NationStates Jolt Archive

Simply put, they are. They are the result of accumulated myths and legends that have continued to build upon themselves. Allow me to explain:
Long ago, back when our ancestors were still inventing tools and moving out of Africa, they began to wonder exactly why things worked the way they did: why the sky was blue, why water was wet, why they even existed, and so on. Since they had no scientific knowledge nor any way to gather it, they began forming legends. These legends eventually began to develop over time, to become religions followed by many, many people. As such, all religions are fictional. The Bible was never written by God through humans; there's no proof for that. The Torah is simply a book of legends, as is the Koran and any other religious text.
Now, I'm not saying that God or gods do not exist. I am agnostitc and am simply waiting for proof. What I am saying is that God as we have seen Him or Her in books like the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and so many others does not exist because the books themselves are fictional. There may be a God or gods out there; we just haven't found them yet.

Not a bad theory, except that I'm pretty sure they have historical evidence that Jesus did in fact exist, along with several other big names like Moses and Muhammed. Legends usually don't involve real people.

So THAT'S what agnostic means. You can't prove anything man. I mean, what if we're somebodie's dream, and they're somebody else's dream. Oh, man. I am so high.

*Religion bash*... I am agnostitc

Ha. Denial isn't befitting of atheists, nor are spelling errors.

You never know. Maybe whats in the Bible and Koran is loosely based on true encounters with a god(s), but the story, like all oral traditions, was changed.

Not a bad theory, except that I'm pretty sure they have historical evidence that Jesus did in fact exist, along with several other big names like Moses and Muhammed. Legends usually don't involve real people.

Um, actually they usually do involve real people.
The legend of Gilgamesh is based on the real Sumerian king Bilgames, but not completely based.
Legends usually are just an overexageration of real things, and I mean really over exaggerated.

Oh, I wasn't saying that those people are fictional; I'm saying their religious beliefs are. Most definitely there was a Jesus Christ, and a Mohammed. However, Jesus was not the son of God, and Mohammed was not a prophet anymore than I am.

That's not what He told me.

You know you should try prayer - you learn so much from it.

religion is just noncense, if jezus existed he is probably just a man with high charisma who could give good speeches.

religious people are idiots who serve the poeple that make you believe in god
:headbang:

Oh, I wasn't saying that those people are fictional; I'm saying their religious beliefs are. Most definitely there was a Jesus Christ, and a Mohammed. However, Jesus was not the son of God, and Mohammed was not a prophet anymore than I am.

That's a very bold statement.

Prove to me Jesus is not the son of God and prove to me Mohanned was no more a prophet than you.

The problem with that is you can't. You can't fully prove it anyways. You can have so much evidence to back you up, someone can go and find just as much evidence to back up the opposite.

Simply put, they are. They are the result of accumulated myths and legends that have continued to build upon themselves. Allow me to explain:
Long ago, back when our ancestors were still inventing tools and moving out of Africa, they began to wonder exactly why things worked the way they did: why the sky was blue, why water was wet, why they even existed, and so on. Since they had no scientific knowledge nor any way to gather it, they began forming legends. These legends eventually began to develop over time, to become religions followed by many, many people. As such, all religions are fictional. The Bible was never written by God through humans; there's no proof for that. The Torah is simply a book of legends, as is the Koran and any other religious text.
Now, I'm not saying that God or gods do not exist. I am agnostitc and am simply waiting for proof. What I am saying is that God as we have seen Him or Her in books like the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and so many others does not exist because the books themselves are fictional. There may be a God or gods out there; we just haven't found them yet.



Hear, hear.

I think the starter of this thread is right, I think religon is mind control, the bible tells you what to do what to say and how to think, and anything they don't want you to do is "sin", whatever. :headbang:

What a pathetic attempt to discredit the Truth. Moving out of "Africa?" :rolleyes:

Come on, there is no way you can prove it either way. That is why it is called FAITH, people. You can't be outright sure that religion is fiction, and there is some evidence to prove that Jesus was the Son of God out there. The Turin Shroud, for example, or the fact that if his resurrection was made up, why would they use women as the people who found him? Women were not though to be trustworthy, so if you want to make a believable hoax, you do not have them as your messengers. It's scanty proof, I'll admit, but it leaves the possibilities open.

religion is just noncense, if jezus existed he is probably just a man with high charisma who could give good speeches.

religious people are idiots who serve the poeple that make you believe in god
:headbang:

Oh noes religious people are idiots because their views aren't parallel to yours! Funny, that's the same reason people bash religion, because they exclude others because their views differ from that of the religion. Fucking hypocrites.

Oh, I wasn't saying that those people are fictional; I'm saying their religious beliefs are. Most definitely there was a Jesus Christ, and a Mohammed. However, Jesus was not the son of God, and Mohammed was not a prophet anymore than I am.

exactly; jesus was a real person. it's proven. however, the bible is made up of these things called "parables." These are stories that exaggerate the truth to teach a religious lesson or moral. Some idiots tend to take these literally, and **poof** all of a sudden, adam and eve really were the firt two humans, and noah really did take 2 of EVERY species of animal on a boat and saved them during a monsoon apocalypse. the same goes for jesus really being the human offspring of a supernatural force.

religion is just noncense, if jezus existed he is probably just a man with high charisma who could give good speeches.

religious people are idiots who serve the poeple that make you believe in god
:headbang:
Prove it. You simply deny religion so you don't feel guilty and selfish when you commit wrong. Without God telling you to not do something, you are able to cause all the harm you want without remorse.

My point is that these religions have no proof to back them up, making them fictional. And yes, moving out of Africa; it's part of our evolution. Homo Habaelus was the first to make tools and move out of the temparate climate all human species had lived in before.

Are you subscribing to the Freudian, Marxist, or Fleaubach view of religion when you say it's fictional :headbang: ?

First of all no proof does not equal fiction. There is nothing disproving it either. And, look at my previous post.

As of right now you can't really prove religion true or false. That's why I'm an Agnostic Jew.

Dogmatism is an unattractive attribute in any belief system, including the one espoused by the creator of this thread.

If you don't like religion fine. But live and let live.

The point of view about religion not determining guilt so we can determine right and wrong is Nietzche's nihilsm. Without a god, we mean nothing, are nothin, and have no purpose (at least Camus and Nietzche and Marx's ideas aren't bought by me). Excuse the spelling.

Dogmatism is an unattractive attribute in any belief system, including the one espoused by the creator of this thread.

If you don't like religion fine. But live and let live.

Exactly.

Simply put, they are. They are the result of accumulated myths and legends that have continued to build upon themselves. Allow me to explain:
Long ago, back when our ancestors were still inventing tools and moving out of Africa, they began to wonder exactly why things worked the way they did: why the sky was blue, why water was wet, why they even existed, and so on. Since they had no scientific knowledge nor any way to gather it, they began forming legends. These legends eventually began to develop over time, to become religions followed by many, many people. As such, all religions are fictional. The Bible was never written by God through humans; there's no proof for that. The Torah is simply a book of legends, as is the Koran and any other religious text.
Now, I'm not saying that God or gods do not exist. I am agnostitc and am simply waiting for proof. What I am saying is that God as we have seen Him or Her in books like the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and so many others does not exist because the books themselves are fictional. There may be a God or gods out there; we just haven't found them yet.

Yes, this is not news.... theres a large group of people who believe the same thing. They are called agnostics.

The point of view about religion not determining guilt so we can determine right and wrong is Nietzche's nihilsm. Without a god, we mean nothing, are nothin, and have no purpose (at least Camus and Nietzche and Marx's ideas aren't bought by me). Excuse the spelling.

Could you clarify? By the way, Armand's Minions was me. Accidentally used a puppet.

Religion is searching for the truth in a different way than science does. Neither are totally fact, neither are free of fiction.

Oh noes religious people are idiots because their views aren't parallel to yours! Funny, that's the same reason people bash religion, because they exclude others because their views differ from that of the religion. Fucking hypocrites.


Well said :p

No, I'm a Jungian when it comes to psychology, but that's beside the point. I'm completely Agnostic, because I want to see proof before I believe anything. It may be that Christianity does have it right, or it might be that Islam has it right. The point is, until I see proof, I will seem them as fictional.
And I'm not saying "ban religion" in any respect; I'm simply putting forth my opinion on it.

My point is that these religions have no proof to back them up, making them fictional. And yes, moving out of Africa; it's part of our evolution. Homo Habaelus was the first to make tools and move out of the temparate climate all human species had lived in before.

Proof of the great flood (Noah's ark) has been discovered in tree rings etc. The strange occurences in Egypt around passover were recorded by Egyptions. Many proofs exist, even scientific to back up some of theese religions.

Religion is searching for the truth in a different way than science does. Neither are totally fact, neither are free of fiction.

Hear! Hear!

Sure, Marx believes religion is an opiate of the masses and prevents us from building a real kingdom (if it could be called that) on earth. Material posession is everything because religion decieves us into believing in a fake afterlife. WE lay the groudwork for a future society without religion.

Camus believes that we get meaning from sheer bitchery, meaning we can go through a meaningless life either believing we have purpose or we don't. We should just shake our fists and do it willingly in spite.

Nietzche said "we have killed God" to in effect make us God. WE become the ones who decide right and wrong through "might makes right"

It's not very appealing, but that's a life of pessimism without God...

I understand that some parts of the legends, such as the great flood, were actually real events. You're missing my point. I'm not talking about every single little peice of it being fictional; I'm talking about the God or gods in these religions being fictional.

So? What's wrong with fiction? The best and "truest" things in life are fictional.

And just a further note: I'm agnostic. And I'm not afraid to poke fun or make fun of religion. It's when the arrogance hits the point of "all religions are entirely fictional and their followers are mere pawns. They should all become atheists and think exactly like we do to achieve free thought," attitude that pisses me off.

So? What's wrong with fiction? The best things in life are fictional.

Especially Origin of Species ;)

I kid, I kid. I, kid. I, kid.

I understand that some parts of the legends, such as the great flood, were actually real events. You're missing my point. I'm not talking about every single little peice of it being fictional; I'm talking about the God or gods in these religions being fictional.

It depends om your definition of 'God'.

Dude. Just step away from the argument. Back away gracefully. And let it sink to the abyss.

I'll cover your ass, or get that new troll on the block (Fidei? Fidel?) post again. (Yeah I know your name, I know more Latin than you ever will, plebian)

But seriously, you've accomplished nothing besides proclaiming your religion.

Religion and science (yes i said science) is an attempt to get to better know that God. Religion does it through analogy and fact claims (all religions have claims), yet we can through neither out the window entirely. It is our job to find what is fact and what is bunk so we can find out what this God is like, although they crawl in respect to the real thing.

And just a further note: I'm agnostic. And I'm not afraid to poke fun or make fun of religion. It's when the arrogance hits the point of "all religions are entirely fictional and their followers are mere pawns. They should all become atheists and think exactly like we do to achieve free thought," attitude that pisses me off.
I'm not saying that! I'm putting forth my own opinion on the religions; I never said a word about the people who follow them. I'm just trying to have an intellectual discussion about this and see everyone's opinion on the subject, that's all. No need to attack me for it.

And just a further note: I'm agnostic. And I'm not afraid to poke fun or make fun of religion. It's when the arrogance hits the point of "all religions are entirely fictional and their followers are mere pawns. They should all become atheists and think exactly like we do to achieve free thought," attitude that pisses me off.

Atheists are agnostics with spines.

There's another problem, God has no real definition. We all mean something different when we refer to him (or her if you prefer).

Agnostics cannot remain agnostics forever. Either there is a God or there isn't. It's respectable as long as you continue thinking about it. By the way, belief in God seems to be the only thing in life you can remain to be "agnostic".

That's a very bold statement.

Prove to me Jesus is not the son of God and prove to me Mohanned was no more a prophet than you.

The problem with that is you can't. You can't fully prove it anyways. You can have so much evidence to back you up, someone can go and find just as much evidence to back up the opposite.

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with those who believe there is a god, or that jesus was the christ, or that muhammed was a prophet. Problem is, you can't prove it, so we're at an impasse.

So let's all just go about out merry lives and stop trying to convert, convince and persuade each other. Every one comes to their own understanding, and others can do very little to change that.

//an atheist who hates when people ask her to prove there's not a god.

Atheists are agnostics with spines.

You say spines, I say hardcore arrogance.

No one can say that the shroud of Turin was actually used 2000 years or so back, because it was dated as having come from the middle ages.

I'm not saying that! I'm putting forth my own opinion on the religions; I never said a word about the people who follow them. I'm just trying to have an intellectual discussion about this and see everyone's opinion on the subject, that's all. No need to attack me for it.

You may want to phrase your ideas in a slightly less adversarial way then. You come across as being fundamentally opposed to the idea of religion. Maybe you aren't, in fact, but that is how it seems.

And I'm in full agreement with Mr./Mrs. Genoa.

Agnostics cannot remain agnostics forever. Either there is a God or there isn't. It's respectable as long as you continue thinking about it. By the way, belief in God seems to be the only thing in life you can remain to be "agnostic".

Typical monotheistic egotism. Gods and goddesses abound as well. The idea of one god is preposterous and stupid. We all know that Pallas Athena guards the omniverse.

There's another problem, God has no real definition. We all mean something different when we refer to him (or her if you prefer).

Good point, why don't we just define "God" as "everything".

There's the problem with the thread, people who are so closed minded about God existing or not that they hate to be asked the question. They are unthinking atheists / theists unless they consider the question constantly. I have to take a class on this in high school so I am a little more knowedgeable about this than most people since I have been looking at the atheist position for a VERY long time.

Agnostics cannot remain agnostics forever. Either there is a God or there isn't. It's respectable as long as you continue thinking about it. By the way, belief in God seems to be the only thing in life you can remain "agnostic".

Really? I'm agnostic about life on other planets, the existence of ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, and whether or not intelligent life exists in the White House, to name a few.

The problem with defining God as everything is that God isn't something to almost all people.

You may want to phrase your ideas in a slightly less adversarial way then. You come across as being fundamentally opposed to the idea of religion. Maybe you aren't, in fact, but that is how it seems.

And I'm in full agreement with Mr./Mrs. Genoa.
Like I said, I'm just waiting for proof. I'm not against any form of religion. All I'm saying is that, without proof, these legends and myths are just that: fiction.
I mean absolutely no offense to anyone who took any by my original post. To those who did, I apologize.

You say spines, I say hardcore arrogance.

There is no arrogance in condemning all religions as equally plausible and equally unlikely, and therefore unimportant and useless.
There is no arrogance in condemning dogma, abhorring brainwashing and indoctrination, and loathing the violent egotism that comes with any religion.

There is arrogance in "supreme entities" that demand homage and tribute or any sort of behavior without proper introductions.

There is cowardice and presumptuousness in idling about secularism, observing the myriad of cults/religions/theologies as though you were in a produce aisle.

Yeah, but I think that it is too important of a question just to let hang out there since it kind of does affect the human position in the universe.

Also, it is not typical theism, because a theist wouldn't believe that religion affects whether God exist or doesn't. He either does or he doesn't. Become more educated so you can eventually take a side after looking at the evidence. Afterall, Darwin was an agnostic.

Like I said, I'm just waiting for proof. I'm not against any form of religion. All I'm saying is that, without proof, these legends and myths are just that: fiction.
I mean absolutely no offense to anyone who took any by my original post. To those who did, I apologize.

The thing is, proof and religion don't coincide. Religion is not a science, it's supposed to be one of those things to steps outside the bounds of rules and shit.

So while the right-wing fundamentalist who condemns gays to hell is arrogant, so is the loud-mouthed atheist. I think everyone really needs to concede that they COULD be wrong, rather than asserting how right they are 24/7. Atheists have as much rights and theists and so do agnostics, but I think we all need to respect each other just a little bit once in a while. The rest of the time we can be assholes, because thats just fun. :D

The problem with defining God as everything is that God isn't something to almost all people.

If the broadest definitions of "God" avoid people, then they are either extremely self sufficient individuals, or I think they are missing out dearly. I take classes on this also. We don't have to use the term "God", but there is an undeniable spiritual force (whether it is the connection of human beings to each other alone or something greater I don't know).

There is no arrogance in condemning all religions as equally plausible and equally unlikely, and therefore unimportant and useless.
There is no arrogance in condemning dogma, abhorring brainwashing and indoctrination, and loathing the violent egotism that comes with any religion.

There is arrogance in "supreme entities" that demand homage and tribute or any sort of behavior without proper introductions.

There is cowardice and presumptuousness in idling about secularism, observing the myriad of cults/religions/theologies as though you were in a produce aisle.

Not all religion fits your definition and thus rejecting all religions on such a generalized premise does qualify as the egotism and arrogance you so abhorrently despise. Going around saying that you're right no matter what is what qualifies as arrogance. ANd that's what Im arguing against.

Well, 100% proof of God doesn't exist. Some people see one thing as proof, others see the same and call it stupid.

Religions make fact-based claims like Jesus was a man and he taught good things. Muhammed is a prophet of God is another fact-based claim.

I mean absolutely no offense to anyone who took any by my original post. To those who did, I apologize.

People, people, gather 'round. What you have just witnessed is an apology. These are wonderful things and we should all learn from Mr. Funky-Name's example and make them more often.

I salute you, sir!

Really? I'm agnostic about life on other planets, the existence of ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, and whether or not intelligent life exists in the White House, to name a few.

I'm usure about what you're trying to say here.

People, people, gather 'round. What you have just witnessed is an apology. These are wonderful things and we should all learn from Mr. Funky-Name's example and make them more often.

I salute you, sir!
Thank you. I admit I could be wrong in every way, and again, I apologize.

Not all religion fits your definition and thus rejecting all religions on such a generalized premise does qualify as the egotism and arrogance you so abhorrently despise. Going around saying that you're right no matter what is what qualifies as arrogance. ANd that's what Im arguing against.

I never said I was right. I said anyone who claims to be right can (and probably is) wrong.

All I know is that I know nothing. All knowledge is mutable, all frame of though, subjective.

We are impure beings in an impure world in an impure universe, chaos is the predominating order, nothingness is the predominating matter.

God never "demanded" anything of us. We have the free will to do what we want. There is a bigger plan somewhere and maybe you aren't just seeing it. Maybe you are trying to tempt something to answer when the answer has been no. "No" is an answer too.

Religious and factual subjectivism is to be abhorred. As the truth has to be uncovered. If there is no God, then there is no truth, nothing has order, nothing is the way we think it is. Only the most powerful, as Nietzche said, can dictate the truth to us.

I'm usure about what you're trying to say here.

Agnostic: One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I'm usure about what you're trying to say here.

-One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
-One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
-One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I too am uncomfortable with the word usage, but whatever.

That's not what He told me.

You know you should try prayer - you learn so much from it.


just one question, if you pray what do you pray for, world peace? understandind? a girlfriend? nothing offending meant, just curious :confused:

What school of atheism do you subscribe to (Camus, Freud, Nietzche, Marx, to name the major ones)?

By the way, dictionaries are not acceptable for religious arguements.

(They are skewed against non-Christians)

What school of atheism do you subscribe to (Camus, Freud, Nietzche, Marx, to name the major ones)?

I subscribe to nothing. But if you want to lable me, I am an existential nihilist. More Camus than Nietzche, though it depends on my mood. :p

jesus may have existed but that doesnt mean he existed in the same way that we think he did. he was just another human. someone a story was centered around. just because these people exist didnt mean the legends are true. fictional stories of real people have always existed and still do today.

That's not what He told me.

You know you should try prayer - you learn so much from it.
Learn to talk to myself :p

Yeah, dictionaries are crappy "objective" resources that have no value when it comes to deeper philosophical subjects and ideas.

I subscribe to nothing. But if you want to lable me, I am an existential nihilist. More Camus than Nietzche, though it depends on my mood. :p

Yeah, I never bought the "might makes right" arguement...But finding meaning in sheer b*tchery is not my cup of tea either. Theism is more satisfying to me.

[QUOTE] The Bible was never written by God through humans; there's no proof for that.


Maybe you should actually try reading the religious material your so anxious to shoot down. if you're seriously arguing the point, take a look at 2 Timothy 3:16. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ever heard of them. They are physical proof. Do some homework!

I imagine atheism must be a least a little depressing...

I imagine atheism must be a least a little depressing...

Nah, common misperception.

I am a Christian & theist, but I don't believe that God "wrote" the scriptures.

Really? I'm agnostic about life on other planets, the existence of ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, and whether or not intelligent life exists in the White House, to name a few.

Okay, you're sceptical about theese things.
1. It's almost impossibly unlikely that intelligent life doesn't exist on other planets. I believe life in its non-intelligent form has already been found (or the remnants thereof). 2. I am also. 3. ESP in a non-extreme sense is often experienced. ESP in an extreme sense, I agree, is doubtful. 4. Explain deja vu. 5. I'm inclined to agree here, our own parliment is in much the same questionable position. It's led me to grow very tired of 'democracy'.

Nah, common misperception.

Well, I though it because life has no meaning, no one is right unless they are powerful.... I guess if you dwell on it it can be a little depressing. Part of my class in highschool is to at least consider the possibility, but I read a lot and almost considered it because of the arguement about the existence of evil and the possibility that Hitler could have been right, if he had won the war that is..

I am a Christian & theist, but I don't believe that God "wrote" the scriptures.

I don't know about that, but my definition of God is broad. I'm a mystic, by the way.

Yeah, dictionaries are crappy "objective" resources that have no value when it comes to deeper philosophical subjects and ideas.
But they are useful for determining if you are at least discussing the same object/idea

Words are defined by the ideas the represent … you cant communicate your ideas to HAVE a philosophical argument without having the same definitions for words

Okay, you're sceptical about theese things.
1. It's almost impossibly unlikely that intelligent life doesn't exist on other planets. I believe life in its non-intelligent form has already been found (or the remnants thereof). 2. I am also. 3. ESP in a non-extreme sense is often experienced. ESP in an extreme sense, I agree, is doubtful. 4. Explain deja vu. 5. I'm inclined to agree here, our own parliment is in much the same questionable position. It's led me to grow very tired of 'democracy'.

I'm inclined to believe that everything has an answer, although maybe not humanly knowable, and that could frighten some agnostics.

But they are useful for determining if you are at least discussing the same object/idea

Words are defined by the ideas the represent … you cant communicate your ideas to HAVE a philosophical argument without having the same definitions for words

I'd like to have you define God for everyone then, since you love your dictionary so much.

Well, I though it because life has no meaning, no one is right unless they are powerful.... I guess if you dwell on it it can be a little depressing. Part of my class in highschool is to at least consider the possibility, but I read a lot and almost considered it because of the arguement about the existence of evil and the possibility that Hitler could have been right, if he had won the war that is..

The only thing Hitler did which was wrong was to attack Russia, it lost him the war. Well, that and persecution of the Jews, particularly Einstein and the guy who invented and implimented the use of gas. (What was his name?)

But they are useful for determining if you are at least discussing the same object/idea

Words are defined by the ideas the represent … you cant communicate your ideas to HAVE a philosophical argument without having the same definitions for words

Ahem. Finish reading my post.

a·the·ism n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.


Hmm. Dictionary.com added the "gods" part since the last time I looked it up.

I'm inclined to believe that everything has an answer, although maybe not humanly knowable, and that could frighten some agnostics.

I think humans are capable of understanding everything, but probably never will.

So you're saying that reality is based simply on what YOU PERSONALLY believe? Hmm. Since we've never met, than according to your theory I don't exist. That's a pretty amazing point of view.

Well, I though it because life has no meaning, no one is right unless they are powerful.... I guess if you dwell on it it can be a little depressing. Part of my class in highschool is to at least consider the possibility, but I read a lot and almost considered it because of the arguement about the existence of evil and the possibility that Hitler could have been right, if he had won the war that is..

The idea that morals don't exist without gods is nonsense. Try thinking a little bit harder before I spoil the answer for you.

There is no arrogance in condemning all religions as equally plausible and equally unlikely, and therefore unimportant and useless.
There is no arrogance in condemning dogma, abhorring brainwashing and indoctrination, and loathing the violent egotism that comes with any religion.

There is arrogance in "supreme entities" that demand homage and tribute or any sort of behavior without proper introductions.

There is cowardice and presumptuousness in idling about secularism, observing the myriad of cults/religions/theologies as though you were in a produce aisle.

Well said, Brother! Well said!

this is a quality thread.
somewhere i have a copy of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to his nephew about religion. "Let reason be your only religion" or something like that. basically it's tj warning his nephew not to get sucked into the religious whirlpool. he acknowledges that jesus may have existed, but he expresses his belief that perhaps jesus was a normal guy who started out with good intentions, did some good, but ultimately died believing he was something he was not. really an interesting letter, i'll have to find it and post it next time something like this comes up.

So you're saying that reality is based simply on what YOU PERSONALLY believe? Hmm. Since we've never met, than according to your theory I don't exist. That's a pretty amazing point of view.

No, I try to gather the evidence about what I dont know (wheter or not God exists ie) and try to make an informed opinion about it. It doesn't make it 100% right, but I try...

So you're saying that reality is based simply on what YOU PERSONALLY believe? Hmm. Since we've never met, than according to your theory I don't exist. That's a pretty amazing point of view.

Who is? An individual person's reality is based on what they believe, of course. Yes, in the person to whom you are speeking's world, you do not exist other than what you present here in this forum. They do not know who you are. You, as you know yourself to be, do not exist to them.

Nah, common misperception.

You're a (self proclaimed) agnostic. What would you know. You drown your growing pit of emptiness with the lukewarm feeling of unsurety.

Most atheists find it very depressing. Many are depressed at some point in their life, if not for all of it.

My prozac is your Jesus.

this is a quality thread.
somewhere i have a copy of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to his nephew about religion. "Let reason be your only religion" or something like that. basically it's tj warning his nephew not to get sucked into the religious whirlpool. he acknowledges that jesus may have existed, but he expresses his belief that perhaps jesus was a normal guy who started out with good intentions, did some good, but ultimately died believing he was something he was not. really an interesting letter, i'll have to find it and post it next time something like this comes up.

I agree about quality. Maybe Jesus was a normal guy, but I believe he was more than that. It's OK to have a religion, but think before you believe and don't take everything as truth before examining multiple points of view. I have reasoned God exists and Jesus was part of him.

Personally, I believe that all religions are inferior reflections of a true G-d, and that for that reason, it is alright to believe in any religion so long as one's actions are not morally wrong- as far as polytheism is concerned, I'm pro-Hindu and anti-Aztec.

I imagine atheism must be a least a little depressing...


Nah.. its liberating. Rather than trying to be someone elses social/political clone you can actually act like yourself.

'course if you mean the whole no life after death thing you couldn't be more wrong. If you think about it absolute nothingness isn't that bad because you never have to perceive it. In a very real sense it lets you stop thinking about what "Insert your favorite higher power here" thinks is right and start thinking about what your experiences tell you are right.

The NS general forum is definitive proof that many young people (I'm assuming most of the people posting here are under the age of 30) have a deep seated need to know, or at least discuss, something larger than themselves.

Consider:

Atheists do not believe in God, so presumably matters of god, theology, and faith play no role in their lives. Yet, this bulletin board is replete with atheists and agnostics who repeatedly post threads about God, the non-existence of God, proof there is no God, and countless other threads about religion. I would imagine they do not believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy either, yet they manage to restrain themselves from posting about their existence or lack thereof.

Then there are the Christians, who are supposed to come to God through faith. Yet, here they are, hammering away in unison with their atheistic sisters and brothers about their endless proofs for God's existence. And while the Bible commands them to not make a show of their faith for the benefit of others ("...when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matt.6:6), they just can't help demonstrating what good Christians they are and explaining how everyone else will go to hell. They love to point out how others misinterpret the Bible (I'm sure there will be a post about my own quote from Matthew, no doubt showing me the error of my way). You would think they would be content in their own faith and let God (or gods) take care of the lack of faith of others.

Internet Atheists and Christians. A match made in cyber-Heaven.

The bottom line is, who cares. I really don't care.
If there are gods, I'll meet them when they feel like showing up; if not, I'm worm food... and the omniverse eventually implodes anyways, so whaatever.

Um, actually they usually do involve real people.
The legend of Gilgamesh is based on the real Sumerian king Bilgames, but not completely based.
Legends usually are just an overexageration of real things, and I mean really over exaggerated.

Except one thing, that is "based on"...not for real...Jesus and everything he did was real, god is the almighty master and creator, and St. Michael cast satan into hell...

I pray to God that He has mercy on all those Athiests out there, b/c once the "End of the World" comes, you will regret those beliefs...

Personally, I believe that all religions are inferior reflections of a true G-d, and that for that reason, it is alright to believe in any religion so long as one's actions are not morally wrong- as far as polytheism is concerned, I'm pro-Hindu and anti-Aztec.

Only problem there is that you excluded the Aztec. All religions have different moral beliefs, but you also have to acknowledge many religions are based on and include facts. So in that respect, "morally wrong" to me (ie euthenasia) may not be morally wrong to you.

I agree about quality. Maybe Jesus was a normal guy, but I believe he was more than that. It's OK to have a religion, but think before you believe and don't take everything as truth before examining multiple points of view. I have reasoned God exists and Jesus was part of him.

Is not God part of all of us? Jesus was a great man, with an excellent message. However, maybe he ment that he was the son of God as much as we all are. He was also called the Son of Man, was he not?

I'd like to have you define God for everyone then, since you love your dictionary so much.
Why do I have to …I don’t write the dictionary … that’s their job to determine what the meaning of the word itself is

To me
God = Deity … simple as that

A higher “being”


To me … but I don’t know all the definitions … not my job to memorize the dictionary rather to reference it when the difference may make a difference in an argument

Is not God part of all of us? Jesus was a great man, with an excellent message. However, maybe he ment that he was the son of God as much as we all are. He was also called the Son of Man, was he not?

Well i dunno, but the absence of God may create evil.

Also, the definition of God thing was to make the point that God is omnipotent to some, benevolent to others, omni-present to more.

Jesus' 12 disciples followed Him wherever He went. He taught them, they learned from Him, and they wrote down what He said. Some of the disciples saw Jesus die on the cross--and then stabbed in the side with a spear by a soldier, to make sure He was dead. He was put in a tomb and it was sealed with a giant rock--Jesus was officially dead. His disciples went on with living their lives, not quite sure what to do with them because their teacher had died. Some people went to search the tomb and saw that He wasn't there. To their surprise, Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later. Jesus came and visited His disciples once more. They observed the holes in His hands and feet, they saw the scar on His side. They touched the scars, and they were real, and they knew Jesus was back. They knew that Jesus wasn't a regular Rabbi. He had done what no other person on planet earth had done. He continued teaching them, and they kept writing down what He had said. Then He left them, but didn't die again. He was brought up into Heaven and gave the gift of the Holy Spirit to His disciples. They knew He was someone different, they knew He had to be the Messiah, the Son of God. They then went on preaching about Jesus, telling everyone He had died and rose on the third day. They went around the world spreading the knews about Jesus and what He had done. A lot of them even died because of Jesus. They believed so strongly, becuase they had seen and heard Jesus after He had died and risen. Now, if this was all fake, and none of this ressurection stuff never happened, then why would these people go around dying for the sake of Jesus?

The NS general forum is definitive proof that many young people (I'm assuming most of the people posting here are under the age of 30) have a deep seated need to know, or at least discuss, something larger than themselves.

Consider:

Atheists do not believe in God, so presumably matters of god, theology, and faith play no role in their lives. Yet, this bulletin board is replete with atheists and agnostics who repeatedly post threads about God, the non-existence of God, proof there is no God, and countless other threads about religion. I would imagine they do not believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy either, yet they manage to restrain themselves from posting about their existence or lack thereof.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

People aren't being persecuted and killed because they differ in beliefs about the Tooth Fairy. The American government is being run by extremists delusioned by the existence of Santa. My money doesn't say "In Easter Bunny we trust".
Do you think I wanted to be brainwashed into believing a happy little fairy tale? I would've avoided contracting chronic depression without it. So please, refrain from anymore inane commentaries about our motivations.
Also, remember who initiates these things. Do you think atheists want to be reminded that they have no purpose? Do you think Christians want to be exposed to the our real nightmare?
Do you think atheists, in that rare moment of "good vibes" or "happiness" decide to come and argue on an internet forum?

Ahem. Finish reading my post.



Hmm. Dictionary.com added the "gods" part since the last time I looked it up.
Was not referencing your post … rather then his/her comment on the usefulness of a dictionary in a philosophical argument

So does not really matter what definition you posted or where it came from :p was talking word definition in general

Jesus

So, why is he an egotistical sadomasochistic god with an inferiority complex that wants me to worship him or else I suffer an eternal punishment?

Was not referencing your post … rather then his/her comment on the usefulness of a dictionary in a philosophical argument

So does not really matter what definition you posted or where it came from :p was talking word definition in general

Indeed. You can't learn about theories and science from dictionaries. Other wise they'd be huge. Some answers are found on forums...

Indeed. You can't learn about theories and science from dictionaries. Other wise they'd be huge. Some answers are found on forums...

Actually, my best source is a big book of philosophies.

So, why is he an egotistical sadomasochistic god with an inferiority complex that wants me to worship him or else I suffer an eternal punishment?

Did God tell you that or did someone else...Only God can determine your punishment/reward. Even some of the most genuine theists (CS Lewis) did not leave perfectly moral lives.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

People aren't being persecuted and killed because they differ in beliefs about the Tooth Fairy. The American government is being run by extremists delusioned by the existence of Santa. My money doesn't say "In Easter Bunny we trust".
Do you think I wanted to be brainwashed into believing a happy little fairy tale? I would've avoided contracting chronic depression without it. So please, refrain from anymore inane commentaries about our motivations.
Also, remember who initiates these things. Do you think atheists want to be reminded that they have no purpose? Do you think Christians want to be exposed to the our real nightmare?
Do you think atheists, in that rare moment of "good vibes" or "happiness" decide to come and argue on an internet forum?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

William Shakespeare
Hamlet Act III, Scene 2

Actually, my best source is a big book of philosophies.

Well it's better than a dictionary

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

William Shakespeare
Hamlet Act III, Scene 2

Right on... Another arguement about theism is the fact that in believing it, many people are killing eachother over who is right. It really doesn't affect God's existence however...

Well this has been very interesting... :headbang:

He doesn't want you to worship Him. In fact, He doesn't need your worship. People worship Him because they want to, they want to show God that He is important to them. And He doesn't want you to go to hell, it's just your choice if you don't want to believe in Him and recieve His grace. There's no pressure at all for you to recieve His gifts, and if you don't want them, that's perfectly fine with Him. You just might have to suffer the consequences, whatever the eternally may be.

He doesn't want you to worship Him. In fact, He doesn't need your worship. People worship Him because they want to, they want to show God that He is important to them. And He doesn't want you to go to hell, it's just your choice if you don't want to believe in Him and recieve His grace. There's no pressure at all for you to recieve His gifts, and if you don't want them, that's perfectly fine with Him. You just might have to suffer the consequences, whatever the eternally may be.

That's a different way to look at it... :eek:

Did God tell you that or did someone else...Only God can determine your punishment/reward. Even some of the most genuine theists (CS Lewis) did not leave perfectly moral lives.

Noone leads "moral" lives by the Christian philosophy --- which is why I find it, and other monotheisms, so appalling.

People, like all animals, are inherently motivated by self (and those by extension) interest . To say otherwise is a flat out lie. And seeing as how self interest is abhorred by some dieties, it's very cruel and sadistic to condemn it.
There are plenty of other examples of how religions (like Christianity) deny a demonify human behavior.

But in any event, I was talking about the fact that there is the threat of eternal torment in the afterlife. That --- that's just sickening and backward.

Personally, I believe that all religions are inferior reflections of a true G-d, and that for that reason, it is alright to believe in any religion so long as one's actions are not morally wrong- as far as polytheism is concerned, I'm pro-Hindu and anti-Aztec.

Hindus have their messed up social darwinist caste system.

And j00b, quit wearing your religion on your cuffs, Yahweh don't read Nationstates...
God is derived from 'gott', a German word. Of all things, you're honoring a German word used to describe our most holy Adonai (sarcasm).

But seriously, don't be so stupid and brainwashed. And most certainly don't make it so obvious, or else Defensor Fidel Castro might haul you into a gas chamber or something.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

William Shakespeare
Hamlet Act III, Scene 2

I'm honored to be called a queen.

Well i dunno, but the absence of God may create evil.

Also, the definition of God thing was to make the point that God is omnipotent to some, benevolent to others, omni-present to more.

Yes, it's difficult.

[sigh] Another religion topic?

Anybody want to talk about musical aesthetics? Maybe yule logs? Turducken?

I really am not sure how I picked-up writing God as G-d, although you're right, it probably was from hebrew school, although I don't know if I would consider that brainwashing- I assume its taking what would be done in Hebrew- YWH instead of YAWEH, and transfering it to English. Yes, understand that god is a Germanic word, I just always thought that it was more respectul. By the way, I've heard of a n00b, but what's a j00b?

[sigh] Another religion topic?

Anybody want to talk about musical aesthetics? Maybe yule logs? Turducken?

Personally, I prefer Sarge's version.

First we start with a hummingbird...

i personally believe that hell is a place without God. i'm not really sure what else happends there, except suffering. possibly because of God's non-existence there, or possibly because of physical suffering. there's not really telling what hell would be like, and frankly, i don't want to know.

I really am not sure how I picked-up writing God as G-d, although you're right, it probably was from hebrew school, although I don't know if I would consider that brainwashing- I assume its taking what would be done in Hebrew- YWH instead of YAWEH, and transfering it to English. Yes, understand that god is a Germanic word, I just always thought that it was more respectul. By the way, I've heard of a n00b, but what's a j00b?

Oy. j00b = jew n00b.
You say "G-d" so as to be respectful, but by saying and writing it, it makes you easily identifiable as a Jew (which isn't always the best thing to be known as). Much of it came from the stigma of throwing away anything with God's name on it, without properly burning an burying it, however, as it is simply an english word, I find it destructive as it further encourages a dogmatic mindset.
The gods don't speak english. They speak Japanese. :p

I don't see how I can be considered dogmatic, since I believe that G-d (or God as you call him) accepts all religions. I really agreed with all of your posts, and I don't get why you would accuse me of ignorance especially with someone like Defensor Fideli (whatever his name is) on the forum.

well....of course religions are fictional. whether they help or hinder is a different thing.
You only need to look into pre-christian mythology to see the odd similarities. Christianity was not some divine message given by god, but a book written by a group of old farts who wanted their message to be listened to. There is no originality to the christian religion. All they did was take old stories and re-write them and sell them as truths.
Ahhh Rome the hollywood of the darkages.

I don't see how I can be considered dogmatic, since I believe that G-d (or God as you call him) accepts all religions. I really agreed with all of your posts, and I don't get why you would accuse me of ignorance especially with someone like Defensor Fideli (whatever his name is) on the forum.

I don't either, They're the one being ignorant. And I don't have a problem with you writing 'G-d', I think it shows respect and knowledge (albeit an identification). At least you don't have to state where you're comming from.

I don't see how I can be considered dogmatic, since I believe that G-d (or God as you call him) accepts all religions. I really agreed with all of your posts, and I don't get why you would accuse me of ignorance especially with someone like Defensor Fideli (whatever his name is) on the forum.

I wasn't trying to be mean, I was warning you that Defensor Fidei ("Defender of 'the Faith'", I call him Fideli to lampoon his authoritarian and archaic way of thinking) and other such people are around you all the time in life, and it doesn't help to draw attention to you being Jewish simply over an issue of reverence because you think God reads english or is offended if you spell out a german cognate.
I also was put off by your knocking Mayan spirituality while overlooking the ills of hinduism. At least the Mayans knew how to keep their population in check (until the Catholics came along) (zing!).
But seriously, Judaism is agnosticism in 5 millenia old garment.

I find it interesting that a significant portion of this thread has been devoted to the agnostic vs. atheism fight. I personally would classify my self as a committed agnostic, but this is solely based upon the meaning of the word and my attitude towards religion, rather than to any ideas about shopping around for the right religion. I know that I will never choose a religion from the myriad religions that populate this world, nor will I choose to develop one of my own. In fact, I believe that all human religions have their problems, inconsistencies, and hypocrisies. Furthermore, I find most religions appalling, especially Christianity, or at least the bastardized versions that many so-called "Christians" spout off as fact. As Eric Hoffer said, "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not." It is this idea that makes me refrain from taking that final plunge into athesim. I have no idea if a god or gods exist; I cannot. It is my belief that atheists are just as bound to faith as those who are religious, and that is exactly what I am trying to avoid, faith. So then, I must ask, are most of those who declare themselves as atheist on these forums truly subcribe to the atheist camp, a firm belief in the absence of any god, or are you like me, an anti-religion agnostic, someone convinced that human religions are fundamentally flawed and, for the most part, destructive to society, but does not discount the possibility, however slim, that there may exist at least one divine being? Also to those who are true atheists, do you still believe that my agnosticism is cowardly and wishy-washy, and if you do, can you understand the logic behind my beliefs, that without proof of either possibility I must listen to scientific reason and not commit to either side?

On a side note, as a response to the person who was agnostic on this issue, I must say that I firmly believe that the President of the United States is completely lacking any intelligence whatsoever, though I must admit some of the other people in the White House seem to be creepily intelligent.

I know Hinduism also has its flaws, the reason why I chose the Aztec/Maya religion as an example, is since it was so heavily based upon human sacrifice and cannibalism, and it seems like those beliefs were generally used as an excuse for brutal wars against there enemies. I kind of meant that philosophically to argue that there are some clear right and wrongs, but in general, no opinion is a bad one. By the way, I've been looking up that whole Khazar issue, and am ready to respond if some idiot brings it up again.

How do you know that the myths were all born from something telling us things that we could understand at our current level of scientific evolution? That the original legends slowly changed over time because of mistranslation and changes in environment? Easy, you don't know. So don't make claims that all religions are fictional, because it is a matter of faith.

No matter how you argue it, people are always going to make decisions based on what THEY think is right or wrong(and this is different for each person). I believe they call it a conscience. And in the end, if there is an after-life, THEY are going to have to pay for their mistakes. So, lets quit arguing over whether there is a purpose to our existence or not, be content that we exist at all, do what we think is right and let God, Allah, the Tao or whatever might or might not exist sort out the rest(after all, isn't THAT their purpose?).

the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not...what I am trying to avoid, faith. So then, I must ask, are most of those who declare themselves as atheist on these forums truly subcribe to the atheist camp, a firm belief in the absence of any god, or are you like me, an anti-religion agnostic, someone convinced that human religions are fundamentally flawed and, for the most part, destructive to society, but does not discount the possibility, however slim, that there may exist at least one divine being...Also to those who are true atheists, do you still believe that my agnosticism is cowardly and wishy-washy, and if you do, can you understand the logic behind my beliefs, that without proof of either possibility I must listen to scientific reason and not commit to either side?

It truly is an issue of terminology. I am simply a skeptic, and would gladly "see the light" if somthing new was brought to my attention.

As it is, the term atheism has just suited me better as I think of it more as "against claims of knowing gods" as opposed to "against all chance of gods"...

As you can see, many people who call themselves agnostics are simply deists or Christian theists tweaking their identification so that they don't offend anyone.
I find that the lowest self reflection of all; to hide or subdue ones emotions or beliefs is suicide in its vilest form.

As is, your beliefs do seem wishy washy to an extent. You said yourself that you "can't commit".

I suppose another element of the term "agnostic" is the insinuation that you simply don't care enough about the meaning of life to make a choice.

Nevertheless, I'd still say you'd fall under the category of atheist...whenever you feel ready to take the step into despair.

It truly is an issue of terminology. I am simply a skeptic, and would gladly "see the light" if somthing new was brought to my attention.

I suppose another element of the term "agnostic" is the insinuation that you simply don't care enough about the meaning of life to make a choice.

Nevertheless, I'd still say you'd fall under the category of atheist...whenever you feel ready to take the step into despair.

Honestly, if I were to take this definition of atheism and apply it to my beliefs, I would also consider myself an atheist. Funnily enough this argument was also given to me by my parents who consider themselves atheist in the same way.

Personally, I also think it is important to note that feelings on god(s) are only one aspect of the meaning of life issue. Politics and a basis for morality are also important. So I would argue that as a committed socialist and a firm believer in reason, logic, and the scientific method, I am concerned about the meaning of life and the furthering of human civilization, just because of my convictions, not necessarily because of their content.

As for despair, your sarcasm aside, acceptance of the knowledge that one knows nothing was a relief to me.

Simply put, they are. They are the result of accumulated myths and legends that have continued to build upon themselves. Allow me to explain:
Long ago, back when our ancestors were still inventing tools and moving out of Africa, they began to wonder exactly why things worked the way they did: why the sky was blue, why water was wet, why they even existed, and so on. Since they had no scientific knowledge nor any way to gather it, they began forming legends. These legends eventually began to develop over time, to become religions followed by many, many people. As such, all religions are fictional. The Bible was never written by God through humans; there's no proof for that. The Torah is simply a book of legends, as is the Koran and any other religious text.
Now, I'm not saying that God or gods do not exist. I am agnostitc and am simply waiting for proof. What I am saying is that God as we have seen Him or Her in books like the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and so many others does not exist because the books themselves are fictional. There may be a God or gods out there; we just haven't found them yet.


maybe monotheistic or polytheistic religions are fiction

but all religion is not fiction, religion has a central purpose behind it which most people overlook, its not about what you believe in, its about believing

but, for the record, buddhism isnt fiction

but all religion is not fiction, religion has a central purpose behind it which most people overlook, its not about what you believe in, its about believing

but, for the record, buddhism isnt fiction

I believe that you are right in claiming that religion has a purpose in human life. As Voltaire wrote, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Although I also believe that mindless belief and worry over a God can be and will be outgrown.

Furthermore, I think it is only right to point out that some aspects of Buddhism may actually be fiction; time has a way of distorting and changing things. Also, many forms of Buddhism are rehashings of the standard mono/polytheistic religions, basically all forms of Mahayana Buddhism: Tibetian, Pure Land, Zen, etc. Additionally, the idea of enlightenment is one that can be questioned.

I believe that you are right in claiming that religion has a purpose in human life.
Unless you have the Bokinovsky process and soma. "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

As Voltaire wrote, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
*Coughs*

I guess I needed to clarify that I meant that god and religion had a purpose in human history, which in turn affects life. And as for the quote, why say for yourself what someone has already said better than you possibly could come up with.

Not a bad theory, except that I'm pretty sure they have historical evidence that Jesus did in fact exist, along with several other big names like Moses and Muhammed. Legends usually don't involve real people.


There really isn't any reliable evidence outside of religious texts that Jesus, Moses, Buhda or Muhammed actually existed.

Here is a nice article that examines the topic:

http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/price_20_1.htmhttp://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/price_20_1.htm

Yes, I would agree that religious texts are fictional, an "invention of the mind," but with a difference: it is the difference between myth and a dime-store novel, between poetry and prose, and between subjective identification with an object of a story and a narrative that places (even forces) the reader apart from the object. Religion is an individual continually seeking to put himself in a relationship with God or gods, in other words with something that transcends himself. It is the individual who builds this relationship with the divine using the faculty of his mind, and this idea is reflected in the religious texts. They are a tool to help build that relationship.

Just my thoughts.

Although I also believe that mindless belief and worry over a God can be and will be outgrown. It depends what side you're on. One side believes religion will gently go away; the other side believes it'll reaffirm itself.

I can't provide any proof. It's too early in the morning for theology.

You're a (self proclaimed) agnostic. What would you know. You drown your growing pit of emptiness with the lukewarm feeling of unsurety.

Most atheists find it very depressing. Many are depressed at some point in their life, if not for all of it.

My prozac is your Jesus.
Saipea, you are the worst kind of fuckstick. Where are you getting this data? What evidence do you have supporting such a wild claim, Most atheists find it very depressing.
This comment has singlehandedly rendered you a cancer to this board.
Instead of pulling facts alone from it, please remove your head from your ass first.

*slams bump button*

Religion is a symbolic action much like everything else in our society

People buy SUVs cause it makes them feel safe, people pray cause it helps them emotionally, people buy abercrombie to fit into a society (why doesn't a man buy a dress?) We no longer live in a society that does things for substance, we just do symbolic actions (not on purpose of course)
Protesting is symbolic. Protesting won't end the war, its just a way of saying were against the war. But interesting enough without war there is no peace movement. They co-exist in the same way that globalization and terrorism co-exist together. The 2 towers were destined to fall. If the 2 towers were built in Europe....they would meet the same fate.
Like wise, Mcdonalds and Organic foods co-exist because of each other. Liberals and conservatives co-exist because of each other

So without Religion their would be no Atheism. When one grows stronger so does the other one

So the Atheist should be grateful we have Religion

and besides....As Jean Rousseau once stated.....

If religion is a lie, it’s a good lie. Because it holds society together

Just a little bit of College Political philosophy for yea

Without religion, there would be atheists. They just wouldn't call themselves that. We'd just be people. Just people.

And Religion doesn't keep society together. It's just another arm of man's great stupidity. Man will opress and harm his fellow men based on his beliefs, this is a proven fact.

And that isn't "College Philosophy"

That seems more like what an 8th grader would think of in a bad day.

"All religions are fictional"

Nooooooo shit!

We'd just oppress for different reasons. No difference.

. Without religion, there would be atheists. They just wouldn't call themselves that. We'd just be people. Just people.

And Religion doesn't keep society together. It's just another arm of man's great stupidity. Man will opress and harm his fellow men based on his beliefs, this is a proven fact.

And that isn't "College Philosophy"

That seems more like what an 8th grader would think of in a bad day.


yes it is

It comes from Jean Baudrillard’s L'Spirt De Terrorisme...a scholarly writing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard

ACCORDING TO JEAN ROUSSEAU [B][U]POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Have the stop teaching ROUSSEAU in college????????????
Or did my Polly Sci professor just make me read it to torture me

It does keep society together. Because churches are community gatherings, places of interaction and on of the only places that neighbors aren't isolated from each other, and encourages order within society,
This can also be negative as Marx (who often read both Rousseau and Hegal)
later observes that Religion pollutes are mind into thinking we must live within the society with no escape

Atheism is the belief in no God. So if their was no religion then their for their would be Atheism. Their would just be nothingness...emptiness
So the word Atheist wouldn’t exist. Therefore Anthemis and Religion are both died

Without religion, there would be atheists. They just wouldn't call themselves that. We'd just be people. Just people.

And Religion doesn't keep society together. It's just another arm of man's great stupidity. Man will opress and harm his fellow men based on his beliefs, this is a proven fact.

And that isn't "College Philosophy"

That seems more like what an 8th grader would think of in a bad day.
Seems to me we would be more agnostic then athiest

Athiests have a belief that there is NOTHING

While agnostic is sort of the grey area were they dont take it on faith there is or is not a god they are just looking for proof one way or the other

religion is just noncense, if jezus existed he is probably just a man with high charisma who could give good speeches.

religious people are idiots who serve the poeple that make you believe in god
:headbang:

Religious people are idiots huh? Was General Eisenhower an idiot? Was Abraham Lincoln an idiot? Was George Washington an idiot? Was Queen Victoria an Idiot? I can go on and on if you would like, show me the famous atheists in history that actually did something important, you'll find some but not many.

Religious people are idiots huh? Was General Eisenhower an idiot? Was Abraham Lincoln an idiot? Was George Washington an idiot? Was Queen Victoria an Idiot?

many otherwise intelligent people believe in very stupid things. for instance, Thomas Jefferson believed slavery was okay. just because somebody brilliant or famous believes in something doesn't automatically make it a good idea. if you think that the idiocy of an idea is determined by how many famous people buy into it then i think Scientology is in your future...:)

I can go on and on if you would like, show me the famous atheists in history that actually did something important, you'll find some but not many.
first off, i find it quite interesting that you just HAPPENED to choose only Christian religious persons for your examples. are we ignoring the centuries of brilliant Chinese people, who were either atheist by our standards or believed in faiths that bear no relationship to Christianity?

second, history also doesn't record many women who did important things, so does that mean that women and atheists are equally worthless? of course not, because women who tried to be important, much like openly atheist people who tried to be important, were murdered or silenced by the Church for the majority of recorded history in the Western world. also, records from all the cultures destroyed or absorbed by Christianity have been modified or eliminated by the Church over the centuries (as the victor writes the histories).

You never know. Maybe whats in the Bible and Koran is loosely based on true encounters with a god(s), but the story, like all oral traditions, was changed.

1) The Gospels were not oral traditions. They were written down by eye witnesses

2) The Gospels were published within the lifespans of those who saw Jesus and what he did so they didnt say "Thats rubbish, no one ever did that" and ignored it. They became Christians in the hundruds on many occations.

Sure, Marx believes religion is an opiate of the masses and prevents us from building a real kingdom (if it could be called that) on earth. Material posession is everything because religion decieves us into believing in a fake afterlife. WE lay the groudwork for a future society without religion.

Camus believes that we get meaning from sheer bitchery, meaning we can go through a meaningless life either believing we have purpose or we don't. We should just shake our fists and do it willingly in spite.

Nietzche said "we have killed God" to in effect make us God. WE become the ones who decide right and wrong through "might makes right"

It's not very appealing, but that's a life of pessimism without God...

fool.just because there is no sky wizard doesnt make immorality more moral.do you want to be killed?no.do you want to have your property stolen?no.etc. etc. if theres something no one wants to happen to them,it is clearly wrong to do it.dont need a sky wizard to know this.

For your information, a lot of things in the Torah have been proven historically. Now being Jewish and knowing a lot about my religion, I post "Ask a [former Soviet] Jew" threads on many forums. One of the questions I get asked very often is "How do you know the events in the Torah really took place?" So I intend to answer that question for you.

First off, here's a question. How do you we know anything in history happened? How do we know, for example, that Julius Ceaser ever lived? We know because of books, paintings, etc. that exist from that time period. No one alive today can claim they were there when Julius Ceaser was alive, yet no scientist or archiologist can claim that he never existed.

So then, how do we know the Bible events ever took place at all? Maybe they're just myths?

The Dead Sea Scrolls, descovered in 1947 have been dated to the period of the 2nd Temple. Note that more time has passed from Julius Ceasar's to our own then have passed from the Exodus from Egypt to the time of the writers of the scrolls, so if they had any reason whatsoever to doubt Moses, Joshua, the Judges, wouldn't they have just not tried to hard to write it down and make sure it is preserved well and hidden well for future generations?

How about some more. Since Darwin's Evolution Theory, nearly every scientist has labeled the Bible as incorrect with it's "7 day" creation. Well first off, who says 7 "days" are like the days we know? They could be 7 periods of time, no? And besides, the Bible says that less complex creatures in the waters appeared before more complex creatures on land. Isn't that what science is now confirming?

What about the Flood of Noah? Doesn't that sound weird? I mean a huge flod that destoryed everything. Sounds pretty mythie. So, let's go belong Judaism and look at other peoples, I mean if something as big as a flood happened, then wouldn't other nations know something about it? Sure enough they do, in fact, over 200 different nations/tribes/peoples have stories similar to the one in the Bible about a flood, including the Greek "Epic of Gilgamesh" where a man named Utnapishtim builds a boat, or maybe the Indian tradition of Satyavrata. How about the Mexican tradition of "Coxcox". More importantly, over 90% of these stories are all placed in the same time frame as the one in the Bible. Artifacts in the middle east also highly suggest that around this time populations in areas were dropping very quickly. So I guess everyone just made up the same story?

What about the Towel of Babel? I mean tall towers... in those days?! Impossible! Of course archeology in Iraq (Babel[onia]) has shown lots of large towers, some even over 100 feet tall!

Oh, and Ur Kasdim, Abraham's birthplace, was believed to not exist for hundreds of years. In the '20's, Sir Charles Wooley sent an archeological expedition to a possible sight of Ur Kasdim, along the Euphrates river. They found a city, which in the ancient Mesopotamian language (archeologists had already known this one) was called Ur Kaldi (in Hebrew it's called Kasdim). Turns out it was a well developed society, which was polytheistic and heavily involved in... wait can it be?...YES! idol worship! Seems the Bible was right about something at least.

The Torah also describes how Soddom and Amorrah were destroyed by God for their wickedness and that it was submerged under water. Soddom was located by the Dead Sea, which remains very salty today, and crusted trees rise up from under the water.

Let's learn a bit about other cultures? Abraham had a son with Hagar, Sarah's maid, whom they named Yishmael ("God has heard"). Arabs throught history have revered a man named "Ibra'im" and his son "Ismail" as whom they are descended from. Also, it has been an Arab custom to circumcise boys at the age of thirteen, the age that the Bible says Yishmael was circumcised at. (oh and remember, you should never use a preposition to end a sentance with ;D)

Anyways, the Bible tells how Joseph was given a purple robe and gold ring and such. Historical records show that at that time, that was exactly the way Egyptians honored people. Also, speaking of Egypt, it says in the Bible that Joseph was enbalmed after his death (basically he was mummified) which we all know is something the Egyptians did, yet, until that descovery, no one believed the Jews. Also, we know that the Jews built the cities of Pittom and Ramses. A rock tomb in Egypt in Thebes contains a series of paintings, depicting vizier Rekhmire, one has him holding a rod overseeing bricklaying done by foreighners (you can tell they are foreigners because they look really different then any Egyptian in a painting.) These foreighners are drawn with bears and skin lighter then that of the Egyptians. The ensctiption under it reads "Habiru hauled the stones for the Great Fortress of Pi-Ramses-Meni-Amun." Habiru really reminds me of the world Hebrews. Hmmm… Also, an ancient canal near Cairo is still called “Bahar Yusuf.”, “Joseph’s Canal.”

The Cairo Museum contains inscriptions with the Pharoah Merenptah’s victory over the Libians. It also has some other text, but it is partially cut off. What can be made out from that other text are the words “people of Israel.” That Pharoah came to power about 50 years after the Jews entered Israel under Joshua’s leadership, so it would have been enough time for them to become a well known nation.

The Philistines came from Caphtore, also known as Crete. Says the Bible, and so says archeology. Also, ruins of King Saul’s stables were found in Tell el Ful (Givah). They were traced back to Saul’s time.

I can go on and on, so shall I?

The “Black Obelism” was found in Ninevah, but is now in the British Museum shows Israel’s king Yeshu bowing to Assyrian king Shalmanesar III. Also, a Moabite stone found in Tell el Muteshillim reads “Omri king of Israel humbled Moab many years.” And in the Biblical land of Tyre (Assyria), an inscription reads “Esarhhadon. I gathered together the kings of Syria and the king from across the sea. Menashe, king of Judah. This agrees with the Bible in that Menashe was captured by Assyria. Of course the inscription doesn’t mention Esarhhadon’s defeat, but nothing in Assyrian artifacts mentions failures. (As opposed to the Bible which mentions tons (spies, golden calf, miriam’s thing, zeal, etc)

And finally, Susa, Persia (now Iran) was excavated by French archaeologist Macel Dielefoy, and he concluded that whoever wrote the story of Esther had to have lived at the time and known the palace very well, because everything matched up. And since it’s Chanukah, it’s important to know that coins from the time of Chanukah still exist. A mikveh (bathe house) has been found and traced to second temple period, and checked. Turns out it was built and operated under the laws in the Torah.

there are many religous texts that have historical backing. a well known example is the bibles sodom and gemora. these two cities were destroyed around the time that the text steted. they were also destroyed in a similar fashion to how the bible describes it. even if the relegion if false it should never be dismissed as completly ficticious. :headbang: