that the aetheists did not.

Read back. The feeling of superiority is clearly there. Even in the above statement, it is evident. Note use of the word 'plausible', clearly implying that others can offer only implausible explanations.

[ioan]

A very reasonable point that I feel stupid for having missed.

Certainly because you're an atheist. ;)

Time to go to sleep, I 'll have to make quite a few decisions tomorrow and I would hate to make mistakes due to my lack of ... sleep (what else?).

[donKey jote]

google ads in Texas are great
http://i43.tinypic.com/2z5t2xt.jpghttp://i40.tinypic.com/1zvrgap.jpg

never got any of these in Germany :laugh:

[airshifter]

Read back. The feeling of superiority is clearly there. Even in the above statement, it is evident. Note use of the word 'plausible', clearly implying that others can offer only implausible explanations.

Maybe it's simply the way I think, but none of the statements he made came across that way at all to me. And I don't share his beliefs, but simply respect each persons reasoning for their own.

[airshifter]

Cause they do not need to fill it up every now and then?

On occasion they will also need to change the battery, replace the tires, replenish oil, etc. But the car doesn't run on those things. Are you claiming that an average person having never been exposed to an internal combustion engine would simply understand how it works without any background and education on the subject?

In reality the engine runs more on air than liquid fuel, yet we never have to fill that up.

[donKey jote]

So you don't have any examples of when a non believer openly accept their place as being insignificant?

I quite openly accept I'm a donkey, does that count ? :)

[race aficionado]

You're anything but insignificant, Donks.
You are a happening burrito.


Sent from my iPhone in my bullet proof bunker

[donKey jote]

we're all insignificant in the Grand Scheme of Things (whether there is one or not :p ) and I am more insignificant than others.

A happening burrito? At the moment I'm a well and truly stuffed burrito - after lunch 8 hours ago :eek: :crazy:
Stoopid hooters :mark: :andrea:

[Lavinia]

If u trust ,god is there

[gadjo_dilo]

Can you answer why the God who supposedly makes possible such miracles also allows people to fall ill in the first place, and on what basis certain individuals are allegedly 'chosen' to be the subject of 'miraculous' cures whereas others suffer a horrible death?

1. Maybe because we ( still ) live on Earth which is far of beinig a perfect place. Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden and now we have to atone here.
2. In some cases our illness is due to the way we conduct our lives.
3. We still don't know the purpose of our lives so who knows why.....

etc., etc.....

Miracles? Maybe the first condition to happen is to have faith....

About death being horrible: let's not forget that even God's son, Jesus, had a death of heart rending undignity. At that time crucyfing was the most disgraceful punishment. The body anguish, the humiliation he had to endure on the way of cross and on the cross, the crowd mockery, the torture of his soul...He even lost hope asking his father why he left him.

Jesus's death have nothing romantic or heroic.On the contrary he had to endure the entire cortage of a humble death: fear, pain, sadness, despair.

I think Easter is a holiday related to the lesson of undertaken death in all its undignity. And maybe if he could live his death that way, maybe I also have to be afraid, to suffer, to be sad, etc. At the end of the day death is not a party or a solemn gesture. It's just like our life is: full of concerns and illusions, hopes and uncertainty.

[Hawkmoon]

1. Maybe because we ( still ) live on Earth which is far of beinig a perfect place. Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden and now we have to atone here.


Sins of the father much? Why do I have to suffer because of what they did? This god of yours is a vindictive character.



2. In some cases our illness is due to the way we conduct our lives.

That doesn't explain why a newborn babe, totally innocent, can be born with a terminal disease. What, exactly, did they do to deserve that?



3. We still don't know the purpose of our lives so who knows why.....

etc., etc.....

Miracles? Maybe the first condition to happen is to have faith....


So let me get this straight, and I'm paraphrasing here, but your whole life's philosophy boils down to nothing more that '**** happens'?



About death being horrible: let's not forget that even God's son, Jesus, had a death of heart rending undignity. At that time crucyfing was the most disgraceful punishment. The body anguish, the humiliation he had to endure on the way of cross and on the cross, the crowd mockery, the torture of his soul...He even lost hope asking his father why he left him.

Jesus's death have nothing romantic or heroic.On the contrary he had to endure the entire cortage of a humble death: fear, pain, sadness, despair.

I think Easter is a holiday related to the lesson of undertaken death in all its undignity. And maybe if he could live his death that way, maybe I also have to be afraid, to suffer, to be sad, etc. At the end of the day death is not a party or a solemn gesture. It's just like our life is: full of concerns and illusions, hopes and uncertainty.

The problem with this is that Easter is nothing more than the misappropriation of a (so called) pagan festival. It's kinda hard to place much importance in special events that were simply ripped from other religions for reasons of expediency.

[gadjo_dilo]

Humanity has created thousands of gods in it's history in an effort to explain what it didn't understand. What makes the current set any different from others?


The ancient greeks and romans worshiped the natural forces, the ancient egyptians worshiped even animals. The politheism generated in general religions that lacked morals.
The great religions with a moral character are confucianism, buddhism, judaism, islamism and christianism. In the first and the second, the idea of a God is almost absent. Confucius gave to his people more of a moral code. However it's more of a moral with a political character than a religion with moral character. His religion is convinient for a state but not for the ordinary people who have other needs besides being obedient citizens.
The Buddhism makes the aplogy of nothingness. It's not a religion serving life but... cemeteries. Its purpose is to turn off any desire and from this point of view it condemns the very aspiration towards perfection.

Then we have Judaism, the first monotheist religion and it claims a single God, creator, omnipotent and knowing all. However its God belong only to israelits. This religion lacks the "man" in favour of jew.

About Jesus's doctine and what makes christianism a worldspread religion I've already said on page 4 or 5.

About Islamism I shall write on the next episode.

[BDunnell]

This god of yours is a vindictive character.

Except, it seems, in situations where those close to the person miraculously cured happens to be a believer. Then they proclaim thanks to God for having come to the other person's aid, always without any investigation as to whether this was actually the case.

[gadjo_dilo]

Sins of the father much? Why do I have to suffer because of what they did? This god of yours is a vindictive character..
I'm afraid I can't answer this. I can't explain the divine justice or karmic laws. Anyway, as long as i don't know my purpose here I'm not sure that my life should be a long chain of joys-only. As sometimes I think of reincarnation maybe there's a lesson we have to learn in each life ?

At the same time I've noticed that people who suffered much are closer to God,
Salvation through suffering... ( I guess something like in Crime and Punisment or other Dostoievski's novels). It's probably a feature of our orthodox christian faith - a purification of human spirit by suffering and finally a chance for salvation.




That doesn't explain why a newborn babe, totally innocent, can be born with a terminal disease. What, exactly, did they do to deserve that?..
I said "in some cases".




So let me get this straight, and I'm paraphrasing here, but your whole life's philosophy boils down to nothing more that '**** happens'?..
To be honest I think about myself that I'm another useless person that in vain makes a shadow on Earth. I look around I see many other guys, as useless as me and of course the legitimate question is "why?".





The problem with this is that Easter is nothing more than the misappropriation of a (so called) pagan festival. It's kinda hard to place much importance in special events that were simply ripped from other religions for reasons of expediency.

Unfortunately, either on Christmas or on Easter there is a large mass of people ( my humble person included ) who turn the holiday in carousal. Of course, it's a good thing, for a few days we have a common creed, we share the joy, we exchange presents.
However on these occasions there is a species that I can't stand: the militant atheists, smart boys who totally reject religion and are always ready to stigmatize and insult. I don't have a problem with those to whom religion is a closed chapter but I have one with those who pretend this without ever opening it. Those who know all, have no doubts, no questions ( when they have they use them as a plea for their already made answers ).

[Knock-on]

I quite openly accept I'm a donkey, does that count ? :)

I thnk that between God and Donkey, I think there's more chance of Donkey being real and that's a bit of a worry ;)

I feel a poll coming on :D

[gadjo_dilo]

From my point of view I think the poll is incomplete. It would have been interesting to associate each option with voters' country and in case of those who believe in God, what religion they have and what rite they follow.

[EuroTroll]

From my point of view I think the poll is incomplete. It would have been interesting to associate each option with voters' country and in case of those who believe in God, what religion they have and what rite they follow.

All polls are incomplete. ;)

[Rudy Tamasz]

The obvious difference of course is the age of the text. The bible was written by people whose understanding of how the universe works was primitive compared to ours, and mostly just plain wrong. Are we really supposed to accept divine "truths" from people who thought the Earth was a disc, and the Sun went around it? Isn't that a bit like asking your cat to teach you how to play chess?

Here we go. So far neither you nor any other atheists on this thread was able prove that my thinking based on faith was wrong in general. Now you start referring to particular details that seem unreliable to you, such as the age of the Bible. If you look at the history of science, though, you will see that the views of scientists have changed multiple times over years. There was a time when the flat Earth with the Sun revolving around it was a valid scientific fact. You would be declared officially insane if you dared to doubt it. It still must be the fact for ioan because his so called common sense must dictate him the obvious, not what he would read in an obscure astronomy book written by an obscure guy he did not know personally.

Just FYI, the famous astronomers, phisycists and mathematicians who started the era of Enlightenment also practiced astrology and alchemy and thoroughly trusted these things, which were considered sciences back then. I do not think I can or should blindly trust everything they wrote back then just because it was "science". I do not think I have to trust everything the modern science produces either. After all, the next gadget for experiments can completely refute some of the knowledge that seems fundamental now. On the opposite, the creed of the Christian Church remained unchanged for many centuries.

To me, therefore, science is a snapshot of the universe taken at a certain moment. It only keeps its validity for a while and then drastically changes as soon as new facts and interpretations become known. I don't question the validity of the scientific view of the world. I just question its universal and eternal nature.

[BDunnell]

I just question its universal and eternal nature.

And you question nothing written down in the Bible?

[Rudy Tamasz]

This statement: 'The difference is theists have a different big picture of the world, know there are certain things beyond their control and accept that. Moreover, they have a plausible explanation of why things go wrong or right.'

None of this is exclusive to believers. It suggests to me a superiority inherent in belief.

This whole thread is about hearing a plausible explanation from you. So far there hasn't been one. That's it and it doesn't mean anything else. The difference of opinions doesn't inherently lead to anybody's superiority or inferiority. It's like racing. If you lost your last race, that doesn't yet mean you're inferior to anybody else. It means you just haven't been good enough on this occasion. If if keep losing time and again, then it might be a different story. And even then, who would call Chris Amon or Stirling Moss inferior in any sense?

[BDunnell]

This whole thread is about hearing a plausible explanation from you.

Really? I thought it went a bit further than that.

To me, Rudy, you were condescending towards those of us who are non-believers. End of story.

[Rudy Tamasz]

And you question nothing written down in the Bible?

Nothing. I just try to make sense of it.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Really? I thought it went a bit further than that.

To me, Rudy, you were condescending towards those of us who are non-believers.

The point of discussion is exchanging points of view and explaining those. I just wasn't convinced by your reasoning and you most likely weren't convinced by mine. This still doesn't defer me from thinking I was right. I am sorry if I made a wrong impression on you, but I am still unapologetic about my views.


End of story.

I agree. It's getting tiresome, isn't it?

[EuroTroll]

On the opposite, the creed of the Christian Church remained unchanged for many centuries.

Yup, no improvement whatsoever. ;) Or at least, very little improvement.

The thing is Rudy -- do you really believe that we have learned nothing important about the Universe since the Bible was written? Did the people who wrote it have better information than we do, in your opinion? If so, how did they get it?

[Robinho]

Science is all about testing observable phenomena, to understand them, to recreate them, to prove them, science more often than not tests its own hypotheses and proves them wrong, whilst narrowing the parameters of what it is searching for. No-one is disputing that scientific thinking has been incorrect i the past, based on the observable theories were put forward which were generally accepted until the ability to test and observe things changes, as a result of scientific progress. This evolution of science is part of what I think defines us as humans, as does the evolution of society, morals etc.

Religon observes something that was unexplainable and seeks to leave it out of the reach of the comprehension of man but explaining it as the result of a supernatural deity that is responsible for all things and is unquestionable. Also invisible, but all seeing and all powerful. Scary stuff. Add to that the whole afterlife, judgement day, heaven and hell and you have a whole lot of unobservable and untestable things to retain power over people. Teach thme these things from birth and promise great hardship, pain etc for eternity and you wind up with believers.

I think we live in a time where more and more of an educated and free thinking population is rejecting the notion of a god and unsustainable when weighed against the acquired knowledge of the populous, as "god" is not needed to explain natural phenomena and the church is wrestling to retain control over "man". In large parts of Europe it is possibly losing, the church being nothing more than a social cause, however still very powerful. In the USA and most Islamic counties the balance is far more in favour of the religous teachings, but the inability of religon to evolve and develop new ideas, due to its inflexible basis will ultimately IMO be its downfall. I cannot see how more people will be converted to believe than do reject the theory of a god, despite how strongly the religons continue to try to influence everything its followers do.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Humans have been on this planet for about 200,000 years. Yet god has supposedly only shown his hand once, around 2000 years ago in some very dubiously recorded events only in the middle east.

I don't see how anyone can possibly believe that this is true.

[gadjo_dilo]

Humans have been on this planet for about 200,000 years. Yet god has supposedly only shown his hand once, around 2000 years ago in some very dubiously recorded events only in the middle east.

I don't see how anyone can possibly believe that this is true.

It's posible to don't be true but on the other hand why should he show his "face" to us?
And what if man hasn't the "means" to "see" him?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It's posible to don't be true but on the other hand why should he show his "face" to us?
And what if man hasn't the "means" to "see" him?

You mean in the same way we don't have the 'means' to see the fairies at the bottom of the garden?

[gadjo_dilo]

If he doesn't need to show his face to us and 'man' may not be able to see him anyway, then I don't see any reason to believe in any of it. I can't fault peoples passion, but without any form of convincing argument or proof, I am always going to be sceptical.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

Why should be a reason for everything?

(I guess you never fell in love with the wrong person.:laugh :)

[gadjo_dilo]

You mean in the same way we don't have the 'means' to see the fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Yeah. Something like this. :laugh:

[Knock-on]

So, after 244 posts, has anyone modified their opinions at all and why?

Non-believers (or realists as I like to call us) cannot understand why people are so gullible to believe there is some mystical, all seeing deity that invented Heaven, Earth and Hell. He can listen to each and every one of the 6 billion human beings prayers, thoughts, desires and judge each and everyone of us when we die to decide whether they are worthy to enter his kingdom or should spend the rest of eternity being tortured.

Then we have the believers who believe without doubt that the above is true and wont entertain any 'evidence' that contradicts their 'faith'.

Heaven and hell, good and bad, black and white, believers and non-believers. Both sides of the same coin that are no more likely to change sides as they are sexes.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Perhaps we shall need a new thread called 'Converts coner'?

[Eki]

Perhaps we shall need a new thread called 'Converts coner'?

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2008/r-z-0-9/2008-Volkswagen-New-Beetle-Convertible-Driver-Side-Angle-1280x960.jpg

[Knock-on]

Eki, you have issues mate. Serious issues.

[BDunnell]

I think we live in a time where more and more of an educated and free thinking population is rejecting the notion of a god and unsustainable when weighed against the acquired knowledge of the populous, as "god" is not needed to explain natural phenomena and the church is wrestling to retain control over "man". In large parts of Europe it is possibly losing, the church being nothing more than a social cause, however still very powerful.

And look at the way some churches seek to retain their societal position — by speaking out from an utterly backward standpoint on issues like gay marriage, for instance. Even representatives of the more moderate branches of the Christian faith talk of the rise of secularism as though it is something to be feared, rather than acknowledging the ways in which it may simply be inevitable.

[ioan]

On occasion they will also need to change the battery, replace the tires, replenish oil, etc. But the car doesn't run on those things. Are you claiming that an average person having never been exposed to an internal combustion engine would simply understand how it works without any background and education on the subject?

In reality the engine runs more on air than liquid fuel, yet we never have to fill that up.

You really think that average people are that dumb that they do not understand some basics? Maybe I grew up in a world of geniuses, where everyone was above average, though I highly doubt it, and yet everyone understands the basics of how an engine works without need to take up physics or engineering classes.

As for the air, well it is oxygen not air that the engine uses, and we should consider ourselves lucky that we do not have to fill the engine with air from an air station pump.

[ioan]

The ancient greeks and romans worshiped the natural forces, the ancient egyptians worshiped even animals.

Looks like they knew better.

[ioan]

Nothing. I just try to make sense of it.

And does it work?

[ioan]

Science is all about testing observable phenomena, to understand them, to recreate them, to prove them, science more often than not tests its own hypotheses and proves them wrong, whilst narrowing the parameters of what it is searching for. No-one is disputing that scientific thinking has been incorrect i the past, based on the observable theories were put forward which were generally accepted until the ability to test and observe things changes, as a result of scientific progress. This evolution of science is part of what I think defines us as humans, as does the evolution of society, morals etc.

Religon observes something that was unexplainable and seeks to leave it out of the reach of the comprehension of man but explaining it as the result of a supernatural deity that is responsible for all things and is unquestionable. Also invisible, but all seeing and all powerful. Scary stuff. Add to that the whole afterlife, judgement day, heaven and hell and you have a whole lot of unobservable and untestable things to retain power over people. Teach thme these things from birth and promise great hardship, pain etc for eternity and you wind up with believers.

I think we live in a time where more and more of an educated and free thinking population is rejecting the notion of a god and unsustainable when weighed against the acquired knowledge of the populous, as "god" is not needed to explain natural phenomena and the church is wrestling to retain control over "man". In large parts of Europe it is possibly losing, the church being nothing more than a social cause, however still very powerful. In the USA and most Islamic counties the balance is far more in favour of the religous teachings, but the inability of religon to evolve and develop new ideas, due to its inflexible basis will ultimately IMO be its downfall. I cannot see how more people will be converted to believe than do reject the theory of a god, despite how strongly the religons continue to try to influence everything its followers do.

Couldn't agree more. Very well explained. :up: