NationStates Jolt Archive

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

because omnipresence, omipotence, and immortality are not possible.

There's no compelling reason to believe in one.

I think for most atheists and agnostics, it's a simple burden of proof. The big world religions each have their own versions of how the world came into existence. If you follow one religion, you scoff at the other religions interpretation of creation, but your own is totally believable and sacrosanct. From the outsider view of the atheist/agnostic, it all seems a little rediculous, especially as science tends to disprove literal interpretations of creation.

If your worldview is based on 'seeing is believing', then you will naturally tend to be skeptical about the existence of God.

1) complete and utter lack of evidence

2) only stupid and unbelievable stories put out about the existance of god

3) the part where even if "god" exists he has such an lack of interest in humanity that he may as well not exist for all the difference it makes to us

I've got no serious problem with people believing in god, but I've always wanted to ask why?

Why do some people insist to believe in the existence of god?

See, the question can be asked in the other way, so if you claim the existence of god, prove it.

I believe in God but.. I don't.. I dunno, I believe in a "higher power".

I'll stick with evolution.

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?


People don't 'refuse' to believe in God as you put it; they simply don't believe in him.

There no violent compulsion to believe these days, thankfully.

I consider myself agnostic, technically, having not ruled out the possibility, but if I had to choose, I'd definitely have to say "no". There is almost certainly no god in the Christian sense, and if there is a god, they are mostlikely not as envisioned by religion.

As for why I don't believe, it's simple, really. When you really think about it, the whole thing is just silly. It's also rather obvious that it is an outgrowth of culture, which is why the Christian god has a beef with homosexuals and communists, the Norse gods are warlike, etc. Once you get out of the theistic culture, though, there simply isn't any good reason to take it seriously.

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

This question always bugs me. A majority of christians believe the existence of God to be axiomatic, and then think nonbelievers are just rejecting the obvious on selfish whim.

I do not refuse to believe. Belief is not something that comes natural that you just turn off at your convenience.

If given ample reason to believe in God, I could not just refuse to believe.

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?Why do Christians refuse to use common sense & be rational?

There's not the slightest bit of evidence to suggest anything supernatural or divine. I have no personal "gut feeling" that there's anything magical anywhere.

Belief in divinity seems about as logical as expecting to fall off the planet when I walk out the front door. Why do you refuse to believe gravity will vanish the moment you step out your front door?

... Christians :rolleyes:

If I was given ample evidence, I would beleive. However, no evidence does not equal ample evidence, so I don't.

I consider myself agnostic, technically, having not ruled out the possibility, but if I had to choose, I'd definitely have to say "no". There is almost certainly no god in the Christian sense, and if there is a god, they are mostlikely not as envisioned by religion.

As for why I don't believe, it's simple, really. When you really think about it, the whole thing is just silly. It's also rather obvious that it is an outgrowth of culture, which is why the Christian god has a beef with homosexuals and communists, the Norse gods are warlike, etc. Once you get out of the theistic culture, though, there simply isn't any good reason to take it seriously.
well said

once you look at norse gods and see they are ridiculous, greek gods and see they are ridiculou, hindu gods and see they are ridiculous, maybe you could take an objective look at the christian/jewish/islamic god and see that it is also ridiculous.

I've never seen any reason why I should believe.

Next question please...

I think the Norse gods are the least rediculous. If there was a group of gods, that's how I think they would be. The creation myth is a little WTF though. And by a little a mean extremely. Giant cows and salt licks making a giant and all that. It's a bit trippy.

Well, if there were a god like the ones depicted by religions, I would have to follow his commands or go to hell. And even if there were one, what makes you think you've got the right one?
that's why I decided not to believe in god.

I don't see how a world so full of suffering and misery was created by a "loving" god.

And if it was, then he's a prick cocksucker, and I declare my allegience with his enemies.

Babies born with no arms and legs, mothers losing children to plague and disease, cancer, epilepsy, war, murder, rape, dictators, and other countless horrors. If "God" thought it proper to introduce these to the world, then he can go directly to hell, and fucking stay there. I'd rather deal with the devil, who, though rumored to be a real son of a bitch, at least doesn't try to hide it.

I don't see how a world so full of suffering and misery was created by a "loving" god.

And if it was, then he's a prick cocksucker, and I declare my allegience with his enemies.

Babies born with no arms and legs, mothers losing children to plague and disease, cancer, epilepsy, war, murder, rape, dictators, and other countless horrors. If "God" thought it proper to introduce these to the world, then he can go directly to hell, and fucking stay there. I'd rather deal with the devil, who, though rumored to be a real son of a bitch, at least doesn't try to hide it.

OMG I actually agree with one of your posts, the end must be nigh...:eek:

once you look at norse gods and see they are ridiculous, greek gods and see they are ridiculou, hindu gods and see they are ridiculous, maybe you could take an objective look at the christian/jewish/islamic god and see that it is also ridiculous.

In a few thousand years, mankind will view Christianity and Islam in the same manner in which it views the Greek and Norse gods today- as supersticious nonsense from an era when we were barely out of the caveman stage.

Also, as potential settings for D&D campaigns.

Why don't people who believe in God believe in all Gods. If there is a reason to believe in the Christian God then is an equal reason to believe in Zeus. Same with disbelief it is an all or nothing thing. Presumably you don't still believe in Santa, but why would you stop believing in Santa and not stop believing in God?

I think the Norse gods are the least rediculous. If there was a group of gods, that's how I think they would be. The creation myth is a little WTF though. And by a little a mean extremely. Giant cows and salt licks making a giant and all that. It's a bit trippy.I don't know about least :p

But if there was such a thing as divinity, I'd certainly want it to be the Norse mythos. I can't imagine anything better than killing monsters all day, followed by a night of supernatural healing, heavy drinking & lots of sex.

Incidently is this whole thread a parody of the Religion: why? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469191) thread?

Your grammar is horrible and the question unclear.
Are you asking, do we believe in "God"* or "a god"**?








*=I'm assumming Judeo-Christian sense
**=any higher power

People believe because:

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.

Any theory or evidence or fact that science presents is either adopted by religion, and co-exists within dogmas, or refuted - the latter of which is wrong in my personal view.

I personally hope their faith will come to except other views too... and that people can be rational in their beliefs, as it is unfortunate that so many people aren't. By which i mean "My way is right because i said so - everyone else should die"

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.

First of all, I'm going to point out to you that your question was beyond pig-headed. To ask "Do you believe in God?" as a yes/no question is not asking if someone has any religious belief, it's asking if they hold to one of the three Jihadist religions (Judaism, Xianity, Islam) and completely ignoring the existence of any other potential religion on Earth, which generally don't believe in "A, The, and Only God."

Secondly...no, no, I was done with the first point.

I find it imposible to reconcile my perception reality with the existance of a benevolent god.

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?
Because they mistake the image of God for god.

The image is what we, from our individual perspectives and filtered through our minds and imaginations, can know of god (that be "God"). God itself, the thing, is supernatural, and so with a "true nature" that is unknowable.

So you're quite right: what's not to believe in god?

I don't know about least :p

But if there was such a thing as divinity, I'd certainly want it to be the Norse mythos. I can't imagine anything better than killing monsters all day, followed by a night of supernatural healing, heavy drinking & lots of sex.

That's what i meant. I mean if you had nearly limitless power, what would you do? I know I would get drunk have sex and kill things. And they actually die, unlike most other deities.

That's what i meant. I mean if you had nearly limitless power, what would you do? I know I would get drunk have sex and kill things. And they actually die, unlike most other deities.
Die and come back to life, like Jesus! :eek:

OMG I actually agree with one of your posts, the end must be nigh...:eek:
Like I've said before. Most of the people on here seem to have a hard time believing that, though I own guns and support the war against terror, I am NOT a part of the Christian Right by any means.

Hell, while I'm at it, I might as well blow a few more minds. Delay is guilty, and I hope he rots in jail. Rush Limbaugh is a fucking idiot who needs to be locked in a dungeon for the dumb, Shaun Hannity needs to be beaten with a belt, though I am against abortion, it is the womans choice, not mine, Marijuana should be legal, and Bush shouldn't have won the 2000 elections (though I'm glad Gore didn't)

amazing that some people can have beliefs on both sides of the isles, huh? :eek:

Die and come back to life, like Jesus! :eek:

I mean just plain die, the end. Other than Odin(I think), I don't think the rest of them do come back, and even Odin dies at Ragnorak. I think 1 or 2 of them survive Ragnorak, that's it. The rest are dead for good.

Die and come back to life, like Jesus! :eek:Riight, because Jesus drank like a maniac, screwed anything with a small enuff hole & cut bloody swathes through gibbering hordes of nightmarish abominations..

Oh wait, he didn't, did he? He just walked around in a desert a bit & talked about tolerance & mutual masturbation.. What a boring sod.

I was just refering to Baldur actually. :(

Riight, because Jesus drank like a maniac, screwed anything with a small enuff hole & cut bloody swathes through gibbering hordes of nightmarish abominations..

Oh wait, he didn't, did he? He just walked around in a desert a bit & talked about tolerance & mutual masturbation.. What a boring sod.

You should have seen him as a teenager...

Balder just died. They failed at getting him back, remember? He does come back after Ragnorak though, but it's not really that similar. And I love how he dies, it's just hilarious.

I believe in Linux, son of Unix. ;)

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

because he doesn't exist. And it's spelt without a h.

because he doesn't exist. And it's spelt without a h.
And it's spelled with a "led" instead of a "t". ;)

And it's spelled with a "led" instead of a "t". ;)

I was always schooled to think either is correct useage :p

Spelling nazis do exist, as we both prove. Ahem.

Balder just died. They failed at getting him back, remember? He does come back after Ragnorak though, but it's not really that similar. And I love how he dies, it's just hilarious.
Thanks for the edit. Didn't know if you were talking about Balder or Jesus!

Its similar enough for the Papal spin masters. ;)

*YAWNS THE LONGEST YAWN EVER KNOWN TO MAN*

Will we ever get tired of this friggin debate...

Just accept that you either believe or don't believe and don't bitch at other people because they think differently.

Life is too damn short.

*YAWNS THE LONGEST YAWN EVER KNOWN TO MAN*

Will we ever get tired of this friggin debate...

Just accept that you either believe or don't believe and don't bitch at other people because they think differently.

Life is too damn short.

But is ETERNAL life too damn short?

AAAAAAH!

<strokes chin meaningfully>

But is ETERNAL life too damn short?

AAAAAAH!

<strokes chin meaningfully>

Maybe we'll have the chance to find out when we get there, so lets not waste time arguing over what we believe.

btw- you nearly blew my mind man... nearly

The point is that for God as depicted in the bible to exist, a certain amound of events that can be true or false have to all be true, let's asume that the chance is 50% that one is false. Than a couple can be true, but all thousands of them, that chance is extremely small. And the chance that something happens is still astronomically smaller to something not happening. God can exist but the chance he exists is smaller than just pointing a telescope at space at a certain random place and finding a new planet.

We don't experience anything from God. You can say that he's not experienceable because he's God. But the change that God exists is as high as that there is a meteor above us made of an undetectable kind of matter with exactly a volume of 1293.3827458 m³ that will crash in to us in exactly 238.2746 seconds.

Maybe we'll have the chance to find out when we get there, so lets not waste time arguing over what we believe.

btw- you nearly blew my mind man... nearly

First time anything nearly got blown where i was involved for months.

<frustrated sigh>

First time anything nearly got blown where i was involved for months.

<frustrated sigh>

*laughs nervously*

*cries inside due to the reality of the situation*

*stares at screen for a period...*

dammit

Head blowing? Eww....

People believe because:

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.

Nice post, very similar to (although ofc not identical to) my view point, Personally i am rather atheist buddist, atheist in that i dont believe that there is a God as such, although i suppose maybe a bit not. in that if there is a god, its not how it is imagined (traditionally), we are one with the universe and the universe is god, so we are in fact a part of "God" not children of but a part of, (self being a delusion :P)

Although my main reply in regards to the religion area, is i think it is necessary to separate Religion, and Spirituality. Religion being the organisation of people under a self elected leader, with rules and regulations (Which just gets used to control people, get funding etc) = actually similar to a dictatorship if you remove the spirituality :P.
And spirituality which would be the message put out by most religions (love thy neighbour etc). and the sort of spiritual guide as it were, guide to life, to morality etc.

So for example my view isnt that What Jesus taught was bad (or what he tried to teach, i would beleive Jesus to be a buddah of his time and location), but that the Church is bad, not for teaching this message, but by forcing the message, turning guides into rules (and you cant force someones spiritual life) and using the guise of teaching people whats right and wrong in life to manipulate them into beleiving what they think is right and wrong (Which at the end of the day is up to the individual, which if guided well enough could find the answer for themselves and it would be a much greater discovery)

or something like that :P :)

*laughs nervously*

*cries inside due to the reality of the situation*

*stares at screen for a period...*

dammit

too close to home there, eh?

From theology to oral sex in only 44 posts, that must be a record.

From theology to oral sex in only 44 posts, that must be a record.Just more evidence that good sex beats the hell out of religion.

When, oh when is my lover comming home...

It has to be said that christians have it all time better than atheists, supose atheists were right: At the end of life we die and then nothing more. Christians had a nice life knowing that someone watched over them and lived in the hope of seeing the ones they loved that died earlier again.

Supose christians were right. Atheists are in big shit.

We're getting owned.

too close to home there, eh?

Aye

*smiles over the success of completely halting the thread*

*thanks Pantygraigwen for help in doing do*

I wonder when we're going to start just locking all future religion threads. Seriously... what else can be said on the subject that hasn't been said before thousands of times since the beginning of NS? :rolleyes:

Just more evidence that good sex beats the hell out of religion.

When, oh when is my lover comming home...


I just read your post to my coworker... I got this response:

“Why do you think all the terrorists are blowing themselves up, they want those 70 virgins… but that would suck… 70 disappointed women…”

had to share

I just read your post to my coworker... I got this response:

“Why do you think all the terrorists are blowing themselves up, they want those 70 virgins… but that would suck… 70 disappointed women…”

had to share

even worse, 70 mother in laws...

I just read your post to my coworker... I got this response:

“Why do you think all the terrorists are blowing themselves up, they want those 70 virgins… but that would suck… 70 disappointed women…”

had to shareMakes you wonder though...

Do they have Viagra in heaven?

It are actually grapes. The Hebrew word for grape and the old Arabian word voor vergin are very similar. It's falsely translated from the Tora.

It are actually grapes. The Hebrew word for grape and the old Arabian word voor vergin are very similar. It's falsely translated from the Tora.

and Jesus is aramaic for "mushroom" because it was an initiation level in a mushroom cult.

or some such.

i prefer the virgin translation meself.

We don't experience anything from God. You can say that he's not experienceable because he's God. But the change that God exists is as high as that there is a meteor above us made of an undetectable kind of matter with exactly a volume of 1293.3827458 m³ that will crash in to us in exactly 238.2746 seconds.
You should get an award for that post. That has to be the most arbitrary and pointless aplication of statistics and science ever..

You should get an award for that post. That has to be the most arbitrary and pointless aplication of statistics and science ever..Uhm.. You did read the guy's name, right?

You should get an award for that post. That has to be the most arbitrary and pointless aplication of statistics and science ever..
No, it isn't, I've made far more pointless ones.

Uhm.. You did read the guy's name, right?

zing.

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?
Why do you refuse to believe in 2000-ton invisible centaurs? Why do you refuse to believe in Zeus? Why do you refuse to believe in Santa?

Why do you refuse to believe in Santa?
I was forced to convert. Last in the grade. *tear* :(

It has to be said that christians have it all time better than atheists, supose atheists were right: At the end of life we die and then nothing more. Christians had a nice life knowing that someone watched over them and lived in the hope of seeing the ones they loved that died earlier again.

Supose christians were right. Atheists are in big shit.

We're getting owned.

This is a Pascal free zone, take it outside.;)

I was forced to convert. Last in the grade. *tear* :(

I don't think they should bring santa into this discussion. Reminds me of my friend, the dyslexic child, who ended up selling his soul to satan for an action man and a bicycle.

I don't think they should bring santa into this discussion. Reminds me of my friend, the dyslexic child, who ended up selling his soul to satan for an action man and a bicycle.Wowz, that must suck so bad..

Think he'll become a bible translator in hell?

You should get an award for that post. That has to be the most arbitrary and pointless aplication of statistics and science ever..I forgot to mention I have a .0002 significance deviation yes.

because he doesn't exist. And it's spelt without a h.

It's "an h," not "a h."

Wowz, that must suck so bad..

Think he'll become a bible translator in hell?

Dunno. Mind you, i've always thought the link between satan and santa hasn't been explored enough:-
Satan - Old Nick
Santa - Saint Nick
Satan - punishes the bad
Santa - punishes the bad by not bringing them presents.
Satan - traditionally, images of fiery red
Santa - big red jerkin
Satan - hooves
Santa - reindeers have hooves.
Satan - demonic little helpers
Santa - Elfin little helpers.

Hm.

And both satan and santa are the embodied by Coca Cola.

God according to almost every religion are absolute and in the real world nothing is absolute. Everything is capable of becoming false and change itself is static.

If an absolute god exists, it exists in the only other place where things are absolute, the human mind.

If I want any gods to exist it would be the norse gods just because their story is 100x better than any other mythology I've read.

Originally Posted by Man in Black
I'd rather deal with the devil, who, though rumored to be a real son of a bitch, at least doesn't try to hide it.

and why couldnt the devil be behind all the evil in this world? looks to me as though your saying the devil is evil and doesnt actually do anything.

how come no one ever considers the fact that the devil could be behind all evils, why does it always have to be god whos done something wrong?

and why couldnt the devil be behind all the evil in this world? looks to me as though your saying the devil is evil and doesnt actually do anything.

how come no one ever considers the fact that the devil could be behind all evils, why does it always have to be god whos done something wrong?

People portray the devil in such a bad light when all the devil did was ask for god's power. Because after all, one should never question your authority. I love the bible and its condontations.

Origianally Posted by Pantygraigwen
Dunno. Mind you, i've always thought the link between satan and santa hasn't been explored enough

santa is not a christian image, its a rip-off of a turkish saint - in austria (north europe) they dont even have santa, they have "St. Nicholas" who comes on the 6th of december

and why couldnt the devil be behind all the evil in this world? looks to me as though your saying the devil is evil and doesnt actually do anything.

how come no one ever considers the fact that the devil could be behind all evils, why does it always have to be god whos done something wrong?
Hey, we're not the ones claiming that there is an all-powerful and all-good God up there. You've basically got two choices: either God does not have the power to alter the evil that the Devil does, or God does have the power to do so and is choosing to allow the Devil to create evil. Either way, why bother worshipping God, when the Devil is clearly the fellow you should be sucking up to?

and why couldnt the devil be behind all the evil in this world? looks to me as though your saying the devil is evil and doesnt actually do anything.

how come no one ever considers the fact that the devil could be behind all evils, why does it always have to be god whos done something wrong?Is this God thingy omnipotent, omniscient & onmipresent?
If it is, it would be a logical impossibility for Satan to act without full support from God.

That's why people blame the things on God. Satan might be making them happen, but God is either willingly allowing them or actively telling Satan what to do.
Satan's just God's fall guy.


santa is not a christian image, its a rip-off of a turkish saint - in austria (north europe) they dont even have santa, they have "St. Nicholas" who comes on the 6th of decemberCareful there mate, you almost got hit by a joke.

Hey, we're not the ones claiming that there is an all-powerful and all-good God up there. You've basically got two choices: either God does not have the power to alter the evil that the Devil does, or God does have the power to do so and is choosing to allow the Devil to create evil. Either way, why bother worshipping God, when the Devil is clearly the fellow you should be sucking up to?

Because God will spank you.

Like I've said before. Most of the people on here seem to have a hard time believing that, though I own guns and support the war against terror, I am NOT a part of the Christian Right by any means.

Hell, while I'm at it, I might as well blow a few more minds. Delay is guilty, and I hope he rots in jail. Rush Limbaugh is a fucking idiot who needs to be locked in a dungeon for the dumb, Shaun Hannity needs to be beaten with a belt, though I am against abortion, it is the womans choice, not mine, Marijuana should be legal, and Bush shouldn't have won the 2000 elections (though I'm glad Gore didn't)

amazing that some people can have beliefs on both sides of the isles, huh? :eek:
I couldnt agree more on all points. For some reason you have basically the same exect views as I do.

I find it fascinating that whenever this topic comes up, even though no specific god or gods are mentioned, people immediately begin to talk about Christians, Jesus, the God of the Bible...

Why is that?

Of course, once He comes up, people start throwing in pink unicorns and 2000-lb invisible centaurs, Zeus and Odin, as if by bringing up obvious fictional characters they can negate the impact of discussing a real character---silliness by association.

I think it's all because God and Jesus are all too real, and whatever people believe consciously, somewhere inside, they know that reality is nipping at their heels. Of course, all are not called. I don't know what goes on with them. But I hope they end up okay. Although I'm not hopeful...:(

because omnipresence, omipotence, and immortality are not possible.

It's not immortality that's impossible, it's omnibenevolence.

Christians, Muslims, and Jews (by most arguments) believe in "O3" deities. Beings who know everything, can do anything, and want only the best for us. So where does evil enter in to it? Why do good things happen to bad people? Why did my Grandfather die a horrible lingering death as his kidneys were eaten by cancer?

That's the argument from evil kids and it's the main reason that xtianism, islam, and judaism are illogical and impossible.

BTW guy who posted before me, since the worldview espoused in the Bible is "Donkey's can talk, People can Fly, and a Man named Hey-Zeus lives up in the sky," I don't feel that your "It's all to real for them," argument holds much weight. It's actually all to fake for us...

Because God will spank you.
He's welcome to try.

He's welcome to try.

Eagerly awaits the divine ass slap

*cries because it'll never come

I find it fascinating that whenever this topic comes up, even though no specific god or gods are mentioned, people immediately begin to talk about Christians, Jesus, the God of the Bible...

Why is that?

Because most General Forum posters live in nations where Christianity is the dominant religion, and Christians are the most visible superstitious population.

I find it fascinating that whenever this topic comes up, even though no specific god or gods are mentioned, people immediately begin to talk about Christians, Jesus, the God of the Bible...

Why is that?

Of course, once He comes up, people start throwing in pink unicorns and 2000-lb invisible centaurs, Zeus and Odin, as if by bringing up obvious fictional characters they can negate the impact of discussing a real character---silliness by association.

I think it's all because God and Jesus are all too real, and whatever people believe consciously, somewhere inside, they know that reality is nipping at their heels. Of course, all are not called. I don't know what goes on with them. But I hope they end up okay. Although I'm not hopeful...:(

Friend, you can't even prove that Jesus the man existed, let alone God.

The reason that people immediately talk about the Christian god is most generalites live in Christian countries and so that is the traditional god image that we have been taught. Personally I don't know enough about Islam or Hinduism to make any coherent criticism of their beliefs.

You know what I find fascinating? Every time the topic of dead celebrity rock stars comes up, everybody jumps into discussions of Elvis sightings.

Now, some might say this is just because "Elvis sightings" are the most commonly reported dead-celebrity-sightings that General Forum posters will have heard about. But not me. I think it's because, deep down, everybody secretly knows that Elvis really has risen. Some people aren't ready to admit it to themselves, but I hope one day they will come around and admit the truth.

Praise Elvis.

You know what I find fascinating? Every time the topic of dead celebrity rock stars comes up, everybody jumps into discussions of Elvis sightings.

Now, some might say this is just because "Elvis sightings" are the most commonly reported dead-celebrity-sightings that General Forum posters will have heard about. But not me. I think it's because, deep down, everybody secretly knows that Elvis really has risen. Some people aren't ready to admit it to themselves, but I hope one day they will come around and admit the truth.

Praise Elvis.

Personally I eagerly await the return of our melodic and vengeful overlord.

Praise Elvis.
I haven't been around that long, but Bottle, you are the only one to have ever brought up Elvis. Twice today, by my count.

We can't prove it, neither can atheists, so the point is moot. Its called "faith" for a reason.

i can think of two possible reasons for people not to believe in God:

1) Lack of scientific evidence 0-- if it can't be supported scientifically, then obviously it can't be there/be true.

2) If there is a God, then we can be judged by someone other than ourselves. In other words, the decision to not believe in God is one that allows one to act with impunity from punishment/judgment -- do, say or think whatever you want because there is no God who makes distinctions between right and wrong and, therefore, nothing I say or do is really wrong. It allows one to rationalize that there are no such things as right and wrong.

I haven't been around that long, but Bottle, you are the only one to have ever brought up Elvis. Twice today, by my count.

We can't prove it, neither can atheists, so the point is moot. Its called "faith" for a reason.

yep

i can think of two possible reasons for people not to believe in God:

1) Lack of scientific evidence 0-- if it can't be supported scientifically, then obviously it can't be there/be true.

2) If there is a God, then we can be judged by someone other than ourselves. In other words, the decision to not believe in God is one that allows one to act with impunity from punishment/judgment.

1) I think a better statement would be 'Lack of any evidence whatsoever-- if there is no evidence whatsoever to believe it then there's no reason to believe it.'

2) Christianity either teaches that we are born sinners or that we inevitably do sin (depending on the denomination) so there's no more incentive to behave without it. The point is that Christians don't deny sinning, they simply believe that they will be forgiven.

1) I think a better statement would be 'Lack of any evidence whatsoever-- if there is no evidence whatsoever to believe it then there's no reason to believe it.'

2) Christianity either teaches that we are born sinners or that we inevitably do sin (depending on the denomination) so there's no more incentive to behave without it. The point is that Christians don't deny sinning, they simply believe that they will be forgiven.

forgiven... if we believe. Faith is the cornerstone of the religion. The wages of sin is death, and the way to avoid that is to give your life to Jesus -- central tenet of Christianity.

2) Christianity either teaches that we are born sinners or that we inevitably do sin (depending on the denomination) so there's no more incentive to behave without it. The point is that Christians don't deny sinning, they simply believe that they will be forgiven.
2) Thanks to Jesus, humanity is already forgiven. No if, ands, or buts about it. No church is even required. The catch? One must accept Jesus as one's personal savior. Great, isn't it? :)

forgiven... if we believe. Faith is the cornerstone of the religion. The wages of sin is death, and the way to avoid that is to give your life to Jesus -- central tenet of Christianity.

2) Thanks to Jesus, humanity is already forgiven. No if, ands, or buts about it. No church is even required. The catch? One must accept Jesus as one's personal savior. Great, isn't it? :)

Exactly my point, the point that I was responding to was when Frangland claimed that Atheists reject religion because that would mean we had to be good people (by the Christian definition). The point is that as Christians believe that any sin can be forgiven then there isn't any real incentive to behave, afterall, you'll be forgiven anyway.

because omnipresence, omipotence, and immortality are not possible.

In order to understand, you must first believe.
-ST Augustine

In order to understand, you must first believe.
-ST Augustine
so why believe in something purely for the fun of it? Even the most farfetched theoretical physics has more plausibility than some supernatural being that does everything people say he's supposed to. The only reason I believe there is some sort of higher being is because humans haven't figured out how the universe was created out of nothing. Science is slowly making religion and faith obsolete.

1) I think a better statement would be 'Lack of any evidence whatsoever-- if there is no evidence whatsoever to believe it then there's no reason to believe it.'

2) Christianity either teaches that we are born sinners or that we inevitably do sin (depending on the denomination) so there's no more incentive to behave without it. The point is that Christians don't deny sinning, they simply believe that they will be forgiven.
Worse than that. Christians basically have a "get out of Hell fee" card. So while atheists believe this life is all they've got, prison & other forms of punishment are quite real, and even an amoral atheist would therefore seek to live a moral life, for his or her own good.

Christians, on the other hand, can be as depraved as they please. Punishment in this mortal life is but an inconveniance, and as long as they can honestly ask for forgiveness, they won't answer for their actions in the afterlife.

If anyone can "act with impunity" it's the christians. Perhaps that's why there are so many vile, deranged Christians.

I find it fascinating that whenever this topic comes up, even though no specific god or gods are mentioned, people immediately begin to talk about Christians, Jesus, the God of the Bible...

Why is that?

Of course, once He comes up, people start throwing in pink unicorns and 2000-lb invisible centaurs, Zeus and Odin, as if by bringing up obvious fictional characters they can negate the impact of discussing a real character---silliness by association.

I think it's all because God and Jesus are all too real, and whatever people believe consciously, somewhere inside, they know that reality is nipping at their heels. Of course, all are not called. I don't know what goes on with them. But I hope they end up okay. Although I'm not hopeful...:(

I can offer an alternative reason :P The question said God, written in english, for the most part english speakers (ofc not all but a high % of english readers on these forums) have/had/seen a christian background and they identify the word 'God' with the christian god.
If the question had been do you beileve in a deity the response may have been somewhat different :P

What i find funny is that you are bringing in Unicorns (which the bible says arnt fictional btw :P) and 2000-lb invisible centaurs as fictional characters to try and dismiss Zeus and Odin who are perfectly valid deitys as such.
I dont think we as non believers who bring up God as the Christian god identify with the Christian religion any more than we would with another religion if we grew up with it surrounding us
Isolate someone from it from birth until they are older and they will think its wierd or keep them around it and they will think its normal, but normal doesnt mean right.

Worse than that. Christians basically have a "get out of Hell fee" card. So while atheists believe this life is all they've got, prison & other forms of punishment are quite real, and even an amoral atheist would therefore seek to live a moral life, for his or her own good.

Christians, on the other hand, can be as depraved as they please. Punishment in this mortal life is but an inconveniance, and as long as they can honestly ask for forgiveness, they won't answer for their actions in the afterlife.

If anyone can "act with impunity" it's the christians. Perhaps that's why there are so many vile, deranged Christians.

I wouldn't go that far, the majority of Christians are lovely people and even the extremists tend to rely on hate-filled rhetoric rather than actual violence.

The idea of 'god' strikes me as highly implausible, therefore I am unable to believe in it. Kind of like explaining to a grown-up about Santa Claus.

I wouldn't go that far, the majority of Christians are lovely people and even the extremists tend to rely on hate-filled rhetoric rather than actual violence.Nor would I really, I just get tired of the "But you can't have a sense of ethics if you're not Christian!" thing.

I suppose I should have just said "The worm-ridden corpse of my mother is giving me head while I'm typing, I eat infants, I'm cronically depressed, make snuff films in my spare time & nail American fundies to driftwood wherever I find them - oh, and I'm a scientist."

Then again, sarcasm is often lost on people here.

I have absolutely no problem with Christians who have no problem with non-Christians. I think they're crazy, but so's everyone else to some extent. Mild insanity is the spice of life.

Nor would I really, I just get tired of the "But you can't have a sense of ethics if you're not Christian!" thing.

I suppose I should have just said "The worm-ridden corpse of my mother is giving me head while I'm typing, I eat infants, I'm cronically depressed, make snuff films in my spare time & nail American fundies to driftwood wherever I find them - oh, and I'm a scientist."

Then again, sarcasm is often lost on people here.

I have absolutely no problem with Christians who have no problem with non-Christians. I think they're crazy, but so's everyone else to some extent. Mild insanity is the spice of life.

I know what you mean, I'm thinking of starting a thread to discuss various secular moral philosophies like Deontology, Utilitarianism and Virtue Theory.

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?
Why do people refuse to believe that there is a Santa Claus? Or Easter Bunny? Or leprechauns? Or unicorns?

Same. Thing.

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

Simple, they're not Christians.

And remember, the earth and space is not Jesusland.

Originally Posted by The Similized world
Christians, on the other hand, can be as depraved as they please. Punishment in this mortal life is but an inconveniance, and as long as they can honestly ask for forgiveness, they won't answer for their actions in the afterlife.

if someone is depraved as they please theyr not a christian. even if they say they are. u cant believe in god and be as depraved as u like. it just doesnt work. on the contrary to what was said, a christian (in my opinion) is less likely to be a criminal, as they believe they will ahve to suffer for it for the rest of eternity.

if someone is depraved as they please theyr not a christian. even if they say they are. u cant believe in god and be as depraved as u like. it just doesnt work. on the contrary to what was said, a christian (in my opinion) is less likely to be a criminal, as they believe they will ahve to suffer for it for the rest of eternity.I thought Jesus forgave your sins & shaved your soul, if you sincerely asked him to.. But you say it "just doesn't work"?

Incidentially, I'm pretty sure you can't make any connection between religion & crime. Not one you'd like, anyway.

My point wasn't actually that Christians are evil, but that a few seems to have a great deal of trouble accepting that non-Christians aren't evil. My comments was an attempt to demonstrate the folly of that ignorant view.

if someone is depraved as they please theyr not a christian. even if they say they are. u cant believe in god and be as depraved as u like. it just doesnt work. on the contrary to what was said, a christian (in my opinion) is less likely to be a criminal, as they believe they will ahve to suffer for it for the rest of eternity.

That's the 'True Scotsman Fallacy' friend.

Incidently I seem to remember statistics showed that Atheists are underrepresented in prisons (I'll try and find a link) and that the Bible is the most shoplifted book in America.

I belives in god, but not nessicarly religion. I casn feel that god is real. Why do athist try to change that. Everytime I say i beluives in god, someone has to tell me why it can't be true. I will respect the views of an aithist, even though I cant belive it, I just want to know wht ATHIST CAN"T RESPECT ME??? I am able to belives in what I can't see, to belives in something bigger than myself, and i feel sorry for people who can't. Their is just so much in life that can't be told, it had to have come from a higehtr power. This does not belive i dont belive in Evalution, in fact I love evlution. Its just a matter of faith, and I am lucky that I am able to see it.

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

If there was an almighty you think the least they could do is intervene to give us correct spelling

I belives in god, but not nessicarly religion. I casn feel that god is real. Why do athist try to change that. Everytime I say i beluives in god, someone has to tell me why it can't be true. I will respect the views of an aithist, even though I cant belive it, I just want to know wht ATHIST CAN"T RESPECT ME??? I am able to belives in what I can't see, to belives in something bigger than myself, and i feel sorry for people who can't. Their is just so much in life that can't be told, it had to have come from a higehtr power. This does not belive i dont belive in Evalution, in fact I love evlution. Its just a matter of faith, and I am lucky that I am able to see it.

Well your patronising tone when you say you feel sorry for Atheists is likely to provoke dissent but please note that I am not criticising your beliefs or your right to hold those beliefs in any way, shape, or form.

I belives in god, but not nessicarly religion. I casn feel that god is real. Why do athist try to change that. Everytime I say i beluives in god, someone has to tell me why it can't be true. I will respect the views of an aithist, even though I cant belive it, I just want to know wht ATHIST CAN"T RESPECT ME??? I am able to belives in what I can't see, to belives in something bigger than myself, and i feel sorry for people who can't. Their is just so much in life that can't be told, it had to have come from a higehtr power. This does not belive i dont belive in Evalution, in fact I love evlution. Its just a matter of faith, and I am lucky that I am able to see it.I doubt anyone much minds your beliefs. As long as you're not one of the busy-bodies, why would anyone care?

That said, you're making an "argument from Awe", a logical fallacy. But hey, knock yourself out.

I used to believe in God. I was raised as a Christian and accepted God as part of life until high school. Since I had been told that people that really believe in God will be good people, the amount of assholes that were accepted as Christians surprised me.

After a few incidents within the church led to my family taking a break, as it were, I took a class in theology to see what the "experts' said about how a Christian should act. After reading through some classic theologians like Augustine and studying several parts of the Bible in depth more, I came to the conclusion that if God exists as He does according to the Bible, then He is a massive Dick.

After that, I've taken a stance closer to agnostic than anything else. I'm not sure if there is a higher power that created the universe and guides our lives, but if there is one I haven't seen any evidence of it.

I belives in god, but not nessicarly religion. I casn feel that god is real. Why do athist try to change that. Everytime I say i beluives in god, someone has to tell me why it can't be true. I will respect the views of an aithist, even though I cant belive it, I just want to know wht ATHIST CAN"T RESPECT ME??? I am able to belives in what I can't see, to belives in something bigger than myself, and i feel sorry for people who can't. Their is just so much in life that can't be told, it had to have come from a higehtr power. This does not belive i dont belive in Evalution, in fact I love evlution. Its just a matter of faith, and I am lucky that I am able to see it.

Pigeon Holing has much to do with it. When you suggest a belief in God an atheist may be predjudiced against you based on a negaitive stereotype

to be honest i dont have a problem with christians

but what i really hate is when they shove it in youre face and refer to it in all their sentences, i respect christians i respect their beliefs if i go round my mates house and he is a christian who likes to say grace i will join in, but when people go on and on it irritates me

as i have said before i know youre a christian stop shoving it in my face

You know what i always thought was funny, if i belived a gigantic cow was watching my every move and if i dident follow its every whim id suffer.

Someone would properbly lock me inside a paded room asap.

What makes gods any diffrent?

(If your wondering im not saying that beliving in gods are wrong, im saying locking people up for beliving in cows is.)

You know what i always thought was funny, if i belived a gigantic cow was watching my every move and if i dident follow its every whim id suffer.

Someone would properbly lock me inside a paded room asap.

What makes gods any diffrent?

(If your wondering im not saying that beliving in gods are wrong, im saying locking people up for beliving in cows is.)

Jean-Paul Sartre spent part of his life convinced that he was being followed by a giant lobster, we all go a little crazy sometimes.

I belives in god, but not nessicarly religion. I casn feel that god is real. Why do athist try to change that. Everytime I say i beluives in god, someone has to tell me why it can't be true. I will respect the views of an aithist, even though I cant belive it, I just want to know wht ATHIST CAN"T RESPECT ME??? I am able to belives in what I can't see, to belives in something bigger than myself, and i feel sorry for people who can't. Their is just so much in life that can't be told, it had to have come from a higehtr power. This does not belive i dont belive in Evalution, in fact I love evlution. Its just a matter of faith, and I am lucky that I am able to see it.

I seriously don't care if you believe that everyones head is made of pudding. It's just the ones who act like if I don't believe everything that they do, then I'm a lesser person that I hate.

I'm not sure what I would call myself. Agnostic? I think, quite frankly, the Christian faith is ridiculous. There is an incredible number of holes in the belief system of the average Fundamentalist Christian. Fossil records and chemical testing is less believable than a book full of fairy tales? Please. A loving, trusting, and tender homosexual relationship is worse than an abusive heterosexual relationship? Gimme a break.

But all the same, there is a thing or two that science cannot explain. For example, where did all the matter in the Big Bang come from? I don't know, nor does anyone else. In my personal opinion, it seems likely that there is some sort of higher power (meaning some force that we do not understand), but I admit that there's just as good of a chance as there being nothing.

That's the 'True Scotsman Fallacy' friend.

Incidently I seem to remember statistics showed that Atheists are underrepresented in prisons (I'll try and find a link) and that the Bible is the most shoplifted book in America.

Really, I'd figure it'd be copies of PlayBoy or Hustler. :rolleyes:

Really, I'd figure it'd be copies of PlayBoy or Hustler. :rolleyes:I seem to remember reading "Guinness book of records" is the most stolen library book in the world. Not exactly the same record, but..

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

It seems unrealistic. Intelligent creationism is very inprobable. If god is omni-present then that must mean he is in every porn shop, every bathroom, and even in theroom when you are having sex.

I refuse to believe in a god who does not include the commandment

"Thou shalt not perv"

I consider myself agnostic, technically, having not ruled out the possibility, but if I had to choose, I'd definitely have to say "no". There is almost certainly no god in the Christian sense, and if there is a god, they are mostlikely not as envisioned by religion.

As for why I don't believe, it's simple, really. When you really think about it, the whole thing is just silly. It's also rather obvious that it is an outgrowth of culture, which is why the Christian god has a beef with homosexuals and communists, the Norse gods are warlike, etc. Once you get out of the theistic culture, though, there simply isn't any good reason to take it seriously.

Pretty much my opinion exactly, except I really just don't think I'd really ever be able to believe in God. Just can't. Not ethical problems with organized religion, just don't have any faith whatsoever. It's not because there's so much suffering in the world, it's that I just don't see or "feel" any supernatural presence. Plus, I'll take naturalism over supernaturalism any day.

Really, I'd figure it'd be copies of PlayBoy or Hustler. :rolleyes:

I must have missed the part where Playboy became a book rather than a magazine, thus qualifying it to take part in the 'most shoplifted book' competition...

Riight, because Jesus drank like a maniac, screwed anything with a small enuff hole & cut bloody swathes through gibbering hordes of nightmarish abominations..

Oh wait, he didn't, did he? He just walked around in a desert a bit & talked about tolerance & mutual masturbation.. What a boring sod.


I wanna sign me up for some of that old-time Norse religion!!! :D

No, seriously, I wanna sign. Where do I go?

It has to be said that christians have it all time better than atheists, supose atheists were right: At the end of life we die and then nothing more. Christians had a nice life knowing that someone watched over them and lived in the hope of seeing the ones they loved that died earlier again.

Supose christians were right. Atheists are in big shit.

We're getting owned.


Nah, not really. We can drink and get laid without marrying people and generally bugger around. And we can live w/o guilt or going to that dreary church place. Then, when we kick the bucket, we find out that there's this big happy place with some nice old geezer who will love us whatever we have done.

Really, we atheists couldn't have planned it better :D

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?
Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Or Santa Clause? Or the Easter Bunny?
If not - why not? They're just as ridiculous fantasy creatures as this "god". :rolleyes:
The difference being, they're fairy tales for children, while "god" is a fairy tale for grown ups.

It are actually grapes. The Hebrew word for grape and the old Arabian word voor vergin are very similar. It's falsely translated from the Tora.


Imagine that! You blow yourself up and, at the gates of Heaven, you get given a bunch of grapes. 'Where are the virgins?' you'd wail. And then you'd get the reply, 'sorry, that was just a typo error.'

How gutting would that be???

Why do you refuse to believe in 2000-ton invisible centaurs? Why do you refuse to believe in Zeus? Why do you refuse to believe in Santa?

But santa clearly exists!!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/willismonroe/sets/1603151/

One good thing to note is that all that anthropomorphic stuff; intellect, love, etc, that is ascribed to god does not make sense. Those are traits only something that needs to survive in an environment could need to possess. In example, intelligence helps people get by and do "things", solve problems and survive. What does an immortal invulnerable being need intelligence for? If you strip such a being of all these traits that only make sense in an organism, you are left with a mere force obeying laws, and oila, a scientific atheistic universe.

Imagine that! You blow yourself up and, at the gates of Heaven, you get given a bunch of grapes. 'Where are the virgins?' you'd wail. And then you'd get the reply, 'sorry, that was just a typo error.'

How gutting would that be???
I, for one, would be in hysterics. The angels would join in. And that would totally make the afterlife for me; a bunch of aetherial beings just having a great laugh at the ridiculous state of existence.

and why couldnt the devil be behind all the evil in this world? looks to me as though your saying the devil is evil and doesnt actually do anything.

how come no one ever considers the fact that the devil could be behind all evils, why does it always have to be god whos done something wrong?


Because God is, by all theories, omniscient and omnipotent. And he also created everything. Why would an all-powerful, all knowing God create evils like disease, war, terror if he was not either, at best, indifferent to the fate of humanity, or worst, sadistic and just wants humanity to suffer?

Why is it not the devil? Well, it could be the devil, but if God is all-knowing and all-powerful then God is, again, at best, indifferent. If, at worst, complicit. Either way it's not a good reason to believe God is good. In the light of the above, it is evident that the traditional realisation of God as a benevolent, happy, loving, protecting entity is unsustainable / unbelievable.

Of course, once He comes up, people start throwing in pink unicorns and 2000-lb invisible centaurs, Zeus and Odin, as if by bringing up obvious fictional characters they can negate the impact of discussing a real character---silliness by association.



Why is it that an all-powerful, all knowing, all loving deity, who no-one has ever seen, heard or has any evidence for, who is claimed to have (but never proved to have) parted seas, sent divine messengers and personally rules over every aspect of all 6.5 Billion of us who live know, all the many who have ever lived and all the uncountable billions who ever live *pauses for breath* why is that conception any less of an obvious fictional character than Zeus, Pink Unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed Be His Noodly Appendage)?

That's the 'True Scotsman Fallacy' friend.

Incidently I seem to remember statistics showed that Atheists are underrepresented in prisons (I'll try and find a link) and that the Bible is the most shoplifted book in America.

Yah, atheists are almost not found in prisons, Ive seen several studies showing this. However, I w am going to back up the guy with the True Scotsman Fallacy, because according to the bible you judge a tree by its fruit, ie you must decide if a person is truely christian by their works. That fallacy is actually pretty weak imho because any "whatever-ian" can be defined as a person who does "whatever", thus if you say a Christian is one who acts "christlike" then the argument is true, and the "No true scottie" bit is not applicable. If a Christian is merely someone in Jesus' fan club, then yah the NTS fallacy holds. The latter definition is a pretty shitty definition for a religion though. Oh, and I'm not Christian in case that matters.

i can think of two possible reasons for people not to believe in God:

*snip* ...

2) If there is a God, then we can be judged by someone other than ourselves. In other words, the decision to not believe in God is one that allows one to act with impunity from punishment/judgment -- do, say or think whatever you want because there is no God who makes distinctions between right and wrong and, therefore, nothing I say or do is really wrong. It allows one to rationalize that there are no such things as right and wrong.


Are you saying/implying that there can be no morality/ethics w/o a source that is divine in origin?

Because God is, by all theories, omniscient and omnipotent. And he also created everything. Why would an all-powerful, all knowing God create evils like disease, war, terror if he was not either, at best, indifferent to the fate of humanity, or worst, sadistic and just wants humanity to suffer?

Why is it not the devil? Well, it could be the devil, but if God is all-knowing and all-powerful then God is, again, at best, indifferent. If, at worst, complicit. Either way it's not a good reason to believe God is good. In the light of the above, it is evident that the traditional realisation of God as a benevolent, happy, loving, protecting entity is unsustainable / unbelievable.
Either that or God is not the omnipotent Creator in the commonly understood interpretation of the words. Not all theories ascribe infinite power to divinity; in fact, many limit the direct powers of God to suggestion, manipulation and encouragement. In that sense, it's not too hard to envisage that God may in fact mean well.

I belives in god, but not nessicarly religion. I casn feel that god is real. Why do athist try to change that. Everytime I say i beluives in god, someone has to tell me why it can't be true. I will respect the views of an aithist, even though I cant belive it, I just want to know wht ATHIST CAN"T RESPECT ME??? I am able to belives in what I can't see, to belives in something bigger than myself, and i feel sorry for people who can't. Their is just so much in life that can't be told, it had to have come from a higehtr power. This does not belive i dont belive in Evalution, in fact I love evlution. Its just a matter of faith, and I am lucky that I am able to see it.


Well your patronising tone when you say you feel sorry for Atheists is likely to provoke dissent but please note that I am not criticising your beliefs or your right to hold those beliefs in any way, shape, or form.

And, I'd like to add, as you are asking for respect from atheists then your co-religionists, be they Sikh, Muslim or Christian, should show respect to atheists by stop trying to convert us, proselytise to us, or force us to live by your ways.

why is that conception any less of an obvious fictional character than Zeus, Pink Unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed Be His Noodly Appendage)?
They're all fiction. But that doesn't mean they're False. There is underlying meaning and truth behind all four characters, even if they're factually ridiculous. (though the meaning behind the Pink Unicorn seems somewhat reactionary in nature)

The key to true understanding is to see and acknowledge both form and substance.

I strongly believe in God, I just don't believe in how human beings use God's name to spread hate and to advance their own causes. :gundge:

Either that or God is not the omnipotent Creator in the commonly understood interpretation of the words. Not all theories ascribe infinite power to divinity; in fact, many limit the direct powers of God to suggestion, manipulation and encouragement. In that sense, it's not too hard to envisage that God may in fact mean well.


So God 'suggested' to the Universe that it, and everyone and everything in it just kinda like, 'exist and hang about' for a bit? That's one hell of a power of suggestion.

God created the Universe by any mainstream theory. He created the conditions for everyone and everything in it. He is responsible either directly or indirectly for all the harm that flows from it whether or not he either voluntarily or involuntarily has limited powers.

They're all fiction. But that doesn't mean they're False. There is underlying meaning and truth behind all four characters, even if they're factually ridiculous. (though the meaning behind the Pink Unicorn seems somewhat reactionary in nature)

The key to true understanding is to see and acknowledge both form and substance.

What is the significance of the capital letter 'F' in 'False'?


There is underlying meaning and truth behind all four characters, even if they're factually ridiculous

And why is the God creature not factually ridiculous? As I've implied in previous posts, it's blatantly ridiculous to me. Why is your deity any less ridiculous than any of mine? And, let's remember, because I am not seriously arguing for the pink unicorn or the spaghetti monster, but there were many millions of people who believe in the absolute truth of the Egyptian, Norse or Greek gods, all creatures you describe as 'factually ridiculous'. Why are those gods factually ridiculous and your god is not?



The key to true understanding is to see and acknowledge both form and substance.

What does this mean? It sounds and looks like a 'wise' pronouncement in some kind of weird oracular Delphic manner, but what does it mean? Please elaborate. However, I suspect that the phrase is utterly without meaning.

Yah, atheists are almost not found in prisons, Ive seen several studies showing this. However, I w am going to back up the guy with the True Scotsman Fallacy, because according to the bible you judge a tree by its fruit, ie you must decide if a person is truely christian by their works. That fallacy is actually pretty weak imho because any "whatever-ian" can be defined as a person who does "whatever", thus if you say a Christian is one who acts "christlike" then the argument is true, and the "No true scottie" bit is not applicable. If a Christian is merely someone in Jesus' fan club, then yah the NTS fallacy holds. The latter definition is a pretty shitty definition for a religion though. Oh, and I'm not Christian in case that matters.

According to the Nicene Creed being 'in the Jesus fanclub', as you so aptly put it, seems to be the sole requirement to be considered 'Christian'. However this isn't a terribly important point so I'm prepared to let it go.

Why are those gods factually ridiculous and your god is not?
I lumped every single notion of God together into that; hence why I said "Four" rather than the Three you mentioned. They're all factually ridiculous, without exception. Sorry if you missed my point; hopefully my response to the next bit should clarify what I'm trying to get across.

What does this mean? It sounds and looks like a 'wise' pronouncement in some kind of weird oracular Delphic manner, but what does it mean? Please elaborate. However, I suspect that the phrase is utterly without meaning.
I think you suspect incorrectly. Analysis of a thing tends to look at two aspects of it: its physical composition and Structure, and its Form - its abstract identity and function/meaning, or rather the "idea" of what the thing is and does. You might recognise it better if I were to say there is a Scientific way of identifying something and an Artistic analysis of it.

If you were to take a purely structural approach to arts study, you would most likely fail to see the message that the author, painter or whoever was trying to put across, but you would be well equipped to see how it was put together. Similarly, if you try to take an Artistic approach to the study of Physics, you wouldn't actually have any real information about what makes up reality, though you would have some insightful analogies and perspectives about what it is that everything actually does.

The Bible is generally that very thing; an artistic interpretation of reality. Historically, physically or whatever, it is almost completely inaccurate in many places. That is Myth. In order to get at a real understanding of Mythology, one needs the ability to break down the tale and rationally analyse it, such that he knows what is a logical impossibility and what (if any of it) is to be taken at face value, and also the ability to see the ideas and form that lie over the composition of the stories.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Raw scientific analysis would have the very notion rejected. Analysis of underlying form, however, shows us that there is reason behind what the Church of the FSM stands for. Similarly with the Pink Unicorn - it's a stupid idea if taken at face value, but to look beyond structure and to see it as a critique of common religious attitudes shows wisdom behind it.

Similar meanings exist behind most of the big religious players. The way to really get to grips with them is to realise both the irrationality of taking things at face value and the artistic form that exists in spite of this factual inaccuracy.

(Incidentally, to say something is capital F False is to deny it of both historical/physical accuracy and the presence of reasonable underlying message. Hope that clears that up.)

God created the Universe by any mainstream theory. He created the conditions for everyone and everything in it. He is responsible either directly or indirectly for all the harm that flows from it whether or not he either voluntarily or involuntarily has limited powers.
Seems like you already believe God must be the all-powerful initial creator of the universe, even if you don't believe he exists at all.

The only God that evidence exists for is the one that people experience. There is no reason to assume that existence of God must imply his status as Divine Creator; that implication is purely cultural in origin.

Seems like you already believe God must be the all-powerful initial creator of the universe, even if you don't believe he exists at all.

The only God that evidence exists for is the one that people experience. There is no reason to assume that existence of God must imply his status as Divine Creator; that implication is purely cultural in origin.

Very true. I blame Christianity. It seems that when most people hear "God" they immediately assume that the idea being referred to is one of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence and/or omnipresence and responsibility for the creation of the universe, when not all of us who are theists believe anything of the sort.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Or Santa Clause? Or the Easter Bunny?
If not - why not? Because I got satisfactory proof of their non-existance: I caught my mother in the act of doing the "duties" ascribed to each one of those.

Fergi America']Because I got satisfactory proof of their non-existance: I caught my mother in the act of doing the "duties" ascribed to each one of those.

And how do you know she wasn't just helping them out a little? It's rather difficult to prove non-existence....

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

What would be the reasons to believe in a god or multiple gods? Why would you believe in something just because somebody told you?

Mainly because gods were invented to explain the world and now that we understand things better, religion is a waste of time and money. I could accept that a god started the big bang, but let the rest happen naturally and said god doesn't interfere with the universe, but is still there. That is plausible.

But all the same, there is a thing or two that science cannot explain. For example, where did all the matter in the Big Bang come from? I don't know, nor does anyone else. In my personal opinion, it seems likely that there is some sort of higher power (meaning some force that we do not understand), but I admit that there's just as good of a chance as there being nothing.

Amusingly enough, people used to say the same thing about fire, lightning, rain, clouds, the sun, etc.

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

I also refuse to believe in the existence of the letter "h" in the word existence. But hey, that's just me.

I think the same reasons for not believing in God are the same for why people don't feel it is necessary to give names to their cars or their computers: they just are, they're not entities and see no reason to think of them as entities.

I think the same reasons for not believing in God are the same for why people don't feel it is necessary to give names to their cars or their computers: they just are, they're not entities and see no reason to think of them as entities.

OMG I named my vacume Hazel but not cos I think it is an entity, just cos it was a slow night and freezing outside and seemed like fun..am I going to hell?:eek:

OMG I named my vacume Hazel but not cos I think it is an entity, just cos it was a slow night and freezing outside and seemed like fun..am I going to hell?:eek:
Yes. Hazel is a stupid name for a vacuum.. I have an auntie called Hazel..

OMG I named my vacume Hazel but not cos I think it is an entity, just cos it was a slow night and freezing outside and seemed like fun..am I going to hell?:eek:
No. You're not going to hell. You named your vacuum cleaner Hazel, which would (if we follow the undoubtedly logical order of this theory) proove that you don't believe in God. If you don't believe in God it's safe to assume that the whole Christianity thing hasn't managed to convince you either. No God, no heaven, no hell.

However. You will be spending at least one of your future lives as a vacuum cleaner and one smartass will decide to name you Herbert.

OMG I named my vacume Hazel but not cos I think it is an entity, just cos it was a slow night and freezing outside and seemed like fun..am I going to hell?:eek:
No, you're not going to hell. You're just being silly. If you want to be silly, that's fine, but I wouldn't try berating other people because they don't want to name their vacuum cleaners or because they refuse to name their vacuum cleaner Hazel.

Flo is a good name for a vacuum..

'God,' or "god," or "gods"--have you ever seen "God"? If so, where and when, how tall was She and what did She weigh? What was her skin color? Did She have a belly button, and if so, why? Did She have breasts? For what purpose? How about organs of reproduction and of excretion-did She or didn't She?
(If you think I am making fun of the idea of a God fashioned in Man's image or vice versa, you have much to go on.)
I will agree that the notion of an anthropomorphic God went out of fashion some time ago with most professional godsmen...but that doesn't get us any nearer to defining the English spell-symbol "God." Let's consult fundamentalist preachers...because Episcopalians won't even let God into His sanctuary unless He shines His shoes and trims that awful beard...and Unitarians won't let Him in at all.
So let's listen to fundamentalists: "God is the Creator. He Created the World. The existence of the World proves that it was created; therefore there is a Creator. That Creator we call 'God.' Let us all bow down and worship Him, for He is Almighty and His works proclaim His might.
Will someone please page Dr. S. I. Hayakawa? Or, if he is busy, any student who received a B+ or better in Logic 101? I'm looking for someone able to discuss the fallacy of circular reasoning and also the concatenate process by which abstract words can be logically defined by building on concrete words. What is a "concrete" word? It is a spell-symbol used to tag something you can point to and thereby agree on, e.g. "cat", "sailboat," "ice-skating"-agree with such certainty that when you say "sailboat" there is no chance whatever that I will think you mean a furry quadruped with retractile claws.
With the spell-symbol "God" there is no way to achieve such agreement because there is nothing to point to. Circular reasoning can't get you out of this dilemma. Pointing to something (the physical world) and asserting that it has to have a Creator and this Creator necessarily has such-and-such attributes proves nothing save that you have certain assertions without proof. You have pointed at a physical thing, the physical world; you have asserted that this physical thing had to have a "Creator" (Who told you that? What's his mailing address? Who told him?). But to assert that something physical was created out of nothing-not even empty space- by a Thingamajig you can't point to is not to make a philosophical statement or any sort of statement, it is mere noise, amphigory, sound and fury signifying nothing"


i think this pretty well sums it up. although, the roman catholic church does not endorse the creation stories because they are physically impossible

I think the same reasons for not believing in God are the same for why people don't feel it is necessary to give names to their cars or their computers: they just are, they're not entities and see no reason to think of them as entities.
Problem with this is that the word "entity" (a being) has a few contexts, not the least of which is a thing that "is being." The word is used to distinguish a thing itself from the characteristics that a thing posesses that describe it. So for a red apple, "red" is the characteristic and "apple" is the entity. God, in this philosophy context, is very much an entity.

Problem with this is that the word "entity" (a being) has a few contexts, not the least of which is a thing that "is being." The word is used to distinguish a thing itself from the characteristics that a thing posesses that describe it. So for a red apple, "red" is the characteristic and "apple" is the entity. God, in this philosophy context, is very much an entity.

I think you may be onto something. Lack of belief in God may not be a denial of existence as much as it is failing to make a distinction. So here's the question: in what way is it beneficial to make a distinction between God and everything else?

I mean just plain die, the end. Other than Odin(I think), I don't think the rest of them do come back, and even Odin dies at Ragnorak. I think 1 or 2 of them survive Ragnorak, that's it. The rest are dead for good.

Actually, quite a few survive Ragnarok. Balder, Vili, Vali, Vidar (I think), Magni, some others...

ive got no serious problem with people not believing in god, but ive always wanted to ask why?

why do some people refuse to believe in the exhistence of god?

Because man invented god, not the other way around.

If god is omni-present. Then he could hang out anywhere. Porn shops, back alleys, drug houses, bedrooms. And he could be touching you up right now. That's why you feel so good but so dirty.

God is just an creation of mant to help him cope when he could not comprehend why. But instead of god dying out, it became a source of control for the Vatican.

I think you may be onto something. Lack of belief in God may not be a denial of existence as much as it is failing to make a distinction. So here's the question: in what way is it beneficial to make a distinction between God and everything else?
The same distinction is made by theists between god and everything else as between themselves and everything else. The same value can be had for "god" as that which gives us a sense or idea of "self".

Self is our being --to the spiritualist, our spiritual being. It is essentially a conceptual thing in that we can never know it directly, only the idea of it (in the same way a conscious mind cannot be conscious of itself). We cannot know it, we can only be it. Being immaterial, this entity of self is not the body; but, in the same way that immaterial "red" is a characteristic possessed by the material apple entity, the body, from the subjective perspective, can be seen as a material possession of the immaterial spirit entity. I am in being; but I have (posses) a body*.

A subjective perspective on the universe gives us this concept of self with the world all around us. The distinction between "self" and everything else --the material world around us, including our bodies --gives us conscious individuality. Spirit cannot be known. This is the supernatural: the immaterial above nature that cannot be known, only speculated about. God is not "everything else" material, and he/it is not our "self"; he/it a projected immaterial other (that which is immaterial being but not "self").

What is the benefit of having an immaterial "self", a conscious sense of individual being apart from the world around us? It's led to things like taking personal responsibility for wilful behavior, which has led to law and organized social structure. I see these as benefits. The concept of the immaterial self has shaped who we are, is present in our language and our ways of thinking about "ourselves", even if actual thinking about ourselves in terms of it has dropped from awareness (or popularity).

So what is the benefit of projecting an immaterial other being? It allows that the individual self does not have to be alone, it can share the quality of immaterial being with another. It can participate as a part (bios) with the other as a greater whole (zoe), as immaterial "self" does not have to be separated at all by space and time from immaterial "other". Spirit is not confined by the bounds of the material.



*And yes, the self can be identified with the body, but that's another philosophy.

-Completely undeserved snip-
Nicely put. However, couldn't it be equally argued that God plays the role of not so much the "Other" self but rather the "Expanded" self?

A subjective perspective separates identity from perceptual existence; that much is established. It doesn't take much to state then that the relationship between I and my World is governed by this sense of self.

However, this thing that is called God is also what governs reality. It is an "entity" that can influence the things that are perceived; that which exists "outside of the self".

Is it going too far to suggest that God is the true Superego to the Id of our own identities?

Nicely put.
Thanks. I'm grateful that someone read and appreciated it, because I missed taping Stargate: Atlantis just to get it upon the Web.

However, couldn't it be equally argued that God plays the role of not so much the "Other" self but rather the "Expanded" self?

A subjective perspective separates identity from perceptual existence; that much is established. It doesn't take much to state then that the relationship between I and my World is governed by this sense of self.
Well, the word "expanding" adds a concept of dimension where there is no concept of dimension to spirit. This is why I prefer "participation in the other"; it says the same thing, I think, and retains the "self" rather than chancing losing it in submersion.

The relationship is religion. We are the gover'na. That much we can know, to our own satisfaction...

However, this thing that is called God is also what governs reality.

It is an "entity" that can influence the things that are perceived; that which exists "outside of the self".
That much we cannot know. But if you want to speculatively extend the above analogy, god's relationship with existence is governed by god, and we are a part of existence. Therefore god is in relation to us, while we have our relationship to him/it.

Is it going too far to suggest that God is the true Superego to the Id of our own identities?
I'm only peripherally aware of Freud's terms. If I understand it correctly, though, Jews think so.

The same distinction is made by theists between god and everything else as between themselves and everything else. The same value can be had for "god" as that which gives us a sense or idea of "self".

Self is our being --to the spiritualist, our spiritual being. It is essentially a conceptual thing in that we can never know it directly, only the idea of it (in the same way a conscious mind cannot be conscious of itself). We cannot know it, we can only be it. Being immaterial, this entity of self is not the body; but, in the same way that immaterial "red" is a characteristic possessed by the material apple entity, the body, from the subjective perspective, can be seen as a material possession of the immaterial spirit entity. I am in being; but I have (posses) a body*.

A subjective perspective on the universe gives us this concept of self with the world all around us. The distinction between "self" and everything else --the material world around us, including our bodies --gives us conscious individuality. Spirit cannot be known. This is the supernatural: the immaterial above nature that cannot be known, only speculated about. God is not "everything else" material, and he/it is not our "self"; he/it a projected immaterial other (that which is immaterial being but not "self").

What is the benefit of having an immaterial "self", a conscious sense of individual being apart from the world around us? It's led to things like taking personal responsibility for wilful behavior, which has led to law and organized social structure. I see these as benefits. The concept of the immaterial self has shaped who we are, is present in our language and our ways of thinking about "ourselves", even if actual thinking about ourselves in terms of it has dropped from awareness (or popularity).

So what is the benefit of projecting an immaterial other being? It allows that the individual self does not have to be alone, it can share the quality of immaterial being with another. It can participate as a part (bios) with the other as a greater whole (zoe), as immaterial "self" does not have to be separated at all by space and time from immaterial "other". Spirit is not confined by the bounds of the material.



*And yes, the self can be identified with the body, but that's another philosophy.

Well, I don't think we're going to be seeing eye to eye anytime soon, but let's see how this goes:

Much what you explained about the self points out its liabilities, specifically feeling alone in the world and feeling separate from everything else. I would like to suggest that moving towards an understanding that eliminates the differences between self and the rest of the universe would be the cure for loneliness.

Actually, the apple you brought up is a good example of the nonsubstantial nature of all things. Apples appear red because of the interaction between light, the apples, and our eyes. Apples would not appear to be red in green light and they definitely would not appear to be red to someone that was color blind. If such is the case, red does not exist in any of the objects mentioned, but it exists as the result of the interaction of separate entities: light, the apple, and our eyes interacting under certain conditions.

Furthermore, apples are not material things. The reason that apples appear to exist is because of the relationship between the atoms and molecules that compose an apple. It's not the pieces that make up an apple, but the relation between those pieces, which transcends ideas like existence and non-existence.

So where does this leave self? In order to understand self, one would have to understand all the interactions involved in creating self as well as the interactions creating all the other entities involved in creating self. If one expands this line of thinking far enough, either the self doesn't exist or the self is everything and there would be no need to label it as self, since there is nothing to distinguish it from.

That brings us back to God. Either God would have to be everything, in which case there would be no need to make a distinction between Him and everything else, or God does not exist. For that matter, you could hold both ideas simultaneously, but that makes my head hurt.;)

Well, I don't think we're going to be seeing eye to eye anytime soon, but let's see how this goes:

Much what you explained about the self points out its liabilities, specifically feeling alone in the world and feeling separate from everything else. I would like to suggest that moving towards an understanding that eliminates the differences between self and the rest of the universe would be the cure for loneliness.
LOL. It's the only one I could think of at the time. Good catch, though.

Actually, the apple you brought up is a good example of the nonsubstantial nature of all things. Apples appear red because of the interaction between light, the apples, and our eyes. Apples would not appear to be red in green light and they definitely would not appear to be red to someone that was color blind. If such is the case, red does not exist in any of the objects mentioned, but it exists as the result of the interaction of separate entities: light, the apple, and our eyes interacting under certain conditions.
Not sure what you mean by "the nonsubstantial nature of all things". Red is immaterial as a characteristic; but material does exist, and it is substantial. Red is also material as a light wavelength.

"Exist" is defined a little different by the philosopher than folks in other circles. Immaterial red does exist, as a characteristic of the entity. A characteristic does not have existence materially, but it has existence. Height and width, for instance, exist. As a characteristic, even for the colour-blind person it is identified as "red" by the agent who attributes that characteristic (meaning) to the entity regardless of what actual light wave-lenths are being viewed.

That apples appear red to our eyes means that they are red, because we are the agents of meaning in the universe. Any reality they might have apart from us is essentially meaningless, something that some atheists delight in pointing out about the universe.

Furthermore, apples are not material things. The reason that apples appear to exist is because of the relationship between the atoms and molecules that compose an apple. It's not the pieces that make up an apple, but the relation between those pieces, which transcends ideas like existence and non-existence.
But, then, that is what material existence means.

Science might be constantly redefining what it means --it may not be the same meaning it had in yesteryear --but it still has meaning.

So where does this leave self? In order to understand self, one would have to understand all the interactions involved in creating self as well as the interactions creating all the other entities involved in creating self. If one expands this line of thinking far enough, either the self doesn't exist or the self is everything and there would be no need to label it as self, since there is nothing to distinguish it from.

That brings us back to God. Either God would have to be everything, in which case there would be no need to make a distinction between Him and everything else, or God does not exist. For that matter, you could hold both ideas simultaneously, but that makes my head hurt.;)
The interactions involved in creating self seem pretty simple to me. We have consciousness (awareness of the world around us). That's all it takes. You are looking for material existence for the self*? It doesn't have that --it is immaterial, and all we can know of it is the conceptual idea of it. We cannot know it actually exists, and it's better this way. The concept of self does not support actual reality, but it does support the reality of our existence, human existence, that being that we interact with the world from the subjective perspective of a conscious mind.

God is immaterial, too. It doesn't matter if the immaterial exists materially --not to the atheist and not to the theist. The concept of the immaterial works for the theist, and can be safely ignored by the atheist.



*the philosophy of the materialist.

And how do you know she wasn't just helping them out a little? It's rather difficult to prove non-existence....:D
I suppose there is the microscopically small chance of that.

While it may be impossible to 100% prove their nonexistence, I considered what I saw to be "sufficient" proof. Or what would be called circumstantial evidence. There seems to be more circumstantial evidence against Santa's existence than there is in favor.

As for God's existence, I can see the logic of the Athiest arguments. But, my switch is still in the "faith" position. This does indeed create the clanging of cognitive dissonance!

Actually, quite a few survive Ragnarok. Balder, Vili, Vali, Vidar (I think), Magni, some others...

*cough* it would be rather hard for balder to survive.. the dudes already dead..

And on the subject of why god exists:

At the birth man looked within himself and saw completion but for the oblivian hole the unknown which he feared, so what did man do? he summoned phantoms to cover his sight, to make him blind to the hole in his mind, but then man grew and the hole grew smaller and yet he saw it bottomless, and yet the fear vanished for curiosity is in truth a force worth reckoning and so man wished to see the hole once more, that he might understand that which he had feared, open his commands the phantoms left him and there before him were oblivian no longer need he hide for phantoms he worship no more.

No god is dead, Knowledge is the deity of moderne time.

Isn't this thread dead yet?

*cough* it would be rather hard for balder to survive.. the dudes already dead..

And on the subject of why god exists:

At the birth man looked within himself and saw completion but for the oblivian hole the unknown which he feared, so what did man do? he summoned phantoms to cover his sight, to make him blind to the hole in his mind, but then man grew and the hole grew smaller and yet he saw it bottomless, and yet the fear vanished for curiosity is in truth a force worth reckoning and so man wished to see the hole once more, that he might understand that which he had feared, open his commands the phantoms left him and there before him were oblivian no longer need he hide for phantoms he worship no more.

No god is dead, Knowledge is the deity of moderne time.
Fear is not the hole that is oblivion; fear is something, not nothing. It can be used to great benefit, even.

Isn't this thread dead yet?
Hey, neat. You posted that 3 days ago. So the thread rose on the third day. ^_^

Hey, neat. You posted that 3 days ago. So the thread rose on the third day. ^_^

*attributes some miracles to the thread and starts a monothreadist religion based on its teachings*

*attributes some miracles to the thread and starts a monothreadist religion based on its teachings*
*Attributes a divine revelatory thread experience and a backstory of a previous life of evil to you and claims that you were only doing what the thread told you to do, thereby validating your claims and making people forget you made up the whole thing*

The reason for Gods' rise (yes plural) in the minds of men was to explain what could not be explained. We have ways of explaining and understanding things now which preclude the need for Gods.

I know that faith gives a lot of comfort to a lot of people, but I also know that it can block knowledge from entering the mind for fear of losing the faith. In that way it's very dangerous. It can also be dangerous when people use faith to co-erce people into doing things (which we see with every faith which springs to mind).

Religion is the opiate of the people, as Marx is quoted as saying, in these days it seems to be more a crack cocaine. I have known precious few poppie-heads who have gone all, well, medieval on so many asses.

It can also be dangerous when people use faith to co-erce people into doing things (which we see with every faith which springs to mind).
People do that with all forms of information. It's not unique to theological philosophy.

People do that with all forms of information. It's not unique to theological philosophy.

True, but it is something for which religion/faith has proved most usefull. It's also a little different than using something else since with religion/faith, you play on so many hopes and deep fears (many not even articulable) when you use it as the lever. I mean, "Wash your hands, there are germs which can kill you" can be proven beneficial, while many (even begneign, I'm not talking suicide bombers here, that would be apples and oranges) edicts from religious leaders are not so easily provable. (Yah, easy easy germ theory!)

The misuse of science, I will not deny, can be very dangerous (I'm thinking of eugenics in particular right this minute) indeed.

But religion/faith has the advantage in that understanding by the layman is not only not necessary, it is often discouraged (witness the lack of scripture in the vulgate for centuries). There's a huge difference between "Because God says" and "because some germs are going to make you sick". The first discourages, if not outright forbids, further discussion. The second one you can say "prove it", and it can be proven. Then you wash your hands.