NationStates Jolt Archive

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.

Meh, why not?

Meh, why not?

so then believing in god (or gods) is the default ?

so then believing in god (or gods) is the default ?
Maybe, but de fault of who? or is it whom?

I myself am agnostic, but you must understand that many people do not have anything but their faith to belive in. Even though I have no religion I respect its existence and do not fight other peoples beliefs.

maybe? why not?
im afraid your not being spesific and certian enough to justify why you believe in god which is why is started this thread

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.

I'm interested in how so many people have been decieved by ideas such as "lack of god" and "there is no afterlife" etc. etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people lack the spiritalness and fail to beleive in god, and why do the think they began to disbelieve?

Maybe, but de fault of who? or is it whom?
Abraham, and whom is all but archaic.

I like to think of religions as VERY powerful memes. So they evolved naturally (ironic isn't it), I can see it now:

"Fundamentalist Christians are proclaiming religion creationism the concept of pre-christian religions being implanted in peoples brains *cough*scientology*cough* so that early christians would have heathens to fight and a persecution complex."

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.

EPICA - Facade of Reality (lyrics)

Sanguis meus tibi iam perbibendus sit

Macula aeternitatis
Numquam detergrenda
Quisnam surget et deteget
Imaginem veritatis?

People created religious inventions
To give their lives a glimmer of hope
And to ease their fear of dying
And people created religious intentions
Only to feel superior and to have a licence to kill

Our desire to die is stronger
Than all your desire for life
There is no getting away from it now
Only true faith survives

People created religious inventions
To give their lives a glimmer of hope
And to ease their fear of dying
And people created religious ascensions
To subject the others and to enslave to further enrich themselves

It doesn’t matter where we die
It doesn’t matter that you cry
We’ll take you with us

A disgrace on the beyond

O servitor, sempiterne
Te grati coluimus. Odor atrox quo nos superfundis intolerabilis est

Deceive yourself by yielding
To soft words that cause no pain
Enrich yourself with different views
Learned without disdain

A disgrace on the beyond
That can never be undone
Who shall rise and unveil
The Facade of reality?

Is there still room for new dents in old wrecks?
A disgrace on the beyond that can never be undone
Deceive yourself by yielding to soft words
Enrich yourself by making up your own mind

Sanguis meus tibi iam perbibendus sit

I myself am agnostic, but you must understand that many people do not have anything but their faith to belive in. Even though I have no religion I respect its existence and do not fight other peoples beliefs.

they believe in it because they have nothing else to believe in?
what about believing in a better world for everybody or believing in the idea that sprite is better than 7 up?
and why would god religion be what they would believe if thay had nothing else?

I think it might be a natural thing for humans to want to find everything out. And because there are things that can not be explained, they turn to a system of philosophical thought that is religion.

But in history, there has been a tendency for the amount of things that can not be explained to get smaller and smaller. Maybe everything in the universe can be explained, maybe not. But we won't find out for another few thousand years.

Why must theists justify their beliefs to others?

Furthermore, why do you care?

maybe? why not?
im afraid your not being spesific and certian enough to justify why you believe in god which is why is started this thread

This doesnt make sense.

If your talking to me, I don't belive in god, I said that i was agnostic... I'm not justifying anything

I think it might be a natural thing for humans to want to find everything out. And because there are things that can not be explained, they turn to a system of philosophical thought that is religion.

But in history, there has been a tendency for the amount of things that can not be explained to get smaller and smaller. Maybe everything in the universe can be explained, maybe not. But we won't find out for another few thousand years.


so is then religion a stronger driving force than logic for those people?

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc.

i'm sooooo sick of these. i'l say it again. you cannot reason through people's faith. it's called faith because there's nothing logical about it. some people just believe things. some don't stop asking stuff like this, people.


Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people

oh, don't worry about them, you're just making yourself look stupid

so is then religion a stronger driving force than logic for those people?

Why does religion and logic have to be exclusive?

perhaps justify was the wrong word, but i am trying to understand i got to start somewhere

they believe in it because they have nothing else to believe in?
what about believing in a better world for everybody or believing in the idea that sprite is better than 7 up?
and why would god religion be what they would believe if thay had nothing else?

Ok I never said i had all the answers to the worlds problems.

why does religion have to be in the first place?

so is then religion a stronger driving force than logic for those people?
Well, if you take away some basic assumptions inherent to religions, their arguments from there are usually very logical. It's not a coincidence that people like Thomas Aquinas spent their lives analysing ancient Greek philosophy. And don't even get me started on Indian theology (I'd rather get into Quantum Physics, thanks).

But yes, for some people, their beliefs are stronger than what would be the reasonable way of acting. But that's hardly exclusive to religion, people just are that way.

why does religion have to be in the first place?

Because we can choose. Personally, I choose to believe. IF you do not choose to believe, so be it.

why does religion have to be in the first place?


because early peoples used religion as a method to explain the world.

Why must theists justify their beliefs to others?

Furthermore, why do you care?
Because religious activities take up limited resources, time, land, human energy, building materials, and most importantly, money (yea I'm a capitalist, get over it). And in addition to that, the majority (I think, I'm ignorant) of you try to impose some form of your beliefs on others, gay marriage, abortion, stem cells, and even the mohammed cartoons. You limit my rights and at the same time some of you say that your beliefs CANNOT be justified, its a matter of faith.

Why must theists justify their beliefs to others?

Furthermore, why do you care?

Didn't you get the memo?

Atheists are smarter, stronger, and better looking than the poor saps who beleive in a god.

Honestly, there is no point even discussing this with most atheists, because they simply have a sceptical disposition and think that religions are only there so that someone can dominate. funnily enough, though they say that they require evidence right before their eyes, they accept WHATEVER the media, political leaders, and scientists tell them and never question them. in a way, atheists simply worship flawed and mortal authority figures. also, how is it that the big bang occured if their was nothing before it? you simply say " It just happened for no reason" and "just because something triggered it, that does not point to a God" Your own science and excessive logical dissections actually prove it, but you just ignore the evidence, and go on living and dying. No matter how hard we try, you will never change. AND, atheists have no true moral code, because all moral expectations come from religious texts. So they are hypocrites.

Just about all religous myths have been around in some form or another in most ancient cultures for thousands of years.


Maybe they're all just common superstition which was sort of programmed in to our neural patterns a million years ago, and that's why it's so easy for people to believe them?

I dunno.

Because religious activities take up limited resources, time, land, human energy, building materials, and most importantly, money (yea I'm a capitalist, get over it). And in addition to that, the majority (I think, I'm ignorant) of you try to impose some form of your beliefs on others, gay marriage, abortion, stem cells, and even the mohammed cartoons. You limit my rights and at the same time some of you say that your beliefs CANNOT be justified, its a matter of faith.

It is a matter of faith. For me, at least.

Being a capitalist, would you not give people the choice of what to spend their money on? It's choice. Period.

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.

Because quite frankly, beliving in a religion has almost no down side form an individuals point of view. One of the most comon fears a human has is the fear of death, because it represents the ultimate unknown. Without religion, without an afterlife, all that you are, that you've learned, that makes you .. YOU is simply lost. While a rare few and faithfully scoff at this notion as nothing to fear or unimportant, the reality is most are consumed by this idea. I have had both agnostic and atheist friends express this to me, and I could only empathise.

However, faith in an afterlife, in something larger then yourself.. gives your individual life more meaning. Each of us created and living for a specific purpose, religion gives you that comfort of hope. Hope is among the most important thing a human may indulge in, as it is the driving force to live... the will to keep going.

Infact, I find religion to be among the most vital aspect of life for those impoverished, or living in dispair. Truely few if any of us here have felt real dispair... and for those who have, religion serves as the one becon of light for which to give you hope. How sad your existance would be if only to live in endless pain and suffering, how unfair and cruel. WIthout an idea of an after life, those in dispair would have no reason not to be driven to extremeism, if not to kill themselves outright.. then to do all that is possible to escape their dispair, including murder, revolution. And in reality, without an afterlife, they would be justified to do so... I can sse no reason why someone living in pure dispair should not kill, mame, or manipulate anyone and everyone who they needed to inorder to escape that dispair.

You who does not belive in this afterlife or god... How then can you explain that the masses who are truely living in poverty ( not the poverty the west sees in their own homes) should not, or have not yet risen against those of us who live blissful lives to take what they too should experiance ? And would they not be justified to do so ?

Afterall, without something greater then yourself setting the moral standard or law, who then is anyone else to impose restrictions on you ? The law of men are simply control mechanisms put out by those of us who are better off, only to control those who are not. I for one would give them no merit, nor pay them the legitimate respect that I do now had I not the belif in religion.

because early peoples used religion as a method to explain the world.


i was debating if i should call this thread religion is obsolete or its current title
but if this is entirly true then why are somewhere between 80 and 90% of people using "Religion as a meathod to explain the world" ?

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.

Well, as far as deception goes, I don't know that I've been deceived at all. I'm quite certain that my faith is justified. As far as why I hold the beliefs I do, the simplest explanation is that I have yet to find a good argument to explain why He cannot exist, and a very good argument to explain that He must.

In the larger sense, I cannot live on simply bread and water any more than any other person can. I need hope and love, and society is often unable to provide those for me. God does. I don't really care about heaven or hell, but it is great to know that someone out there cares about me and wants me to be the best person I can be.

Honestly, there is no point even discussing this with most atheists, because they simply have a sceptical disposition and think that religions are only there so that someone can dominate. funnily enough, though they say that they require evidence right before their eyes, they accept WHATEVER the media, political leaders, and scientists tell them and never question them. in a way, atheists simply worship flawed and mortal authority figures. also, how is it that the big bang occured if their was nothing before it? you simply say " It just happened for no reason" and "just because something triggered it, that does not point to a God" Your own science and excessive logical dissections actually prove it, but you just ignore the evidence, and go on living and dying. No matter how hard we try, you will never change. AND, atheists have no true moral code, because all moral expectations come from religious texts. So they are hypocrites.


Most athiests have a skeptical and scientific view of everyone and everything, you're just being silly and on that point have no clue what you're talking about.

Before the big bang, the universe was just there, it wasn't the big expanding thing we know of today, but all existence was there, only smaller and denser, and with different physics. It didn't explode out of nothing.

Religous texts come from human beings. Moral code comes from the natural emotions of human beings. I am athiest, and I have a better sense of morals than all fundamentalist religous people I have ever heard of.

AND, atheists have no true moral code, because all moral expectations come from religious texts. So they are hypocrites.

What about the crusades? What about catholic preists raping little children? you bring a good point but christians break their moral codes all the time.

I hate the whole religious anainst non-religious conflict... why can't both sides respect one anothers belief and not try to change the others opinion?

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.
There, you keep saying that and you keep pushing us more and more this way.

I'm not very religous myself. I believe in a God but I also am a science-lover (Big Bang, evolution, etc. etc.). But the more atheists like to show off their beliefs as "fact," the more you make conclusions without any evidence or backup, the harder it is to see the point of any atheist.

In 1002 A.D....
Man 1: The Earth is flat. Anyone that says otherwise has been deceived.
Man 2: ...Why...?
Man 1: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE THINGS YOU DO??? YOU POOR FOOL!

*chuckles midly at his own little stupid joke*



Seriously though, why can't we just accept each other? We can argue after we're dead and we have proof that we're not living any afterlife by not living at all after death or we just so happen to be playing water polo with Jesus.

What about the crusades? What about catholic preists raping little children? you bring a good point but christians break their moral codes all the time.

I hate the whole religious anainst non-religious conflict... why can't both sides respect one anothers belief and not try to change it?

Because organized religion hinders the progress of science for no reason. If religous people didn't try to stop scientists from trying to come up with scientific explanations for things, the fundies wouldn't have to accuse scientists of being evil and trying to dismantle religion.

Honestly, there is no point even discussing this with most atheists, because they simply have a sceptical disposition and think that religions are only there so that someone can dominate. funnily enough, though they say that they require evidence right before their eyes, they accept WHATEVER the media, political leaders, and scientists tell them and never question them. in a way, atheists simply worship flawed and mortal authority figures. also, how is it that the big bang occured if their was nothing before it? you simply say " It just happened for no reason" and "just because something triggered it, that does not point to a God" Your own science and excessive logical dissections actually prove it, but you just ignore the evidence, and go on living and dying. No matter how hard we try, you will never change. AND, atheists have no true moral code, because all moral expectations come from religious texts. So they are hypocrites.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"
I trust scientists (not the other two) a little more than priests because it looks like they possibly have actual evidence, quantifiable evidence. Wereas priests only have subjective evidence.
What caused God, why is there a God?
No matter how hard me try, you will never change.
Theists don't have morality, they have a book to justify their own immorality.
How are we hypocrites (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)?

What about the crusades? What about catholic preists raping little children? you bring a good point but christians break their moral codes all the time.

I hate the whole religious anainst non-religious conflict... why can't both sides respect one anothers belief and not try to change it?

Erm...some "Christians".

I really wish some people would stop grouping all of one faith into the most vile portions. Not all Christians are conservative, bible-thumping, child-fucking hypocrites, just as not all people of Islam are suicide bombers.

I'm interested in how so many people have been decieved by ideas such as "lack of god" and "there is no afterlife" etc. etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people lack the spiritalness and fail to beleive in god, and why do the think they began to disbelieve?

I was raised in an agnositc familiy. Once I entered high school and began to explore religion, I realised that I could not believe in God. I tried praying, but I never felt anything there. So, I emersed myself in religious talk and debates, which only solidified my aethiestic beliefs.

Because organized religion hinders the progress of science for no reason. If religous people didn't try to stop scientists from trying to come up with scientific explanations for things, the fundies wouldn't have to accuse scientists of being evil and trying to dismantle religion.
How have I, through my belief in God and being a member of Islam, screwed up science in any way?

How have I, through my belief in God and being a member of Islam, screwed up science in any way?


No, but that doesn't mean that organized religions have not.

By organizing spirituality in to a sort of massive support club, you make it so easy for groups of people to unite in an extreme fundamentalist position on their beliefs. Each induvidual is not a problem.

If people just kept their spirituality to themselves and didn't try to spread any particular religion, things would run a lot more smoothly.

We believe in them because they are what we know to be true through doctrines like the bible, if you're christian, or the bible & the book of mormon, if you're mormorn, or the quran(sp?) if you're muslim. Don't try to argue against religion and try to feign wonder. Read the writings and see for yourself.

Maybe, but de fault of who? or is it whom?

Ba-dum, CRASH!

We believe in them because they are what we know to be true through doctrines like the bible, if you're christian, or the bible & the book of mormon, if you're mormorn, or the quran(sp?) if you're muslim. Don't try to argue against religion and try to feign wonder. Read the writings and see for yourself.

I read the writings, and they stirred nothing in me. Not everything that is written is true. Ever heard of Stalin?

No, but that doesn't mean that organized religions have not.

By organizing spirituality in to a sort of massive support club, you make it so easy for groups of people to unite in an extreme fundamentalist position on their beliefs. Each induvidual is not a problem.

If people just kept their spirituality to themselves and didn't try to spread any particular religion, things would run a lot more smoothly.
So, no freedom to assemble?

No clubs?
No organizations at all of any kind?

Geez.

No, but that doesn't mean that organized religions have not.

By organizing spirituality in to a sort of massive support club, you make it so easy for groups of people to unite in an extreme fundamentalist position on their beliefs. Each individual is not a problem.

If people just kept their spirituality to themselves and didn't try to spread any particular religion, things would run a lot more smoothly.

And how many religious people are "Fundamentalists"? These people just happen to be the most vocal and extreme. Normal, quiet churches, synagogues, and mosques don't make good news.

We believe in them because they are what we know to be true through doctrines like the bible, if you're christian, or the bible & the book of mormon, if you're mormorn, or the quran(sp?) if you're muslim. Don't try to argue against religion and try to feign wonder. Read the writings and see for yourself.


Read the Anchor Bible series. A completely scholarly look at the Bible. It makes religious texts seem a lot less word-of-God-ee.


And I am reading the bible, right now. It's kind of boring, if you ask me.

Honestly, there is no point even discussing this with most atheists, because they simply have a sceptical disposition and think that religions are only there so that someone can dominate. funnily enough, though they say that they require evidence right before their eyes, they accept WHATEVER the media, political leaders, and scientists tell them and never question them. in a way, atheists simply worship flawed and mortal authority figures. also, how is it that the big bang occured if their was nothing before it? you simply say " It just happened for no reason" and "just because something triggered it, that does not point to a God" Your own science and excessive logical dissections actually prove it, but you just ignore the evidence, and go on living and dying. No matter how hard we try, you will never change. AND, atheists have no true moral code, because all moral expectations come from religious texts. So they are hypocrites.

so if i were to say that all religious people are weak and uncertian and dont even need to witness something from themselves in-order to go out and blindly accept whatever they just saw and devote their lives to it, would i be correct? you should really think about what you just wrote

"atheists simply worship flawed and mortal authority figures"
is this what you believe ? you believe that atheists are inferior because their worshipping of "flawed and mortal" authority figures are below par of the "great" idea of god? which was always there and is the reason for the occucence of everything ?

We believe in them because they are what we know to be true through doctrines like the bible, if you're christian, or the bible & the book of mormon, if you're mormorn, or the quran(sp?) if you're muslim. Don't try to argue against religion and try to feign wonder. Read the writings and see for yourself.

do you have any idea where the bible came from?

So, no freedom to assemble?

No clubs?
No organizations at all of any kind?

Geez.


It would make things easier. You can if you want, but organizing spirituality is kind of weird. I would prefer developing spirituality through private, personal meditation, but oh well.

So, no freedom to assemble?

No clubs?
No organizations at all of any kind?

Geez.

Ease yourself, Comrade. Glorious leader will make everything good.

It would make things easier. You can if you want, but organizing spirituality is kind of weird. I would prefer developing spirituality through private, personal meditation, but oh well.
You're creepy.

You're creepy.


I'm creepy because I think that whatever connection to God or whatnot people have shouldn't be laden with mythology, but developed by their own means?


Is that creepy? Really?

You're creepy.

thats not creepy, i meditate as well.

Because we can choose. Personally, I choose to believe. IF you do not choose to believe, so be it.


i think that this brings it to the very core of the argument
What is causing you to make that choice?

I'm creepy because I think that whatever connection to God or whatnot people have shouldn't be laden with mythology, but developed by their own means?


Is that creepy? Really?

I think he's referring to your denying the right of people to peaceably assemble.

That is creepy.

I'm creepy because I think that whatever connection to God or whatnot people have shouldn't be laden with mythology, but developed by their own means?


Is that creepy? Really?
What you said reminded me of that one Bush quote...

It went something like "Sure, this country would be a lot easier to run if it was a dictatorship, so long as I was the dictator."

So sure, everyone would go smoothly if it went your way, so long as it stayed your way, huh?

Yes that is very creepy.

Ah, that part. Well, I didn't really deny it, I just said that I don't think it really should happen. I said later that they can if they want, I just don't support it.

i think that this brings it to the very core of the argument
What is causing you to make that choice?

Life experiences. Blind Faith, as you would put it. Exept it, in my case, is not blind.

i think that this brings it to the very core of the argument
What is causing you to make that choice?
For me, it was thinking. Lots and lots of thinking.

Why do I believe in God?
Because I am here, and I question anything and everything.
Why am I here?
Because of a reeeeeeally long chain of events that began with singled-cell organisms from billions of years ago to your mom and dad hopping to bed.
Now why would they do that?
I don't know, that's nasty.

Honestly, there is no point even discussing this with most atheists, because they simply have a sceptical disposition and think that religions are only there so that someone can dominate. funnily enough, though they say that they require evidence right before their eyes, they accept WHATEVER the media, political leaders, and scientists tell them and never question them. in a way, atheists simply worship flawed and mortal authority figures. also, how is it that the big bang occured if their was nothing before it? you simply say " It just happened for no reason" and "just because something triggered it, that does not point to a God" Your own science and excessive logical dissections actually prove it, but you just ignore the evidence, and go on living and dying. No matter how hard we try, you will never change. AND, atheists have no true moral code, because all moral expectations come from religious texts. So they are hypocrites.

You are way off-base. I do not accept anything from anyone without proof. If Stephen Harper told me that an army of Gays had burned parliament to the ground, I wouldn't exactly believe him.
And I do not worship anyone. Political figures are important to me, but I wouldn't give my life for them.
In addition, the big bang is just as credible as creationism. Why must everything have a purpose? It's only in a religious society that they must.
I do have a moral code. It may not have a formal, written form, but it certainly exists, and I base many of my decisions upon it. I appreciate your desire to debate the issue, but your argument was neither respectful nor factually accurate.

Not a problem, you asked a question, and I shall field an answer. (Though, admittledly, its a good bit of a rant, I think it's pretty good anyway :/)

Firstly, i'd like to start by saying I cannot speak for all religions, only Christianity, which some people tell me doesn't even fit in the typical definition of religion literally speaking, but I dunno about all that :/. Firstly, God is infinitly just. And because of this, He cannot simply ignore evil, even though He was not responsible for it. (I got a bad feeling that'll turn into a big old argument here :/) So basically, unless something changed, if we all got what we deserve when compared to an infinitly just standard, we would all go to Hell, otherwise, it couldn't be infinitly just punishment. Think about it, what can anyone do to measure up to an infinitly just standard? That means no lying, no stealing, not even any lust, that is, in a word, an impossible order to expect any man to be capable of. And having our entire race doomed to an eternity in Hell would be very bad, especially to God since He is also a being of infinite love, (Not the universalist kind, but that's also something else I got a bad feeling will spark an argument, but oh well.) and doesn't get some perverted sense of pleasure out of seeing people burn forever. This is why God decided to send a savior for mankind, I mean He spent all that time giving people all those prophecies about it before the fact, His intent was pretty clear there. So, whaddya know, He kept His promise, He sent His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, who was not just a man but also God. Because He was perfect and could not commit sin, He was the only being who could possibly take the punishment upon Himself for all of our sins, because only He had the righteousness to be worthy of taking everyone's judgement on Himself, and because as God, only He had the power to survive taking the infinitly just judgement of God upon Himself. Simply put, in order to recieve this gift, you have to believe in Christ, so that you are born again so to speak. There can't be a "Well, I believe a lil bit" or "well, i'll give it a wee bit of effort" in this you understand, it's all Biblical, I can go back and explain verses if you like.

Getting more on topic to your question though, (I had to give out the evangelism part, force of habit.) the reason I believe in God and the afterlife is first, the Bible. That thing predicted stuff, not just abstract stuff mind you, that happened hundreds of years before the events actually happened, the fall of Babylon, destruction of Tyre, etc. etc., and the Bible was very specific about how these events would happen and many, many others, so there wasn't a "Well, something will blow up around this area sometime somehow or....something" about it :/. Then, Jesus came. If He hadn't, then this all might be very suspect, as otherwise, the greatest and most important prophecy of the Bible which insured the opportunity to recieve eternal salvation wouldn't of come true, and like I said above, that'd be bad beyond all meaning of the word. I could go on like this all day, (And maybe fail to prove anything to boot, that was mostly just argument) but back again to your question about why some of us began to believe in God, I believed because the Bible promised that through faith in Christ, I would be born again. The Bible says that through faith in Christ we recieve eternal life, and it also says that to have eternal life we must be born again, so they have to be connected through faith. Long story short, I was born again :/. I mean it was a fundamental shift in my thinking, it wasn't something that would leave me only thinking a bit more politely or nicely, This was a radical upheaval of myself.

If anything I said seemed unclear, feel free to call me on it, I've noticed I have this weird problem where people respond to me and I can't understand how they got something out of what I wrote, but hey, that's why I come back to try to answer things, I don't pretend to be the best forum evangelist in the world :/.

Life experiences. Blind Faith, as you would put it. Exept it, in my case, is not blind.

so then there is some rational idea/thing than makes it not blind for you?

All Christians in my opinion should read this book.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440136482/qid=1140138564/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-9737352-6937521?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
You should learn how Jesus really lived

so then there is some rational idea/thing than makes it not blind for you?

To you, what classifies as "rational"?

so if i were to say that all religious people are weak and uncertian and dont even need to witness something from themselves in-order to go out and blindly accept whatever they just saw and devote their lives to it, would i be correct? you should really think about what you just wrote

"atheists simply worship flawed and mortal authority figures"
is this what you believe ? you believe that atheists are inferior because their worshipping of "flawed and mortal" authority figures are below par of the "great" idea of god? which was always there and is the reason for the occucence of everything ?

I could not even imagine a world without religion.. because by what mechanism then would you give the masses of people (the majority of the worlds population) hope to live with ? It is convient for us, the educated and well off (by all comparitive standards) to use science to explain our existance. But for the impoverished, those living in pure dispair ... these ideas fail to meet their even basic understandings.

If there was nothing but science, no higher bieng, no afterlife.. why then should the masses not rise up and take what they too deserve to experiance.. being teh decitance each of us enjoy in the west. Why should they not kill, mame, rape, and manipulate all in their path until they escape the dispair and hopelessness that is their existance. Why should any impoverished person subjegate himself/herself to rules and controls set out by the better off when they neither address their most basic needs or give them reason to continue living ? I for one would have to say they would be perfect justified in any action they take. This opinion would include the sucidie bombers in the middle east or any other radical. For any person living in a hopeless state.. without a TRUE moral guide to driect them, the laws of men are meaningless, and would be even foolish to follow.

Without religion, how could you condem even the most heinous acts commited by those in dispair when their very existance is only one of suffering, and sadness. Would you be to say they were wrong in their actions when you are only where you are because of pure randomness. The real question being, why should someone with no hope abide by the rule of man ? where is the ultimate benifit to them ?

I could not even imagine a world without religion.. because by what mechanism then would you give the masses of people (the majority of the worlds population) hope to live with ? It is convient for us, the educated and well off (by all comparitive standards) to use science to explain our existance. But for the impoverished, those living in pure dispair ... these ideas fail to meet their even basic understandings.

If there was nothing but science, no higher bieng, no afterlife.. why then should the masses not rise up and take what they too deserve to experiance.. being teh decitance each of us enjoy in the west. Why should they not kill, mame, rape, and manipulate all in their path until they escape the dispair and hopelessness that is their existance. Why should any impoverished person subjegate himself/herself to rules and controls set out by the better off when they neither address their most basic needs or give them reason to continue living ? I for one would have to say they would be perfect justified in any action they take. This opinion would include the sucidie bombers in the middle east or any other radical. For any person living in a hopeless state.. without a TRUE moral guide to driect them, the laws of men are meaningless, and would be even foolish to follow.

Without religion, how could you condem even the most heinous acts commited by those in dispair when their very existance is only one of suffering, and sadness. Would you be to say they were wrong in their actions when you are only where you are because of pure randomness. The real question being, why should someone with no hope abide by the rule of man ? where is the ultimate benifit to them ?

there is alot of suffering in the world because of religion too. Keep that in mind.

Not a problem, you asked a question, and I shall field an answer. (Though, admittledly, its a good bit of a rant, I think it's pretty good anyway :/)

Firstly, i'd like to start by saying I cannot speak for all religions, only Christianity, which some people tell me doesn't even fit in the typical definition of religion literally speaking, but I dunno about all that :/. Firstly, God is infinitly just. And because of this, He cannot simply ignore evil, even though He was not responsible for it. (I got a bad feeling that'll turn into a big old argument here :/) So basically, unless something changed, if we all got what we deserve when compared to an infinitly just standard, we would all go to Hell, otherwise, it couldn't be infinitly just punishment. Think about it, what can anyone do to measure up to an infinitly just standard? That means no lying, no stealing, not even any lust, that is, in a word, an impossible order to expect any man to be capable of. And having our entire race doomed to an eternity in Hell would be very bad, especially to God since He is also a being of infinite love, (Not the universalist kind, but that's also something else I got a bad feeling will spark an argument, but oh well.) and doesn't get some perverted sense of pleasure out of seeing people burn forever. This is why God decided to send a savior for mankind, I mean He spent all that time giving people all those prophecies about it before the fact, His intent was pretty clear there. So, whaddya know, He kept His promise, He sent His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, who was not just a man but also God. Because He was perfect and could not commit sin, He was the only being who could possibly take the punishment upon Himself for all of our sins, because only He had the righteousness to be worthy of taking everyone's judgement on Himself, and because as God, only He had the power to survive taking the infinitly just judgement of God upon Himself. Simply put, in order to recieve this gift, you have to believe in Christ, so that you are born again so to speak. There can't be a "Well, I believe a lil bit" or "well, i'll give it a wee bit of effort" in this you understand, it's all Biblical, I can go back and explain verses if you like.

Getting more on topic to your question though, (I had to give out the evangelism part, force of habit.) the reason I believe in God and the afterlife is first, the Bible. That thing predicted stuff, not just abstract stuff mind you, that happened hundreds of years before the events actually happened, the fall of Babylon, destruction of Tyre, etc. etc., and the Bible was very specific about how these events would happen and many, many others, so there wasn't a "Well, something will blow up around this area sometime somehow or....something" about it :/. Then, Jesus came. If He hadn't, then this all might be very suspect, as otherwise, the greatest and most important prophecy of the Bible which insured the opportunity to recieve eternal salvation wouldn't of come true, and like I said above, that'd be bad beyond all meaning of the word. I could go on like this all day, (And maybe fail to prove anything to boot, that was mostly just argument) but back again to your question about why some of us began to believe in God, I believed because the Bible promised that through faith in Christ, I would be born again. The Bible says that through faith in Christ we recieve eternal life, and it also says that to have eternal life we must be born again, so they have to be connected through faith. Long story short, I was born again :/. I mean it was a fundamental shift in my thinking, it wasn't something that would leave me only thinking a bit more politely or nicely, This was a radical upheaval of myself.
:/.
im sorry but your assuming that god exists. the question is why do people chose to believe he (or she or they) exists
no offence or anything but your taking the bible WAY to seriusly, even from what little i know about it.

there is alot of suffering in the world because of religion too. Keep that in mind.
Not because of socio-economic conditions?

Children are starving in Africa because of radical Islamists versus the West, right?

There are many reasons why there's a lot of suffering in the world. Abolish whatever you want, but blaming religion won't get you much on the road to less suffering.

Try blaming war lords, drug lords, cruel dictators, etc.

To you, what classifies as "rational"?

Consistent with or based on reason; logical = dictionary.com definition
things like "because its true" or "it just is" are not rational

I could not even imagine a world without religion.. because by what mechanism then would you give the masses of people (the majority of the worlds population) hope to live with ? It is convient for us, the educated and well off (by all comparitive standards) to use science to explain our existance. But for the impoverished, those living in pure dispair ... these ideas fail to meet their even basic understandings.

If there was nothing but science, no higher bieng, no afterlife.. why then should the masses not rise up and take what they too deserve to experiance.. being teh decitance each of us enjoy in the west. Why should they not kill, mame, rape, and manipulate all in their path until they escape the dispair and hopelessness that is their existance. Why should any impoverished person subjegate himself/herself to rules and controls set out by the better off when they neither address their most basic needs or give them reason to continue living ? I for one would have to say they would be perfect justified in any action they take. This opinion would include the sucidie bombers in the middle east or any other radical. For any person living in a hopeless state.. without a TRUE moral guide to driect them, the laws of men are meaningless, and would be even foolish to follow.

Without religion, how could you condem even the most heinous acts commited by those in dispair when their very existance is only one of suffering, and sadness. Would you be to say they were wrong in their actions when you are only where you are because of pure randomness. The real question being, why should someone with no hope abide by the rule of man ? where is the ultimate benifit to them ?

I don't believe in God, but I've certainly never killed anyone. You strike me as a cynical, authoritarian type person. I'm more of an idealist, so, naturally, I believe that people have the ability to be good. We don't need an ultimate diety dictating his rules in order to be good. We just need a supportive society where we can live and prosper and learn. This may seem like a foreign concept to you, but, for me, the greatest joy in life is not the possibility of eternal happiness, but pure, mortal life itself. It's amazing, beautiful, and accidental.

As for my own opinion, there is simply no down side to faith in religion. You have faith in your future (afterlife) that you will forever exist, there is belif in something larger thenyourself setting moral codes to direct you.. and quitefrankly.. religion offers more answers to our existance then science does whether it gives us proof or not.

Science is ultimately flawed, limited by our own logic (which very often itself is flawed and inadequate to grasp the complexities of nature). We know so little about our own bodies, and even how our own minds even work, there is little reason to belive we could then comprehend the complexities of the universe or our very creation. Im not saying Science dosn't also have its uses, as it surely does.. but like religion, it falls far short of a complete picture, or ever hope of there being one for that matter.

Science cannot even tell us what foods are definiativly "good" for us, without the next day telling us that which we belived to be "healthy" may verywell be killing us. This is the simple testimate by which reveals how little we really know of the world around us.

All that said, I respect science because it is we insignificant beings reaching out to know more then ourselves, and to understand that which we do not know (rather then fear it). But for me.. religion gives plausible explainations which science could never hope to offer.

Not because of socio-economic conditions?

Children are starving in Africa because of radical Islamists versus the West, right?

There are many reasons why there's a lot of suffering in the world. Abolish whatever you want, but blaming religion won't get you much on the road to less suffering.

Try blaming war lords, drug lords, cruel dictators, etc.

im not ruling out all the reasons why there is suffering in the world. im simply stating that religion has caused violence and suffering before. you can't just ignore that can you?

im not ruling out all the reasons why there is suffering in the world. im simply stating that religion has caused violence and suffering before. you can't just ignore that can you?
Of course, you cannot. But of course, many seem to define religion as the sole reason to the problems of the world. Which just isn't true.

I mean, geez, one look out the window and I can name 100 problems with the world that have nothing to do with religion.

Consistent with or based on reason; logical = dictionary.com definition
things like "because its true" or "it just is" are not rational

Dictionary.com definitions count as logical? Why?

Also, I invoke Neo-K's first (?) amendment.

As for my own opinion, there is simply no down side to faith in religion. You have faith in your future (afterlife) that you will forever exist, there is belif in something larger thenyourself setting moral codes to direct you.. and quitefrankly.. religion offers more answers to our existance then science does whether it gives us proof or not.

Science is ultimately flawed, limited by our own logic (which very often itself is flawed and inadequate to grasp the complexities of nature). We know so little about our own bodies, and even how our own minds even work, there is little reason to belive we could then comprehend the complexities of the universe or our very creation. Im not saying Science dosn't also have its uses, as it surely does.. but like religion, it falls far short of a complete picture, or ever hope of there being one for that matter.

Science cannot even tell us what foods are definiativly "good" for us, without the next day telling us that which we belived to be "healthy" may verywell be killing us. This is the simple testimate by which reveals how little we really know of the world around us.

All that said, I respect science because it is we insignificant beings reaching out to know more then ourselves, and to understand that which we do not know (rather then fear it). But for me.. religion gives plausible explainations which science could never hope to offer.

Here's the downside: spending life preparing for some beautiful afterlife only to discover that it does not exist. Life is sure now. Don't wait one hundred years for the possibility of heaven. Just live life, and cherish what it is certain.

So, whaddya know, He kept His promise, He sent His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, who was not just a man but also God.

like i said all Christians should read this book.book.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/044...lance&n=283155

You should learn how Jesus probably lived.

As for my own opinion, there is simply no down side to faith in religion. You have faith in your future (afterlife) that you will forever exist, there is belif in something larger thenyourself setting moral codes to direct you.. and quitefrankly.. religion offers more answers to our existance then science does whether it gives us proof or not.

Science is ultimately flawed, limited by our own logic (which very often itself is flawed and inadequate to grasp the complexities of nature). We know so little about our own bodies, and even how our own minds even work, there is little reason to belive we could then comprehend the complexities of the universe or our very creation. Im not saying Science dosn't also have its uses, as it surely does.. but like religion, it falls far short of a complete picture, or ever hope of there being one for that matter.

Science cannot even tell us what foods are definiativly "good" for us, without the next day telling us that which we belived to be "healthy" may verywell be killing us. This is the simple testimate by which reveals how little we really know of the world around us.

All that said, I respect science because it is we insignificant beings reaching out to know more then ourselves, and to understand that which we do not know (rather then fear it). But for me.. religion gives plausible explainations which science could never hope to offer.

This is what i find really sad
you convince yourself that god really does exists inorder to have those benifits which will exist only in your mind. in reality you are confused and just do not know what else to do and look to god as your anwser because so many other people have so.

"religion offers more answers to our existance then science does whether it gives us proof or not" i didnt think anybody believed in god for this reason since the stone ages

Of course, you cannot. But of course, many seem to define religion as the sole reason to the problems of the world. Which just isn't true.

I mean, geez, one look out the window and I can name 100 problems with the world that have nothing to do with religion.

thats true and i agree with you but you cant rule religion out. you have to account everything.

that is what buddism is based on. and of course buddism doesn't have a deity.

thats true and i agree with you but you cant rule religion out. you have to account everything.
Let's agree to agree. :)

Let's agree to agree. :)

Agreed

Dictionary.com definitions count as logical? Why?

Also, I invoke Neo-K's first (?) amendment.

perhaps i needed to add more to my definition of rational
but in short a rational desition involves logic or a train of though that can be helpfull as to identifying why that person made that decition

Try blaming war lords, drug lords, cruel dictators, etc.
In other words, people.

Why must theists justify their beliefs to others?

Furthermore, why do you care?

Because its interesting! also im trying to do a dissertation on this very subject so its useful. I always like to know why people think things that I dont, whether its religion or politics or opinions on films.

Anyway as far as i can tell from my half assed research that i did before i got bored and played quake, religion in general stems from what some guy called
"savage thought". not savage in any evil way. its just our tendency to make up explanations for things. like saying clouds bumping together causes thunder. I made that up as a child, and even though Id just made it up with no actual knowledge it didnt occur to me it might not be true. The same process makes us see faces in clouds, imagine rythm in noise (goddamn RnB) etc.

The better, more convincing, Bigger explanations supercede the stupid ones. One big giant all powerful god beats several with different powers. and when your convinced that this kickass god did everything, a scientific explanation, that isnt complete and keeps changing, wont change your mind.

Whether you believe that believing in a god offers comfort (like I do) that it explains the unanswerable questions in our lives, or you don't believe at all, you should recognize that if all reasonable religious rules were followed, we'd live in a better world. Some would believe following them would help them get into heaven, but others would know that it makes life on earth about as good as it gets. The results would be the same, no matter how many people believe inn an afterlife, as long as they treat each other the way most religions teach that they should

"im sorry but your assuming that god exists"


and you're assuming that God does not exist. scientists who say they are objectively trying to find answers to life in general start by assuming that, and never change their assumption.

I have thought long and hard on this, and have decided that God exists. this is not a logical thing that other people can understand, but it is something that i believe. Logic is based on empirical observations of the visible world. God, (and thought, for that matter) are not part of this so no amout of logic can prove or disprove Him. You will probably say that i have erred because i have assumed that God exists before any of this. But this issue is largely black and white, there is no possible way to acheive objectivity. In the end, however, it is up to you to make this decision, and no one can truly force you.In this way, evangelism is pointless, which is why i am not actually quoting scripture or something. additionally, you have Indirectly claimed that i have unrealistic stereotypes of atheists, but you have stereotypes of religious people as being Bible (or Koran or Torah) thumping hypocrites who claim to be holy, but have like 50 mistressess. These people are not religious, obviously, and yet you continue to say that they are the "ideal" christians.
I cease to care for your opinions,despite all the insults and accusations that i am absolutely sure you will throw my way the second you finish reading this post, for we will all die someday and you will know

that is all

like i said all Christians should read this book.book.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/044...lance&n=283155

You should learn how Jesus probably lived.
not from that book, that book is fiction, badly done fiction.

Whether you believe that believing in a god offers comfort (like I do) that it explains the unanswerable questions in our lives, or you don't believe at all, you should recognize that if all reasonable religious rules were followed, we'd live in a better world. Some would believe following them would help them get into heaven, but others would know that it makes life on earth about as good as it gets. The results would be the same, no matter how many people believe inn an afterlife, as long as they treat each other the way most religions teach that they should

That depends on your definition of "good as it gets." First off, you need to specify which religious rules we'd be following. Would woman where birkhas? Would polygamy be legal? Religions are not alike, and some relgious doctrines might be worse for society than an aethiest approach.

That depends on your definition of "good as it gets." First off, you need to specify which religious rules we'd be following. Would woman where birkhas? Would polygamy be legal? Religions are not alike, and some relgious doctrines might be worse for society than an aethiest approach.
I said reasonable rules, but I don't know enough about belief systems foreign to me to judge what rules would be appropriate.

"im sorry but your assuming that god exists"


and you're assuming that God does not exist. scientists who say they are objectively trying to find answers to life in general start by assuming that, and never change their assumption.

I have thought long and hard on this, and have decided that God exists. this is not a logical thing that other people can understand, but it is something that i believe. Logic is based on empirical observations of the visible world. God, (and thought, for that matter) are not part of this so no amout of logic can prove or disprove Him. You will probably say that i have erred because i have assumed that God exists before any of this. But this issue is largely black and white, there is no possible way to acheive objectivity. In the end, however, it is up to you to make this decision, and no one can truly force you.In this way, evangelism is pointless, which is why i am not actually quoting scripture or something. additionally, you have Indirectly claimed that i have unrealistic stereotypes of atheists, but you have stereotypes of religious people as being Bible (or Koran or Torah) thumping hypocrites who claim to be holy, but have like 50 mistressess. These people are not religious, obviously, and yet you continue to say that they are the "ideal" christians.
I cease to care for your opinions,despite all the insults and accusations that i am absolutely sure you will throw my way the second you finish reading this post, for we will all die someday and you will know

that is all
I believe that it is possible god may exist and i just dont know it, but that the chance of that ever happening is so incredibly small that its not realistic

ultimatly it does come down to choice but the reason that i started this thread and the what everyone has been avoiding is what are the factors that contribute to that choice?
btw klitvilla i really liked your other post about atheists
i hope you saw what i wrote back

I said reasonable rules, but I don't know enough about belief systems foreign to me to judge what rules would be appropriate.

I don't think anybody does. To be honest, religion and morality are subjective. I'm sure there are many people who believe that their beliefs (no matter how horrific they may seem to us) are correct and justified. Therefore, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to create a universal set of laws and principles based solely upon religion.

there is alot of suffering in the world because of religion too. Keep that in mind.

on the contrary, religion is just used as an excuse to inflict suffering. Religion itself does not impose suffering, but people manipulate it order to acheive their own ends. Even if religion were removed from teh equation, equal (or more) suffering would exist because another mechanism by which to control people would be used, be it fear, money, desire, nationality, or the very idea of peace itself. Anything can be used as a tool... including science itself.

I'm interested in how so many people have been decieved by ideas such as "lack of god" and "there is no afterlife" etc. etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people lack the spiritalness and fail to beleive in god, and why do the think they began to disbelieve?

That one is easier than the original question: Because, being a rational person (trying at least), I see no reason to believe in something or someone whose existence cannot be proven. It´s the same reason I don´t believe in three-headed-squirrels or in the existence of orcs, trolls and fairies. There´s just no point imho. Only thing I can imagine is that it could be kind of soothing to believe there´s a god or a heaven. But if _that_ is true, what I really wonder about is why people stick to boring monotheistic religions. Why not believe in something that´s actually cool, like hordes of playmates or whatever awaiting me in the afterlife?

Anything can be used as a tool... including science itself..... and religion

.... and religion

Yeah, religion is definitely a tool.

I could not even imagine a world without religion.. because by what mechanism then would you give the masses of people (the majority of the worlds population) hope to live with ? It is convient for us, the educated and well off (by all comparitive standards) to use science to explain our existance. But for the impoverished, those living in pure dispair ... these ideas fail to meet their even basic understandings.

If there was nothing but science, no higher bieng, no afterlife.. why then should the masses not rise up and take what they too deserve to experiance.. being teh decitance each of us enjoy in the west. Why should they not kill, mame, rape, and manipulate all in their path until they escape the dispair and hopelessness that is their existance. Why should any impoverished person subjegate himself/herself to rules and controls set out by the better off when they neither address their most basic needs or give them reason to continue living ? I for one would have to say they would be perfect justified in any action they take. This opinion would include the sucidie bombers in the middle east or any other radical. For any person living in a hopeless state.. without a TRUE moral guide to driect them, the laws of men are meaningless, and would be even foolish to follow.

Without religion, how could you condem even the most heinous acts commited by those in dispair when their very existance is only one of suffering, and sadness. Would you be to say they were wrong in their actions when you are only where you are because of pure randomness. The real question being, why should someone with no hope abide by the rule of man ? where is the ultimate benifit to them ?

Religion was created by men trying to find meaning when there is none. Existence is suffering, but to make the suffering of others worse is a terrible act. And the reason that the third world does not rise up in bloody revolution all over the world is that they know that they would be massacred by the industrialized nations. And what exactly is the "rule of man?"

I don't believe in God, but I've certainly never killed anyone. You strike me as a cynical, authoritarian type person. I'm more of an idealist, so, naturally, I believe that people have the ability to be good. We don't need an ultimate diety dictating his rules in order to be good. We just need a supportive society where we can live and prosper and learn. This may seem like a foreign concept to you, but, for me, the greatest joy in life is not the possibility of eternal happiness, but pure, mortal life itself. It's amazing, beautiful, and accidental.

but then have you experianced true dispair ? true suffering ? For those who live life everyday in this state.. what hope is there but the idea of life after death, where all the pain they have suffered will be replaced by eternal bliss.

Hope.. is a very powerful thing, and I belive, in most cases it is the only thing keeping the masses within the parameters of sanity.

And I belive you are able to see this "Greatest joy in life" because you live the abnormal life of decidance. Im not saying you need to be rich beyond your means, but that you can enjoy even SOME of the treasures life has to offer. But my respones to the person who said why have religion is... most people do not get to experiance this life. Infact most people in the world live beyond poverty... and for these people... more hope is needed then the simple idea that life is beautiful because it is accidental. If you lived on the brink of starvation everday, or oppressed by brutal leaders, or an oppressive society... your idea of life would be most foregin, even a bit infuriating. You see your idea of life is based on pure randomness, so you may enjoy it because of nothing more then fate perhaps, which leaves most others to endure the misery of life because of that same life.

You may find it hard to belive, but I also am an idealist. I see people as naturally good, but society in many ways corrupts us. My words arn't out of ignorance, but just the opposite, reality. Im able to look past my own life which is fullfilling to those who can only imagine such a feeling of content. You need look no further then the suicide bomber in palestine or Iraq to realize that reality. The very reason these youths are so easily brainwashed is because life offers them little to no hope, so painful and full of distress that they would seek to lash out by commiting the ultimate sacrifice. That to me, is a most powerful statement.

That one is easier than the original question: Because, being a rational person (trying at least), I see no reason to believe in something or someone whose existence cannot be proven.

"A cat is placed in a sealed box. Attached to the box is an apparatus containing a radioactive nucleus and a canister of poison gas. The experiment is set up so that there is a 50% chance of the nucleus decaying in one hour. If the nucleus decays, it will emit a particle that triggers the apparatus, which opens the canister and kills the cat. According to quantum mechanics, the unobserved nucleus is described as a superposition (meaning it exists partly as each simultaneously) of "decayed nucleus" and "undecayed nucleus". However, when the box is opened the experimenter sees only a "decayed nucleus/dead cat" or an "undecayed nucleus/living cat."
The question is: when does the system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other?"

I don't think anybody does. To be honest, religion and morality are subjective. I'm sure there are many people who believe that their beliefs (no matter how horrific they may seem to us) are correct and justified. Therefore, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to create a universal set of laws and principles based solely upon religion.

That's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because many people have beliefs we disagree with means that there are no "right" beliefs to believe in and only subjective impressions of what is deemed right. That is akin to saying that two people incorrectly disagreeing about who painted Starry Night (one might say Leonardo Da Vinci, while the other claiming it to be a Manet) means that "the man who painted Starry Night" is a purely subjective definite description, which is absurd.

but then have you experianced true dispair ? true suffering ? For those who live life everyday in this state.. what hope is there but the idea of life after death, where all the pain they have suffered will be replaced by eternal bliss.

Hope.. is a very powerful thing, and I belive, in most cases it is the only thing keeping the masses within the parameters of sanity.

And I belive you are able to see this "Greatest joy in life" because you live the abnormal life of decidance. Im not saying you need to be rich beyond your means, but that you can enjoy even SOME of the treasures life has to offer. But my respones to the person who said why have religion is... most people do not get to experiance this life. Infact most people in the world live beyond poverty... and for these people... more hope is needed then the simple idea that life is beautiful because it is accidental. If you lived on the brink of starvation everday, or oppressed by brutal leaders, or an oppressive society... your idea of life would be most foregin, even a bit infuriating. You see your idea of life is based on pure randomness, so you may enjoy it because of nothing more then fate perhaps, which leaves most others to endure the misery of life because of that same life.

You may find it hard to belive, but I also am an idealist. I see people as naturally good, but society in many ways corrupts us. My words arn't out of ignorance, but just the opposite, reality. Im able to look past my own life which is fullfilling to those who can only imagine such a feeling of content. You need look no further then the suicide bomber in palestine or Iraq to realize that reality. The very reason these youths are so easily brainwashed is because life offers them little to no hope, so painful and full of distress that they would seek to lash out by commiting the ultimate sacrifice. That to me, is a most powerful statement.

I think if you were to travel to a place like Africa, you might find that all is not despair. Life is full of pain, hunger, disease, etc, and industrialized nations should do all they can to alleviate that. But Africans are not unhappy people. The most inspiring thing I see is that, despite pain and horror, they still find ways to enjoy life. Once, a Canadian aid agency sent in forces to build a well in an African community, as the nearest well was several miles away. But the Canadian well ended up going unused, because the women of the village enjoyed walking to the old well; it gave them a time to socialise. Watch the deleted scenes from Love Actually. There is one very interesting piece there that might help you see that Africans have more in life than despair.

Religion was created by men trying to find meaning when there is none. Existence is suffering, but to make the suffering of others worse is a terrible act. And the reason that the third world does not rise up in bloody revolution all over the world is that they know that they would be massacred by the industrialized nations. And what exactly is the "rule of man?"

what does it matter if they are massacred ? they already live a life of starvation, of poverty, of disease, of loss... life to them is pain.. nothing but pain... so why not revolt ? if they are cut down.. the pain is ended. If they are successful, the pain is ended. In reality, the third world is statistically speaking more religious then their first world counterparts. The very reason for that reality is that religion offers them hope. Being well off ourselves, we have little need for that kind of hope, which is why religion in first world nations tends to be far more depressed.

Yeah, religion is definitely a tool.

Also screwdrivers.

That's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because many people have beliefs we disagree with means that there are no "right" beliefs to believe in and only subjective impressions of what is deemed right. That is akin to saying that two people incorrectly disagreeing about who painted Starry Night (one might say Leonardo Da Vinci, while the other claiming it to be a Manet) means that "the man who painted Starry Night" is a purely subjective definite description, which is absurd.

But there is proof of who painted Starry Night, correct? There is no definitive proof of which morals are "correct." There isn't even definitive proof that any morals are "correct." Who painted which painting is a clear, black-and-white issue, unlike morality. It's more correct to compare the debate of morality with people's interpertation of a painting. One person might think it's a reflection of the painter's enternal desires. Another might see it as simply an image. No one is either wrong or right.

I think if you were to travel to a place like Africa, you might find that all is not despair. Life is full of pain, hunger, disease, etc, and industrialized nations should do all they can to alleviate that. But Africans are not unhappy people. The most inspiring thing I see is that, despite pain and horror, they still find ways to enjoy life. Once, a Canadian aid agency sent in forces to build a well in an African community, as the nearest well was several miles away. But the Canadian well ended up going unused, because the women of the village enjoyed walking to the old well; it gave them a time to socialise. Watch the deleted scenes from Love Actually. There is one very interesting piece there that might help you see that Africans have more in life than despair.

But of course people look for even the most basic enjoyments in such circumstances, because otherwise life would be truely unlivable.. But you would also do well to note, religion and other ideas of spirtuality play a hugh role in AFrica, be it Christianity, Islam or another native faith. If all they had to rely on was science, I would surmise you would see a very different contient (not one for the better).

Also screwdrivers.
screwdrivers cannot manipulate people as religion has done and is doing to people

what does it matter if they are massacred ? they already live a life of starvation, of poverty, of disease, of loss... life to them is pain.. nothing but pain... so why not revolt ? if they are cut down.. the pain is ended. If they are successful, the pain is ended. In reality, the third world is statistically speaking more religious then their first world counterparts. The very reason for that reality is that religion offers them hope. Being well off ourselves, we have little need for that kind of hope, which is why religion in first world nations tends to be far more depressed.

Indeed, you are correct in that hope is the reason the third world does not revolt. However, I believe that it is not hope for a good, blissful afterlife that motivates, but rather it is a hope that their suffering in life will be somehow alleviated. Because hope is an essential part of human nature. Which is the only reason the human race still exists. And I still want to know what you mean by "law of man." I think thats what you said...?

"A cat is placed in a sealed box. Attached to the box is an apparatus containing a radioactive nucleus and a canister of poison gas. The experiment is set up so that there is a 50% chance of the nucleus decaying in one hour. If the nucleus decays, it will emit a particle that triggers the apparatus, which opens the canister and kills the cat. According to quantum mechanics, the unobserved nucleus is described as a superposition (meaning it exists partly as each simultaneously) of "decayed nucleus" and "undecayed nucleus". However, when the box is opened the experimenter sees only a "decayed nucleus/dead cat" or an "undecayed nucleus/living cat."
The question is: when does the system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other?"

I know about Schroedinger, but I don´t really see how this is connected to what I wrote. True, quantum mechanics creates interesting questions. In fact, it´s impossible to "prove" anything, one can only falsify, but still - why should I believe in one (or several) god(s) other than getting a warm, fuzzy feeling out of it? That may be reason enough for a lot of people and it´s a valid reason if that is all you have, but it´s not enough for me...

But of course people look for even the most basic enjoyments in such circumstances, because otherwise life would be truely unlivable.. But you would also do well to note, religion and other ideas of spirtuality play a hugh role in AFrica, be it Christianity, Islam or another native faith. If all they had to rely on was science, I would surmise you would see a very different contient (not one for the better).

That's purely guesswork. We can't possibly know what life would be like without religion. We can assume, but all our assumptions are coloured with bias.

Religion was created by men trying to find meaning when there is none. Existence is suffering, but to make the suffering of others worse is a terrible act. And the reason that the third world does not rise up in bloody revolution all over the world is that they know that they would be massacred by the industrialized nations. And what exactly is the "rule of man?"

rule of man is just the laws we pass. Laws are always passed down by the better off onto the less fortunate. In any society (or a vast majority) unfortunatly thats the chain of command. Why is it to make the suffering of others worse a more terrible act then the suffering an individual is feeling already?

Why shouldn't a person on the brink of starvation strike down the wealthy white person and rob him blind ? That act of survival is more wrong then the social conditions which put that man in starvation to begin with ?

Simply said, science fails to offer true HOPE to people. And any good leader will tell you, without hope, you wont have rule of law for long.

what does it matter if they are massacred ? they already live a life of starvation, of poverty, of disease, of loss... life to them is pain.. nothing but pain... so why not revolt ? if they are cut down.. the pain is ended. If they are successful, the pain is ended. In reality, the third world is statistically speaking more religious then their first world counterparts. The very reason for that reality is that religion offers them hope. Being well off ourselves, we have little need for that kind of hope, which is why religion in first world nations tends to be far more depressed.

You suggest that we kill all people living in poverty. That's a disgusting suggestion. No matter how terrible their lives may seem, they are people, and deserve life.

That's purely guesswork. We can't possibly know what life would be like without religion. We can assume, but all our assumptions are coloured with bias.

obviously yes.. im just saying, as a mechanism by which to give hope.. there is within our current structure few if any other mechanism which can provide that same feeling to people in dispair. To tell them after life, despite all your suffering you'll enjoy enternal bliss ? What current mechanism do we have today that could compare to this.

Clearly, if a satisfactory subsititute existed, then that would take on the role religion plays today. But from what I see, there is none to equate it. Im simply pulling religion directly out of the picture we have now, without thinking about "unknowns". Whether that be responsible or not.. thats the perspective im taking ^_^

But there is proof of who painted Starry Night, correct? There is no definitive proof of which morals are "correct." There isn't even definitive proof that any morals are "correct." Who painted which painting is a clear, black-and-white issue, unlike morality. It's more correct to compare the debate of morality with people's interpertation of a painting. One person might think it's a reflection of the painter's enternal desires. Another might see it as simply an image. No one is either wrong or right.

First, no, there really isn't a whole lot of "proof" of who painted Starry Night. If you want to be really technical and Cartesian, there's no real "proof" that Starry Night exists. But even from a much less solipsist view, it's still only highly likely that the definite description of "the man who painted Starry Night" correctly refers to Van Gogh over Manet or Da Vinci. It looks more like Van Gogh's style than the others, it looks more like his paintstrokes than it does the other two, the subject matter of cypruses is much more consistent with Van Gogh than with Manet and Da Vinci, and the story and history fits better with Van Gogh than the other two. But that only leads us to the conclusion that it is highly likely that Van Gogh is the painter, not that there is certainty that Van Gogh painted Starry Night. In other words, your level of proof, namely that historical evidence and reason indicates it's Van Gogh's work and no other, is precisely the same basis I would use to say, for instance, that "Genocide is wrong" is a statement that is true in all instances and never untrue in any instance.

Secondly, even in interpretation of art, there is clear right and wrong. If you look at Starry Night and conclude that its about Kennedy's foreign policy problems in Cuba, then you aren't just giving a subjective evaluation: you are wrong. Rather, your evaluation is constrained by existing facts of the matter: what the painter intended, traditional meanings of stars and cyprus trees, the painter's life history. I would simply argue that, again, in moral considerations, you are also constrained by facts of the matter, one of which is what really is right and wrong.

You suggest that we kill all people living in poverty. That's a disgusting suggestion. No matter how terrible their lives may seem, they are people, and deserve life.

actually im saying the opposite... If they were not to belive in religion, in an afterlife and yet had these miserable pain filled lives... They should rise to try and massacure US (the west or anyone else better off). Because it is those of us better off which have put them (the impoverished) where they are today. Truely they've nothing to lose but the pain they live with everyday. And from your perspective that pain is for not. No meaning, no reason, no retribution. They simply exist to suffer. So why not rise against those who oppress you ? I wuold say, its their responsibillity.

rule of man is just the laws we pass. Laws are always passed down by the better off onto the less fortunate. In any society (or a vast majority) unfortunatly thats the chain of command. Why is it to make the suffering of others worse a more terrible act then the suffering an individual is feeling already?

Why shouldn't a person on the brink of starvation strike down the wealthy white person and rob him blind ? That act of survival is more wrong then the social conditions which put that man in starvation to begin with ?

Simply said, science fails to offer true HOPE to people. And any good leader will tell you, without hope, you wont have rule of law for long.

Okay, thanks for the clarification there. Remember, all these people start out suffering equally, just for being human. Sure, some have it worse, indeed, a lot worse than others. And I never said that to rob or kill is more wrong than to opress. Indeed, just the opposite. But to make either of these things happen, or to allow them to happen around you, is wrong.

And you may be right. Science may fail to offer "true" hope to humanity, though I am unsure of your meaning. But it is my opinion that humanity should not need hope to survive, or be comfortable, no matter the conditions. It should be enough to know that one has lived, for whatever period of time, in whatever circumstances or suffering. That miracle should sustain one through hard times. Hope is just another flaw in humanity.

However, I also believe that the human race is a blight on the universe and ought to be destroyed, so don't take me too seriously. ;)

I know about Schroedinger, but I don´t really see how this is connected to what I wrote. True, quantum mechanics creates interesting questions. In fact, it´s impossible to "prove" anything, one can only falsify, but still - why should I believe in one (or several) god(s) other than getting a warm, fuzzy feeling out of it? That may be reason enough for a lot of people and it´s a valid reason if that is all you have, but it´s not enough for me...

i agree. that is why i am agnostic.

Okay, thanks for the clarification there. Remember, all these people start out suffering equally, just for being human. Sure, some have it worse, indeed, a lot worse than others. And I never said that to rob or kill is more wrong than to opress. Indeed, just the opposite. But to make either of these things happen, or to allow them to happen around you, is wrong.

And you may be right. Science may fail to offer "true" hope to humanity, though I am unsure of your meaning. But it is my opinion that humanity should not need hope to survive, or be comfortable, no matter the conditions. It should be enough to know that one has lived, for whatever period of time, in whatever circumstances or suffering. That miracle should sustain one through hard times. Hope is just another flaw in humanity.

However, I also believe that the human race is a blight on the universe and ought to be destroyed, so don't take me too seriously. ;)

well then ill put this question to you, since I inevitably have faith in the unknown (religion itself) i find this perspective hard to grasp (not something im satisfied with).

If you are an atheist, not beliving in an afterlife but rather a nothingness, you are taugh the differences between right and wrong and general morality, but you live in a state of dispair and suffering. What importance then does this idea of right and wrong have if you cannot even acheive the basic essentials to survive ? What is the importance of dying a moral person (though living a painful life) if there is nothing after death to await you. I should think in this situation surivival takes all presidence over morality (absent religion). Given this, should not the third world rise against the first ? Afterall, it is their basic survival we are talking about. In many places in the thrid world.. surivival itself is a luxury most dont have.

And i belive hope to be the simple idea of "a better future" ... something beyond the pain. Most of us in the first world dont feel the pain, so we arn't in need of real hope... but those in the thrid world cling to it, because it is all they have. They live moral lives because they hope they may reach a state (in the afterlife)where they can atlast escape the pain.

...

Apparently, all hope comes from afterlife, nothing else could ever make you feel better. Ever.

well then ill put this question to you, since I inevitably have faith in the unknown (religion itself) i find this perspective hard to grasp (not something im satisfied with).

If you are an atheist, not beliving in an afterlife but rather a nothingness, you are taugh the differences between right and wrong and general morality, but you live in a state of dispair and suffering. What importance then does this idea of right and wrong have if you cannot even acheive the basic essentials to survive ? What is the importance of dying a moral person (though living a painful life) if there is nothing after death to await you. I should think in this situation surivival takes all presidence over morality (absent religion). Given this, should not the third world rise against the first ? Afterall, it is their basic survival we are talking about. In many places in the thrid world.. surivival itself is a luxury most dont have.

And i belive hope to be the simple idea of "a better future" ... something beyond the pain. Most of us in the first world dont feel the pain, so we arn't in need of real hope... but those in the thrid world cling to it, because it is all they have. They live moral lives because they hope they may reach a state (in the afterlife)where they can atlast escape the pain.

that is all medieval thinking. alot of what you just said all started with Dante's Inferno which is the Beginning of what most christians think of as hell.

Apparently, all hope comes from afterlife, nothing else could ever make you feel better. Ever.

I know one that makes me feel better and it involves my right hand.;)

well then ill put this question to you, since I inevitably have faith in the unknown (religion itself) i find this perspective hard to grasp (not something im satisfied with).

If you are an atheist, not beliving in an afterlife but rather a nothingness, you are taugh the differences between right and wrong and general morality, but you live in a state of dispair and suffering. What importance then does this idea of right and wrong have if you cannot even acheive the basic essentials to survive ? What is the importance of dying a moral person (though living a painful life) if there is nothing after death to await you. I should think in this situation surivival takes all presidence over morality (absent religion). Given this, should not the third world rise against the first ? Afterall, it is their basic survival we are talking about. In many places in the thrid world.. surivival itself is a luxury most dont have.

And i belive hope to be the simple idea of "a better future" ... something beyond the pain. Most of us in the first world dont feel the pain, so we arn't in need of real hope... but those in the thrid world cling to it, because it is all they have. They live moral lives because they hope they may reach a state (in the afterlife)where they can atlast escape the pain.

I agree with most all of your points. Indeed, survival takes precedence over all. As I pointed out, the third world would be wiped from the face of the earth in such an uprising. I don't call that survival. But survival is a luxury that no one has for long. For some, it is shorter than for others. For some, the luxury is filled with pain. But it is still survival for some, as opposed to a futile uprising that would cause the deaths of many more than already die. And a moral person is no different from any other. I never said one should live a moral life, just that it would ease the suffering of others (or at least not add much to it) to do so. If one believes this to be "right" than one should do this. And I agree, many third worlders do need hope to give them will to live. I just don't think the will to live is important. And I also don't believe that there is a "better future." Also, could you explain to me why it has to be religion that gives this hope?

And I really don't think its right or anything like that. Couldn't care less. Fuck 'em. By "Them," I mean EVERYONE. Just so you know.

Apparently, all hope comes from afterlife, nothing else could ever make you feel better. Ever.

no actually, your overextrapolating what im saying. Im never said nothing else could make you feel better.. im saying nothing else could equate the idea of an afterlife. If you know of something that could, suggest it.. I would be interested to ponder something powerful enough to equate the idea of eternal bliss.

that is all medieval thinking. alot of what you just said all started with Dante's Inferno which is the Beginning of what most christians think of as hell.

but then what is the answer to the question ? what importance does right and wrong have in a moral code within a society, if that society fails to give you the basic requirements for surivival ?

no actually, your overextrapolating what im saying. Im never said nothing else could make you feel better.. im saying nothing else could equate the idea of an afterlife. If you know of something that could, suggest it.. I would be interested to ponder something powerful enough to equate the idea of eternal bliss.

Eh? I dunno, being with "that special person" I assume. Ask Pure Metal, he seemed to enjoy the experience. Of course, you've basically been saying that if you don't believe in an afterlife you're a horrible, immoral, (now I extrapolate) Pinko commie hippy nazi jew that eats babies. If humanity needs religion to stop from wiping itself out, we're better off wiped out.

Eh? I dunno, being with "that special person" I assume. Ask Pure Metal, he seemed to enjoy the experience. Of course, you've basically been saying that if you don't believe in an afterlife you're a horrible, immoral, (now I extrapolate) Pinko commie hippy nazi jew that eats babies. If humanity needs religion to stop from wiping itself out, we're better off wiped out.

your equating sexual satification to give the same hope to a person in dispair then the idea of eternal bliss in an after life ? ... I just fail to see how someone in true dispair will gain hope through sexual satisfiation. Even if you mean love... which I might accept on a short term, it is just that like love it self, short lived. Given the most desperate of situtations (much like sudan today) being in love could hardly erase the pain which every person experiances there daily (as far as i see it) in the long term.

And no actually, im not saying without an afterlife we are awful people... but rather im asking, where is the insentive to be good people ? Do you belive in morality without benifits ? if so... why ? As we can see, there are many benifits to being immoral.

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.
I just do. I've tried to be an athiest, but it just didn't work for me. I've also tried a couple other things, paganism being the first. Then after I discovered my inner Fascist I tried to put all my faith in Fascism like some Fascists do.

In the end I still found that I continued to believe in a God, even when I tried to ignore that belief. Although durring this time I did manage to see a wide variety of religions and now I am not sure exactly which one I believe the most.

I just do. I've tried to be an athiest, but it just didn't work for me. I've also tried a couple other things, paganism being the first. Then after I discovered my inner Fascist I tried to put all my faith in Fascism like some Fascists do.

In the end I still found that I continued to believe in a God, even when I tried to ignore that belief. Although durring this time I did manage to see a wide variety of religions and now I am not sure exactly which one I believe the most.

wow seems like choosing a religion is alot like shopping for cheese; if you dont like that flavor just forget about it and try another one

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.

Deceived by ideas of God? you stupid commie, burn in hell.

Deceived by ideas of God? you stupid commie, burn in hell.
You're not helping. Insulting him for asking a question(albeit a slightly offensive one) isn't only rude, it's very ungodly. Shame on you.
To answer the topic poster's question, why are you an atheist? Atheism still takes faith, agnosticism is the only faithless religion. And I see atheism as as much of a delusion as you see theism. So that's it, I guess.

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.


Well don't know why so many people believe in a "God" or many "gods" but I'll bet many of them like me believe because they were brought up to believe.
Your parents tell you not to touch fire cause its bad, so you don't (or you do and then when they tell you not to jump from the balcony and you don't then cause you've learnt to trust them). That way many people believe cause they are brought up that way.

But I guess the question you want to ask is why not ? Don't get me wrong I'm an agnostic but then true belief is a source of strength in people who can believe in a God or in the force (Star Wars) or what ever they choose to believe in.
Even if it doesn't make sense to some, it does to others and so why not believe in a "God" if that adds to you in some way.
course that's just my opinion
Steven

You're not helping. Insulting him for asking a question(albeit a slightly offensive one) isn't only rude, it's very ungodly. Shame on you.
To answer the topic poster's question, why are you an atheist? Atheism still takes faith, agnosticism is the only faithless religion. And I see atheism as as much of a delusion as you see theism. So that's it, I guess.

I do not view atheism as a faith but as "The doctrine that there is no God or gods." -- (www.dictionary.com) I am atheist because I agree with that statment. But to determine which idea is a delution we must determine what came first; the non-believer, or the beleiver?

Im an atheist who was brought up to be fairly religious and i find it annoying that atheism is lumped with scientific determinism and an irrational belief in the truth of logic. Scientific determinism can be equally or even more harmful than organised religion and its possible to come up with a logical argument in support of practically any abhorent act. The morality that we have as humans usually enables us to override logic and scientific determinism in making decisions. But then everyone's morallity is different seeing as it is culturally scripted and not inherent to our being. Since religion is probably the most powerful cultural force in human history most moral codes (even those ascribed to by atheists) can be traced to the texts of the dominant religion in the area in which they live (which were written many thousands of years ago by people who saw a need to set out guidelines for life in order to maximise the comfort and ease of that life). The thing with atheists though is they can pick the morals that are most relevant to the cultural context in which we live in the here and now while religious people carry around a whole load of moral baggage that is simply restrictive and pointless (eg no sex before marriage, homophobia etc).

People believe in their religion for many reasons, for some they have been brought up in a religion and are simply incapable of looking outside it, for others they feel the need for spiritual support in their decisions and experiences, some people are simply more susceptible to spiritual beliefs than others just as some people are more or less susceptible to hypnosis. I myself was a committed christian til the age of about 16 when in a daydream when i was meant to be doing homework or something i questioned what it was i actually believed in and what i actually got out of religion. It turned out i believed in some non-specific entity that just watched things happened and a core set of morals (ie dont kill, dont screw your neighbours wife/husband etc) and i derived a feeling of something that i could fall back on when things got on top of me. Apart from the core set of morals i decided that the religion i believed in was largely irrelevant to my life and i found myself incapable of believing in the idea of a god creating and presiding over everything.

The only thing that really bothers me about religion is creation myths and especially the argument "But what came before the big bang?" (oh, and fundamentalists/evangelists - leave us alone you weedling bastards). The best account of universe creation for me is in fiction and is no more or less believable than any creation myth thrown up by religion - see "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov, its fascinating and a quality story to boot.

Whether or not there is a god, a goddess or some giant jello nazi engorging himself on wonderbread, whether or not what you believe is wrong or right, people can't live without hope.
Still, false hope is better than no hope.

What about the crusades? What about catholic preists raping little children? you bring a good point but christians break their moral codes all the time.

I hate the whole religious anainst non-religious conflict... why can't both sides respect one anothers belief and not try to change the others opinion?

WE are humans, we will contradict whatever codes or laws that are placed in front of us, that's the way we are, From the ten commandments to the laws of the land we have always been rebellious by nature. Anyways, there may be scandals in the Catholic church but those few lousy people aren't the general rule or what a religious or Christian person is. There are bad people in every group and I would venture to say that those people who are like that probably weren't really believers anyways - Believers strive to do the will of their God becuase they want to do the right thing and they are conscious of their actions. There are bad people in every group of people, this means Athiests, Run of the mill Christians, extremests of any religion .What people have to keep in mind is that for every crazy pervert/nut job in a group of any people, there are hundreds more who just want to live in peace with one another.

Religion helps people to sort out their world. My faith helps me to sleep at night because I know that I am not going to be punished for eternity. Forgivness tends to be a huge draw to religion becuase people KNOW that they aren't doing things right, and they know that they should be better but aren't able of doing it on their own.

I suggest reading "more than a carpenter" -Josh McDowel (sp?) it clears up a lot of things :)

the main impasse:
for atheists, no evidence is sufficient;
for believers, no proof is required.
(as for the agnostics, they're just pussies)

atheists choose to worship their senses, that there is no higher entity than the tangible experiences in life; believers worship a god that is beyond their everyday senses, and feel that finite beings ought not deny the presence of an infinite being.

tangent:
science can say nothing about the existence of god. the foundation of all science is the scientific method, which requires at least a testable hypothesis. the existence of god is not a testable hypothesis... what would you use as a positive control? a negative control? would you get reproducible results if you repeated the experiment? could you generate a p value to reject the null hypothesis? and why would god submit to our experimentation anyhow? therefore, i humbly submit there is no fundamental conflict between science and religion. they simply operate in non-overlapping contexts.

wow seems like choosing a religion is alot like shopping for cheese; if you dont like that flavor just forget about it and try another one
Well, this did start back in my early teens so I wasn't as mature about religion. I decided that the best way for me to pick a faith would be to spend some time as a member of that faith. Say what you will about it, but I just don't think I could pick a religion based on what I read about it without finding out firsthand how my life would be different.

What about the crusades? What about catholic preists raping little children? you bring a good point but christians break their moral codes all the time.
Crusades ~ A mistake that was made historically. Even the religious people in today's world recognize the mistake that was made back then.
Molestation ~ It's not just Catholic Priests. It's not just Christian Ministers. It's not just religious figures of any religion that are at risk of molesting a child. It's ANYBODY who is allowed to be around children on a constant basis, talk to the councilers who help these children get on with their lives and you will find that no SINGLE faith [or lack of] is the problem.

Sure, Christians break their moral codes all the time, but they are usually weak willed people. There are also people who live by the morals taught by the church and do their best to follow them.

And no actually, im not saying without an afterlife we are awful people... but rather im asking, where is the insentive to be good people ? Do you belive in morality without benifits ? if so... why ? As we can see, there are many benifits to being immoral.

I have heard this before. I subject to you that you are not truely moral, if you need a bait to do it. It is simply someone making it better to take the ethical path, not you deciding to take "the road less traveled". I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. I'd steal to feed the starving, for example. It is dangerous as I am taking a risk of getting caught. But it is what I would do, because within my mind it is 'right'.

Morality is based upon the idea of self-sacrifice, of doing something with no benifit to yourself. The idea of being rewarded later for your choice makes a mockery of the entire business. Because that is what it becomes, a business deal of selling time/money on this world for points in the next. Do you agree?

(as for the agnostics, they're just pussies)


Oi! :mad:

I know your joking, but just to say that agnostics recognise the balance between what we know and what we do not know, between what we can measure and what is unestimable, between logic and emotion. The multiverse is oviously far more complicated than any religion states, disregarding the catch-all 'god works in mysterious ways'. I see them myself as moral examples, to let me see how life might be lived. However they are not enough for me.

I'm interested in how so many people have been decieved by ideas such as "lack of god" and "there is no afterlife" etc. etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people lack the spiritalness and fail to beleive in god, and why do the think they began to disbelieve?

I'm interested in why people simply believe the words of other people when it comes to matters of a spiritual nature.

Why should we believe a person when they suggest Lucifer is a fallen angel, or that there are angels at all, or that not only is there an after life but that they know all about it, and who to please to get the best one.

For me, the central reason was direct and profound experience of my god. It's hard to deny it to yourself once you've personally experienced the presence and interest of a deity, and I did try. I tried for months and months to explain it away as hallucination, self-delusion, superstition, what have you. It worked for a while, but there came a point where I realised that all the proceeding denial was the self-delusion and not the experience I had had in the first place and that, in truth, I'd been convinced from the very moment it happened.

After I took that step, it was just a matter of studying the religion that surrounded that god and confirming that it did, indeed, make sense to me as I'd expected it would. With that done, it felt only natural to start walking down the path that Set had dragged me, kicking and screaming, to the beginning of.

So essentially, once you've experienced a god or two, the rest is easy.

I've looked into god stuff, and I've found that people who have outter body experiences all just received an emotional state of heightened consciousness. The same thing has been documented with the use of magnetic fields, which the brain makes. They've put magnets around people's heads and they started seeing things and feeling as if they were leaving their body...

Sooooo I think most religious experiences can be dispelled by science. Ala' Occam's razor. There is no way to prove there is a god, and theres plenty of proof that certain religions may or may not be accurate.

Sooo seeing as all monotheistic religions pretty much robbed Zoroastrianism, I've pretty much gone Atheist after I've seen the religious plagiarism. Then I went non-theistic Buddhist.

I'm currently Agnostic, Buddhist, Hedo-Finnist, and I have some other beliefs tossed in. Its also been shown that people are predisposed to religious belief due to something in certain people's brains. So its probably an evolutionary thing to keep us going.

therefore, i humbly submit there is no fundamental conflict between science and religion. they simply operate in non-overlapping contexts.

While one is man made the other is made up. :)

I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
I would like you to be honest with me and tell my why and when you think you began to believe in nothing existing higher power-wise.

God my brain is actualy working today.With regards to god, if I could prove/disprove the existance of a deity I certainly not be here on nation states.As for an after life there are some intresting theorys which while some may dismiss as pseudoscience I have always found intresting.Most of these theorys revolve around quantum mechanics and in particular quantum entanglement and quantum cohesion.
For an intresting article see link below bearing in mind that it reads like an old DOS manual.
http://www.enformy.com/$wsr02.html#aspect2

Honestly, there is no point even discussing this with most atheists, because they simply have a sceptical disposition and think that religions are only there so that someone can dominate.
The opposite of scepticism is gullibility : you're dead right that many atheists are sceptical, and that is a good thing. Scepticism - questioning rather than accepting claims at face value - is what has driven humanity away from its ignorant, primitive beginnings. It is not the same as cynicism.

Different atheists think many different things about religion, and thinking atheists know that the reasons that religion exists are more complex than a simple lever of power (although that is often a factor).

funnily enough, though they say that they require evidence right before their eyes, they accept WHATEVER the media, political leaders, and scientists tell them and never question them. in a way, atheists simply worship flawed and mortal authority figures.
Absolute nonsense. We don't worship authority, we respect expertise. Expertise is established by verifiable results, and is constantly tested and challenged by others.

At a guess, I would say that atheists, on average, are less trusting of politicians and the media than the general population.

how is it that the big bang occured if their was nothing before it? you simply say " It just happened for no reason" and "just because something triggered it, that does not point to a God"
Scientists, many of whom are atheists, never say "it just happened for no reason". Some of them devote their lives to trying to discover the reason, instead of accepting the non-explanation of "it just happened because God made it happen" (which just leads to the next question : How did god exist if there was nothing before him? Did he just happen for no reason?).

One answer to "how is it that the big bang occured if there was nothing before it?" is that it is a meaningless question. Space and time are part of the same thing, and didn't exist before the Big Bang. If there was no time, then there can have been no "before".

AND, atheists have no true moral code, because all moral expectations come from religious texts. So they are hypocrites.
Nonsense. Moral expectations are a product of instinct and environment. Religious texts merely codify the morality of particular groups of people at particular times. Atheists, on average, are at least as moral as anyone else, in some ways more so. The world is being torn apart, and people are being killed, by religious conflict, not atheist conflict. The proportion of atheists in US jails is considerably lower than the proportion in the wider population; the proportion of convicted believers is correspondingly higher.

After I took that step, it was just a matter of studying the religion that surrounded that god and confirming that it did, indeed, make sense to me as I'd expected it would. With that done, it felt only natural to start walking down the path that Set had dragged me, kicking and screaming, to the beginning of.

So essentially, once you've experienced a god or two, the rest is easy.
Heh... Hope you don't mind me using this to make a quick point.

Faith is entirely rational, in this sense. It's an attempt to adjust one's world view to fit the evidence of experience; the empirical truth of what one has envisaged. However, that doesn't mean that any "Faith" is itself a rational one.

What do I mean by that? Essentially, I mean that the explanation that one has decided on is based only very loosely on the evidence that you have experienced. You learn surprisingly little about God through these "Encounters" (I've experienced several; I should know). People experience these very same things in different places around the world and come to different conclusions based on their cultural heritage. If you lived somewhere that had never heard of Jesus, the understanding of your divine experience would be equally founded in whatever explanation you came across there.

That's why Religion fails; it constrains the validity of one's faith to cultural interpretation. If you want to call it God, fine, but to make the leap and suggest that what you have experienced of him is exactly what other people have told you, your faith is not in God but in your Society.

Religion is the product of ignorance, lack of education, and despair. Those who are subjected to one or more of these factors tend to seek comfort and hope from a god promising that everything will be ok once you die (!)

silly..

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.

Once again you non-religious people think that you are far superior because of your non-belief. I'm not implying that in fact I'm superior, just that I'm not a lesser person because I have beliefs. Of course it depends on what religion you are talking about because, honestly, some of them (not naming for fear of being sued etc.) are a joke. But that's another story...
I am not a gullible person and am not stupid. I have always openly questioned religion, and can't say that there aren't flaws from a human point of view, but am I really an idiot just for being 'religious'? You may think that I have been deceived, but from my view point you are the one who has been deceived that your take on things is better.

Because organized religion hinders the progress of science for no reason. If religous people didn't try to stop scientists from trying to come up with scientific explanations for things, the fundies wouldn't have to accuse scientists of being evil and trying to dismantle religion.
That seems to be the effect now ... would you promote religion in the time where they were the keepers of knowledge? (yes there was such a time) where monks and priests were among the few people that could actually read ... and the only ones that kept printed material through the dark ages.

Right now they are hindering yes but it was not always so.

Religion is the product of ignorance, lack of education, and despair. Those who are subjected to one or more of these factors tend to seek comfort and hope from a god promising that everything will be ok once you die (!)

silly..
Again it seems so now but how did religion persist through the eras where it was the keeper of knowledge? The religious WERE the schoolers of yesteryear They were FAR more educated then the average populace.

How does your theory take that into account?

That seems to be the effect now ... would you promote religion in the time where they were the keepers of knowledge? (yes there was such a time) where monks and priests were among the few people that could actually read ... and the only ones that kept printed material through the dark ages.

Right now they are hindering yes but it was not always so.

Oh yes "The Church" never destroyed writings and books that it found to be offensive. anybody have a match? ;)

Oh yes "The Church" never destroyed writings and books that it found to be offensive. anybody have a match? ;)

I did not say that they had their downside too
But for a period there they were defiantly a keeper of knowledge

Personally I think religion is obsolete but to make generic claims that infer that its never helped is ignorant at best.

I have seen my fair share of debates about the role of religion in the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge in society. These debates (IMHO) tend to rage back and forth with the debaters taking polar opposite views. I believe this is because the debaters are looking at the problem from totally different times in history. Religion has been the chief transmitter of knowledge for a civilization while the particular religion was at its peak or golden period. Once the religion fell into a spiritual decline, due to its inability to adjust the social laws that its adherents are expected to follow, the religion no longer was interested in truth or knowledge--just obedience. Knowledge became a secondary pursuit to the strict adherence to the many rules that had been developed during the centuries after the Founders death. This is very clearly seen in both Christianity and Islam. Islam was without question the most advanced civilization in the world during the first few hundred years after the death of Muhammad.

In the middle of the 19th century science and knowledge began a sudden and totally unexpected burst of creativity highlighted by the invention of the telegraph which has given us the very tools we use to have these debates on NationStates General Forum. This knowledge has been a terrible two-edged sword that has changed the world into a small neighborhood that is endangered by a warming climate with out adequate disposal of pollution and waste and terrorist will to kill tens of thousands for their cause.

If knowledge without religion has brought us to this point then perhaps religion with knowledge will point the way out of this morass.

snipage
Morning sir

Is frigging cold out thismorning isent it :)

Morning sir

Is frigging cold out thismorning isent it :)

We had -26 up here in Brrrrmidji--wind chill of about -50 or 60. Damn right it is cold. My puter works just fine though.;)

i'll believe in anything that wants me to believe in it. what i won't believe in is that it begins and ends with what anyone thinks they know about it.
i've experienced something, filling the space between the trees, when i've been out in the woods alone with it, that i've never felt in any church or temple.

i don't think anything human invented that, but we did collectively invent the idea of worshipping. and priesthoods. and holy books. and alters. and all the rest of that.

which isn't completely a bad thing either. it just isn't completely a good thing either also.

if we can exist without having to. and there's no natural requirement for our human species to do so. then certainly there's no reason nontangable forces and beings can't exist also.

of course there's equaly no natural requirement for them to bear the slightest resemblence to anything any book or priesthood has ever said about them either.

the up side of belief is encouraging people to want to avoid causing harm.
the down side is encouraging them to decieve themselves as to the mechanism by which they do so.

=^^=
.../\...

We had -26 up here in Brrrrmidji--wind chill of about -50 or 60. Damn right it is cold. My puter works just fine though.;)
Thats good :)

We are a bit warmer down here only -13 (-32 with wind chill) still cold.

Edit: update -14 with a windchill of -38 right now

We do need rellgoin not as an idvidual person but as a human race as a whole>.

We do need rellgoin not as an idvidual person but as a human race as a whole>.
What makes you say that?

I would like you to be honest with me and tell my why and when you think you began to believe in nothing existing higher power-wise.

when i was groing up (about 6 or 7) i had several friends and people who i looked up to who believed in god. because i could not yet think for myself at that time i also decided to go along the idea of god. later (at around 10 or 11) when i finnally could think for myself and make reasonable desitions based on my experiences ,the observation of others experience's, and history, i decided that it was far more likely that religion was invented as a tool for 1 person or a group of people to manipulate other groups of people for whatever reason. I also saw how some religions directly contradict each other in their ideas of what or who god is (example monotheism or polytheism; both cant be true at the same time)

[QUOTE=Cameroi]i've experienced something, filling the space between the trees, when i've been out in the woods alone with it, that i've never felt in any church or temple.


Perhaps, you could experience that feeling in a place like this?

http://www.indiatravelog.com/delhi/lotus-temple.html

I find people who say that atheist have no morals truly humorous. Especially the one claiming that all moral codes come from religious texts. Say then, if one can accept a religious text as your moral code, why not accept your country's laws or make your own? I've been an atheist once, I should know.

I find people who say that atheist have no morals truly humorous. Especially the one claiming that all moral codes come from religious texts. Say then, if one can accept a religious text as your moral code, why not accept your country's laws or make your own? I've been an atheist once, I should know.

Everyone was an atheist once, you're born as an atheist.:)

Everyone was an atheist once, you're born as an atheist.:)

i'm not sure i gave it much thought at birth. I do remember being rather ticked off that they woke me up from a very sound sleep. Thanks goodness there was a nice warm meal waiting for me. It is a good thing that I had all the tools i needed to exist is this world. ;)

i will respect peoples right to beleave in god if thay respect my right to beleave in zombies :mp5:

ps they exist honestly :cool:

i will respect peoples right to beleave in god if thay respect my right to beleave in zombies :mp5:

ps they exist honestly :cool:

As far as I'm concerned you can believe in anything you want to.

Hey everyone.
Time for my two cents on the matter. Let us clarify, this is not an attack on religion as a whole for a change, simply a fascination and curiosity. As such, I have no problem trying to answer it.

The idea of religion, and the supposed need for it, spawns from many contributing factors. It may be socially driven, one needs acceptance, or philosophically driven, one deduces God from their moral agenda, or security driven, one needs to know something will save them or that they're hurt is contributing to good to justify their lives. Another major factor that has been brought up recently is that people choose God due to a genetic reason, though this theory has yet to be amply proven. In my opinion, the idea of philosophical acceptance, choosing a religion based on your ideas of morality, would be the best method. But of course, you aren't asking about that, now are you?

EDIT: Just a curious note, where are you from UpwardThrust? That sounds like the temperature around here as well. Odd how that works out.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Delegate, Tyslan

Snip
EDIT: Just a curious note, where are you from UpwardThrust? That sounds like the temperature around here as well. Odd how that works out.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Delegate, Tyslan
Round the St. Cloud Region Minnesota

GoodThoughts is from about 2 hours north

Round the St. Cloud Region Minnesota

GoodThoughts is from about 2 hours north


Two hours if you drive a rocket.:p
I meant to ask before, did you like the sauce?

Two hours if you drive a rocket.:p
I meant to ask before, did you like the sauce?
Yup (replied more in detail in the other thread)

And I made it in about two hours :) (well on the way home ... with the road work done going through brained was actually a lot faster)

Yup (replied more in detail in the other thread)

And I made it in about two hours :) (well on the way home ... with the road work done going through brained was actually a lot faster)

I missed the other reply. I think brainerd is the "long" way in the summer months still. Glad you enjoyed the sauce.

I missed the other reply. I think brainerd is the "long" way in the summer months still. Glad you enjoyed the sauce.
Agreed I had always gone through akley but we were bored with the scenery so decided to take the trip home the other way

from a scientific point of view religion provides security and creates a fellowship

from a christian point of view, how could the world have been created without god, how could the miracles we see in every day lives be possible?

from a scientific point of view religion provides security and creates a fellowship

from a christian point of view, how could the world have been created without god, how could the miracles we see in every day lives be possible?

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), aka GOD OF THE GAPS, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


or maybe

ARGUMENT FROM WOW
(1) "When I look into the sky and see all the pretty stars, all those galaxies..."
(2) Wow.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Rather than wade through 12 pages of the usual drivel, I will clarify some points:

1. Belief in, or knowledge of, a deity, does not make you a follower of a religion. Some people use the term 'spiritual' instead of 'religious' to differentiate the two ideas. A spiritual person believes in God without necessarily following a religion. A religious person believes in a specific religion. Both are theists.

2. Faith is not required to be either spiritual or religious. Most people require faith. However, some have had revelatory experiences. These people are usually self-defined as mystics. Gnosticism, for example, is a mystic branch of Christianity.

3. Religion, though it may have spiritual elements, is not necessarily spiritual. Religion serves a social purpose, unifying people, creating a cosmological framework, explaining history, providing a moral context, etc. While this works most effectively if everyone believes, belief itself is not necessary.

Due to the fact that there are many causes and reasons for a person being spiritual or religious, it would be impossible to give the reasons why religion exists and why people believe in it within a few posts.
3.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), aka GOD OF THE GAPS, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


or maybe

ARGUMENT FROM WOW
(1) "When I look into the sky and see all the pretty stars, all those galaxies..."
(2) Wow.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

You've got to love the 300 proofs... :p

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), aka GOD OF THE GAPS, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


or maybe

ARGUMENT FROM WOW
(1) "When I look into the sky and see all the pretty stars, all those galaxies..."
(2) Wow.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

There are other "proofs" of the existence of God, one of which is the transformation of a person or group of people from a debased condition to that of a spiritual condition. A good example of this is Islam in its very early years when before the coming of Muhammad the people of the Arabia were in a most lowly condition. The influence of the words of Muhammad changed them into the most advanced people of the time.

Another example is in Persia or Iran with the coming of Bah'u'llah who changed the Persian people, who accepted His message, into spiritual lights and superior to those Muslims around them. Further evidence of this is found daily in the news of the world. This is not to say that every or any Baha'i is superior to any person. But the comparison between the condition of Iran today and the principles and teachings of Baha'u'llah and the current practices of Islam stand out in stark contrast to each other.

There are other "proofs" of the existence of God, one of which is the transformation of a person or group of people from a debased condition to that of a spiritual condition. A good example of this is Islam in its very early years when before the coming of Muhammad the people of the Arabia were in a most lowly condition. The influence of the words of Muhammad changed them into the most advanced people of the time.

Another example is in Persia or Iran with the coming of Bah'u'llah who changed the Persian people, who accepted His message, into spiritual lights and superior to those Muslims around them. Further evidence of this is found daily in the news of the world. This is not to say that every or any Baha'i is superior to any person. But the comparison between the condition of Iran today and the principles and teachings of Baha'u'llah and the current practices of Islam stand out in stark contrast to each other.
Is that a proof of god or a proof of religion?

Heh... Hope you don't mind me using this to make a quick point.

Faith is entirely rational, in this sense. It's an attempt to adjust one's world view to fit the evidence of experience; the empirical truth of what one has envisaged. However, that doesn't mean that any "Faith" is itself a rational one.

Mmmm, somewhat. To me it seems more a case of adjusting your interpretation of the experience to fit one's worldview. Sort of. It's a compromise, I guess. Had the ideas in the practice surrounding this particular god been utterly alien to me or abhorrent, I would likely have dismissed it as a prod from a god I wasn't interested in being involved with. If, hypothetically, Yahweh was do something similar, I would dismiss it and get on with things, rather than paying it a great deal of attention. If you're able to recognise it (or you're superstitious enough :p ), there is daily evidence of little prods and nudges and "Hello's" from various spirits, be they gods, ancestors or land spirits or whatever. Of course, I'm quite open to such things these days, so I get some very dirty looks from my atheist friends who knew me when I spouted the same ideas as they do. :p


What do I mean by that? Essentially, I mean that the explanation that one has decided on is based only very loosely on the evidence that you have experienced. You learn surprisingly little about God through these "Encounters" (I've experienced several; I should know). People experience these very same things in different places around the world and come to different conclusions based on their cultural heritage. If you lived somewhere that had never heard of Jesus, the understanding of your divine experience would be equally founded in whatever explanation you came across there.

No, the "encounters" are more of a greeting than anything else, I think, and don't convey much information at all. For me, I took it as a request to me that I look in a particular direction. Of course, that all depends on how you choose to interpret them and certainly you tend to attach significance to them in the context of your culture and your own current set of beliefs and knowledge. At the time I was a fairly skeptical agnostic-leaning-toward-pantheism and viewed it as such going, as I said, through the whole "superstition, self-delusion" process before actually giving it serious contemplation. After that, all the study I did and all the subjective information I got from other people was filtered through my own mind and decided what I thought was true, what was metaphor, what was propaganda, what was completely anomolous.


That's why Religion fails; it constrains the validity of one's faith to cultural interpretation. If you want to call it God, fine, but to make the leap and suggest that what you have experienced of him is exactly what other people have told you, your faith is not in God but in your Society.

This is why we have minds of our own, yes? Our own ideas? Our own faculties? Many people seem to make the assumption that being a part of a particular religion means you blindly accept what others tell you without questioning it for yourself and comparing what you read, hear, see of the religion to your own experience and understanding. It's an incredibly conceited assumption to make and it amazes me that people could have such a low opinion of someone just because they follow X Religion.

If my religion didn't gel with my own feelings and understanding, I wouldn't be a part of it, simple as that. The religion itself; the rituals, the feast days, the artefacts, the stories is all colourful candy shell around the sweet, sweet chocolate of the gods. It's not absolutely necessary, but it's crunchy and nice and I like it. That said, I'm more likely to bend it around myself than to bend myself to fit into it, but as I've said before, I was brought up completely without religion, so maybe I'm more inclined to come to own understanding than to accept wholesale the understandings of others because of that.

Is that a proof of god or a proof of religion?

It is both. If the Founder states that the message comes from God. The answer is more complicated than that of course. But that is the essence of the answer.

It is both. If the Founder states that the message comes from God. The answer is more complicated than that of course. But that is the essence of the answer.
I see it as another example of the unifying effect that religion has ... would make an amazing survival trait.

Stephan Baxter proposed religion (or the mind to think religiously) as a inheritable survival trait. I dont know to some extent I think it makes sense

I see it as another example of the unifying effect that religion has ... would make an amazing survival trait.

Stephan Baxter proposed religion (or the mind to think religiously) as a inheritable survival trait. I dont know to some extent I think it makes sense

Are you talking about the chapter is his novel Evolution?

Are you talking about the chapter is his novel Evolution?
That would be the one :)

Mother, the schizophrenic hominid, invents human sacrifice. And the beat goes on...

Mother, the schizophrenic hominid, invents human sacrifice. And the beat goes on...
Yup ... but if I remember right (and its been a bit sence I have read it) it was croping up all over the place

Spawned by humans starting to gain the ability for objective thought as well as patern recognition and symbolism

I see it as another example of the unifying effect that religion has ... would make an amazing survival trait.

Stephan Baxter proposed religion (or the mind to think religiously) as a inheritable survival trait. I dont know to some extent I think it makes sense

I can't say that I disagree with S. Baxter. Survival is a base instinct. Religion, it seems to me has been around as long as humanity has existed. Too often religion is judged when it is at its lowest and most debased level; rather than when it is at its most unifying level. Today we are lucky to have the ability to examine religion through the microscope and binoculars of history.

This is the day when religion will no longer slide into the degradition of former times. This is the changless Faith of God. Eternal in the past an enternal in the future.

Mother, the schizophrenic hominid, invents human sacrifice. And the beat goes on...

If you believe that humans have evolved, as I do, then the concept that religion has also changed and evolved is not a foreign concept. That some people have turned the concept of sacrifice into a gross misrepresentation of God's intent for humanity should not be a real shock either. Human sacrifce has not been limited to just religious types either. Governments have been perfectly willing to sacrifice large part of their population for the "greater good" the Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, Cambodia the list could go on and on.

If you believe that humans have evolved, as I do, then the concept that religion has also changed and evolved is not a foreign concept. That some people have turned the concept of sacrifice into a gross misrepresentation of God's intent for humanity should not be a real shock either. Human sacrifce has not been limited to just religious types either. Governments have been perfectly willing to sacrifice large part of their population for the "greater good" the Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, Cambodia the list could go on and on.
It was an ultra brief summery of the character that arises in the book. She is the creator of a “local” religion that the author chose to portray at least as a start.

It was an ultra brief summery of the character that arises in the book. She is the creator of a “local” religion that the author chose to portray at least as a start.

Interesting premise. Perhaps, some day I will read the book. The author was making a statement about the place in society of religion--true? I believe that much of what we judge religion on starts with a false premise that religion that has strayed from its obvious and true path is a unfair represenation of all religion and the true purpose of religion.

Being non religious I am really facinated at how so many people have been deceived by ideas of "god" and an "afterlife", etc, etc. I would honestly like to know why so many people believe in god and why do they think they began to believe?
Im not trying to sound really harsh on religius people but i honestly dont understand why.


I merely hilighted that word as i beleive it's a slight flaw in your question - if you wish only to learn about religious beliefs then calling them a lie would be wrong.

And i beleive it's because feel they need something to believe in - Human's have always strived for explanation - in this era it's Science or Religion.

They feel there must be more to "life" than just what we have now - perhaps denial, perhaps truth.

Others speak from their own personal experiences which they believe are manifestations of their faith.

Many have been brought up believing, and they too believe the same.

I feel it is unhealthy to believe in something only because you are told to - especially in religion - you should explore your faith, and other faiths - question them, and if you still believe afterwards then there is no reason not to believe.

It is extremely hard to prove a negative - so until someone proves there are NO Gods - then people will keep believing. I personally hope their faith will come to except other views too... and that they can be rational in their beliefs, as it is unfortunate that so many people aren't.

Edit:

It is also important - as others have pointed out many religions reflect cultures - unfortunately people still tend to try and manipulate their religions to conform with their views: "God is with us against.... etc". I feel - myself - that the Bible is an example of this - or atleast what many people interpret from it.

And when you're considering creation stories - especially from the bible, it's important to remember they're from the earliest part of the Old testament, and could well just be an ancient peoples way of explaining how the world came to be.

It seems so many people get so tied up about these aspects that they forget the other parts of a religion. I can only speak, mainly, for christianity (as i study it) and hinduism (as i follow it - partly): but there are many things contained within religions and scriptures that have nothing to do with just Divine Powers but more on ways to lead ones life.

Hinduism isn't about making a deal with a elephant headed God - it's about living (a) good life (or good lives) to realise the truth/ obtain divine freedom depending on how you see it.

Do i believe in God or The Gods: No, not really - im quite agnostic.

Do i believe in Religion: Yes, and i feel it can often do a lot of good. Unfortunately people have done a lot of bad with religion too.

Interesting premise. Perhaps, some day I will read the book. The author was making a statement about the place in society of religion--true? I believe that much of what we judge religion on starts with a false premise that religion that has strayed from its obvious and true path is a fair represenation of all religion and the true purpose of religion.
For that small part ... but she was just a small part of one of the many religions that sprung up at the time

(the whole section covered less then like 20-30 pages in a 600 page book) The book itself covered from the beginnings of man through the fall of man onto millions of years in the future

-snippy-
That's logical. I will point out that your problem seems to be with religion, and not a "god" in any sense. Just the part humanity takes care of.

Me, I grew up with God, in the Judeo-Christian sense. I was a cafeteria Christian. Later, during a period of severe depression as my doctor said, I was questioning whether there was a God or not. It was rather hard for me to understand, why did I feel so worthless? Where was God? Et cetera. Anyhow, I put the whole thing aside until about last year. When I realized that, hey, whoa, I wasn't questioning if God existed or not. I was questioning if His character was as benevolent as the New Testament said it was (just read the Old, God is pretty much angry vengeful the whole time, in my opinion). I was angry with Him. Then I thought about how I got out of my depression. It wasn't some vision of Mary or St. Peter, it was me. I decided to drag myself from the black nether regions of fate. I saved myself. God helps those who help themselves. Its an inner strength thing, as God is with us all (Christianity has something along the lines of the Hindu "brahman" as well).

Now I'm what I call a theist. I reject organized religion, for the most part, but I like the sense of community and tradition it has. I accept all religions, they are all completly valid (however, I do have this thing against agnostics). I feel all religions worship God in their own ways. That may sound crazy, but that's what I feel is the right way, the way He wanted it, before we came along and complicated everything.

Thanks for responding and thanks for reading. :)

<Snip> however, I do have this thing against agnosticsWhat could you possibly have against agnostics? - You sound like one yourself.

T
Now I'm what I call a theist. I reject organized religion, for the most part, but I like the sense of community and tradition it has. I accept all religions, they are all completly valid (however, I do have this thing against agnostics). I feel all religions worship God in their own ways. That may sound crazy, but that's what I feel is the right way, the way He wanted it, before we came along and complicated everything

I suppose that's how i feel. :)

Just i have nothing against agnostics- as for me, i just feel its "someone who isn't sure about the existence or image of God" << theres nothing not to like... Iid be perfectly happy being called agnostic... and perhaps for lack of a better word... i call myself it too.

What could you possibly have against agnostics? - You sound like one yourself.
Nah, I'm not. Its just that fence sitters aren't tolerated in politics, so why do people get slack when it comes to faith?

Agnostic = unsure if a higher power exists, we usually just say "God" here on the forums (as you know)

Its not confusion over which religion to adhere to.

Nah, I'm not. Its just that fence sitters aren't tolerated in politics, so why do people get slack when it comes to faith?

I don't see why someone who's "on the fence" shouldn't be tolerated in politics or in faith.

In times of moral crisis, i'd probably barbeque someone for sitting on the fence... but otherwise it's nice to meet people who haven't made up their mind - especially to persuade them!

I don't see why someone who's "on the fence" shouldn't be tolerated in politics or in faith.

In times of moral crisis, i'd probably barbeque someone for sitting on the fence... but otherwise it's nice to meet people who haven't made up their mind - especially to persuade them!
Yeah, that's true. Pidgeon holing agonstics isn't really right, until the End Times. I'll just have to wait I guess. ;)

Nah, I'm not. Its just that fence sitters aren't tolerated in politics, so why do people get slack when it comes to faith?

Agnostic = unsure if a higher power exists, we usually just say "God" here on the forums (as you know)
Actually, agnostics are quite sure about what it is they believe: that the existence of the higher power cannot be known.

I don't agree with broadening the definition to include fence-sitters.

Nah, I'm not. Its just that fence sitters aren't tolerated in politics, so why do people get slack when it comes to faith?

Agnostic = unsure if a higher power exists, we usually just say "God" here on the forums (as you know)

Its not confusion over which religion to adhere to.
From Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/) 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

And here I thought proof denied faith. I'm just an agnostic atheist though & wouldn't know faith if it bit my arse.