NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm simply mocking you.

Ah, but so was I.

Arguing with you stops being funny after the third or fourth post, so I'll stop now.

Because non-existence means that there is no being.

I agree. Now explain to me how you can arrive at this conclusion without taking a premise on faith - assuming, anyway, that it is your position that this is possible.

Context #3 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0304696.html) in the dictionary. :)

Huh. Haven't seen it used that way before.

Regardless, there's a difference between faith and acceptance. The latter requires evidence. The former does not, and arguably precludes it.

Huh. Haven't seen it used that way before.

Regardless, there's a difference between faith and acceptance. The latter requires evidence. The former does not, and arguably precludes it. Faith requires belief, and that requires evidence.

For instance, if I have faith that your genes actually dictate your beliefs then it is based on information, which is evidence.

Faith requires belief, and that requires evidence.

For instance, if I have faith that your genes actually dictate your beliefs then it is based on information, which is evidence.

Assuming you believe the evidence, which is an act of faith. *nod*

I agree. Now explain to me how you can arrive at this conclusion without taking a premise on faith - assuming, anyway, that it is your position that this is possible.
It is ENTIRELY taken on faith --I must have missed an earlier part of the conversation. :) Oops!

"Existence exists" is an axiom.

Faith requires belief, and that requires evidence.

Which means that there is actually evidence that Xenu stuffed volcanoes full of aliens and detonated hydrogen bombs in them. Or faith does not require evidence. Your pick.

It is ENTIRELY taken on faith

Then we agree.

I must have missed an earlier part of the conversation. :)

BAAWA was trying to justify axioms independently of faith. I was arguing that this was impossible.

Which means that there is actually evidence that Xenu stuffed volcanoes full of aliens and detonated hydrogen bombs in them. Or faith does not require evidence. Your pick. Well, you have the story. That is evidence, actual evidence.

Of course, I know you were talking about something else. ;)

Information, however tenuous, is sufficient evidence upon which to make a belief. If I told you Bush walked his dog this morning, you might believe it (whether or not he has a dog, I don't know). There must be some information-type evidence before belief is possible.

Faith happens when the information cannot be verified (not just "isn't verified," but that there is no way to verify it). The Xenu story, as fiction taken for reality, cannot be verified, so belief in it would be on faith. The Bush story can be verified, so it doesn't require faith.

BAAWA was trying to justify axioms independently of faith. I was arguing that this was impossible. Well done, man!

We cannot verify axioms.

I love when people feel smart.

In Jesuites people are not clever.
It's the reason why, like in many countries of your small planet we made Faith a compulsory Axiom edict ed by the High Priest, myself.

Proud citizen of Jesuites obey to the Law, then they believe in the great god I invented for them.
Difficult task, I have to re-write lotta part of the Scriptures to make my people happy.

But never, yes NEVER I will allow a false debate about the possibility of a deity. How could we imagine what a deity is with our little brains?

Sometimes I wonder how much clever is the people of the planet where such a smart forum discuss of the essence of a deity...
They must be kinda god themselves, maybe

Well, you have the story. That is evidence, actual evidence.

Of course, I know you were talking about something else. ;)

Information, however tenuous, is sufficient evidence upon which to make a belief. If I told you Bush walked his dog this morning, you might believe it (whether or not he has a dog, I don't know). There must be some information-type evidence before belief is possible.

Faith happens when the information cannot be verified (not just "isn't verified," but that there is no way to verify it). The Xenu story, as fiction taken for reality, cannot be verified, so belief in it would be on faith. The Bush story can be verified, so it doesn't require faith.

And now you understand what I was talking about.

And now you understand what I was talking about. Of course, you realise that I was saying that I don't believe that genes actually dictate beliefs. ;) But that's a conversation for another thread.

Ahh the first page is so retarded.

Of course, you realise that I was saying that I don't believe that genes actually dictate beliefs. ;) But that's a conversation for another thread.

They don't, of course. But there is a gene that allows one to take things on faith. It's not something that anyone could have expected, but it's there.

They don't, of course. But there is a gene that allows one to take things on faith. It's not something that anyone could have expected, but it's there.
I'll have to take it on faith that that's so. ;)

What I mean is, just because that is a result of poking away at the gene (or whatever they do to figure it) doesn't mean that that's what the gene is for.

What something does and what something is about are two different things.

One, I see no evidence that there is a God. So logically, there may be, or there may not be. In that case, there's no point on relying on a God in life. So he makes no difference to my day-to-day activities.

Secondly, if there is a God, why should I worship him? Because he LOVES me? Yeah. If the 'good book' is true, then God also does some pretty unloving things as well as the examples given. Then it's reasonable to conclude that God loves some and does not love others. There's not a love I've come across where you strike people down dead for lying to you, or you turn people into pillars of salt. Of course, the times have changed, and in ancient ages it may have been acceptable to kill someone for lying, the same way it was expected of Roman generals to fall on their swords when they screwed up big time, but that just distances us from recorded God-believing doctrine further.

Regardless of whether we're talking about the Christian God or not, should I worship God because if I don't, he'll "punish me" by sending to me to a "Hell" after I die? Does God decide to choose what's right and wrong just because 1) He's "God," and 2) He has the power to affect my well-being if he disagrees with me? You can't just say "JUST because he's 'God,' he's better than me. He decides what's right and wrong for me, and he punishes me if I don't comply." That makes no sense, and it's like giving up your own ideals and thoughts for... for what? Just so you can ensure to hope to go to a pretty place when you die? So you can suck up to God enough to get into 'heaven?' So you can feel part of a community of people who are happy enough to think that they're right on track, and they're all doing morally OK in life? It all reeks of the largest stinking pile of insecurity I've ever smelt. I don't need religion to be happy, and I feel sorry for the people who do.

There's also the standard answers about evolution (that's correctly interpreted evolution, not evolution being taught to you by a guy in a robe who hates it anyway) being scientifically acceptable and creation theory not being so, and other similar contrasts between proved science and the Bible.

I guess you could say, that if there IS a deity, *a* God, for certain, then it's reasonable to say that he's not the traditional Christian God. And for the reasons above, I don't think I should be, or that there's any point in, worshiping him.

So I really don't give a crap if he exists or not.

Ah, but so was I.
That presumes that there was something of mine to mock; there wasn't.


I agree. Now explain to me how you can arrive at this conclusion without taking a premise on faith
Easy: no premise is taken on faith. Existence is axiomatic.

Silly epistemological nihilist.

BAAWA was trying to justify axioms independently of faith. I was arguing that this was impossible.
Except that it isn't impossible.

I apologize in advance for I have not read the entire discussion.
But I'll answer the first question of this thread.

Who said that because we do not believe in a theological entity that we do not have faith? I have faith in my abilities, in what I know, in what I precieve, in my friends....
That's the fun with that word... in this day and age, you can take it outside of the box and use it on a variety of subjects.

And as for being agnostic, It's the best thing ever... it's the theological equivalent of " I don't know"...

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I think in general they view the question from the other side. The more rational and fundamental question is what causes something to be the case. If you don't have the answer to that, then you can't understand the answer to why it isn't the case in other places.

This is the case with questions of faith, of history, of physics.

An athiest thinks "why should I have faith?" "Can't think of a single reason. Haven't heard a single reason from someone who does have faith."

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Well I just see no evidence. I am a man of Science. I need proof dammit! I went to catholic junior school and Sunday school as a kid (religious school). I spent a few years at these places, but never believed in any of it, at any point in my life.

I see religion as a form of control and I don't like it.

I just find it absurd that the natural things in life are considered evil under many religious laws.

No, the abuses of and overindulgence in the natural things in life are.

Well I just see no evidence. I am a man of Science. I need proof dammit! I went to catholic junior school and Sunday school as a kid (religious school). I spent a few years at these places, but never believed in any of it, at any point in my life.

I see religion as a form of control and I don't like it.

Can't your desire for proof be considered a form of scientific control? You only believe what you see, which thus prevents you from venturing into something you don't know? To my knowledge, this is how man--and science--have progressed. By leaving their comfort zones and holding onto the possibility that there might be something out there--sometimes with expectations, and not finding those expectations met, finding something else that is not what was expected. How can you expect to find something if you always require proof that it first exists? Its not what you are looking for--or rather, what you think you are looking for--that is really important, after all.

No, the abuses of and overindulgence in the natural things in life are.

Which is why various religions frown of homosexuality. No, wait, that doesn't follow from what you said.

Which is why various religions frown of homosexuality. No, wait, that doesn't follow from what you said.

This first assumes that homosexuality is natural. If this is the case, then it is one exception. I stated the rule, I can go into the reasons why, and you stated the exception. The rule, as such, still stands.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

As a student of history, I find that organized religion, any form of organized religion, does more harm than good. Any religion's initial message, as well as its cause, was surely quite righteous, I grant you. But you can't expect that message to remain as pristine as it originally was after centuries of being controlled by people who, after all, were only human.

If you equate being a member of a particular religion with having faith (and I don't) then that is why I am agnostic.

Can't your desire for proof be considered a form of scientific control? You only believe what you see, which thus prevents you from venturing into something you don't know? To my knowledge, this is how man--and science--have progressed. By leaving their comfort zones and holding onto the possibility that there might be something out there--sometimes with expectations, and not finding those expectations met, finding something else that is not what was expected. How can you expect to find something if you always require proof that it first exists? Its not what you are looking for--or rather, what you think you are looking for--that is really important, after all.

Maybe, but the scientific bit is a self chosen control. I'm fine with people who choose a religion, but people who grow up like it, indoctrinated because their whole family is of that religion I see as effectively brainwashed. I believe children should be made aware of more possibilities out there that just the one religion.

On another note. I don't need existing proof for something always, but a means to prove it somehow. Maybe I'm happy existing in a comfort zone where everything is as black and white as possible. I accept there's many things out there that I have no understanding and control over.

Why *SHOULD* we have faith? What good is it? Answer: none. It does no good whatsoever. It's not valid epistemologically, nor is it good psychologically. The use of it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

It has been shown that religious people live longer...

Maybe not the best source, but it's what Google gave me. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html)

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

when I was 7 and going to Church school I asked why does God let good people die? no answer. Why does God let bad people hurt others? no answer. that was the start and I kept asking questions and getting no answers.

Now that I'm an adult it's far easier to believe in science and the provable logic of evolution, than a concept of an invisible being which is no more believable than the tooth fairy and the easter bunny.

It has been shown that religious people live longer...

Maybe not the best source, but it's what Google gave me. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html)

Hm, does this prove anything?

There are several scientific explanations for this. That doesn't mean that religious people are blessed by god, or that these bloody heathens are striked by lightnings more often.

If I lie, God should strike me down!

*Ouch*

;)

when I was 7 and going to Church school I asked why does God let good people die? no answer. Why does God let bad people hurt others? no answer. that was the start and I kept asking questions and getting no answers.

Now that I'm an adult it's far easier to believe in science and the provable logic of evolution, than a concept of an invisible being which is no more believable than the tooth fairy and the easter bunny.

You don't belive in the easter bunny? You'll burn in hell for this!

(I remember one posting there the writer showed it would be the best tactic to belive in the easter bunny. ;) )

It has been shown that religious people live longer...
And right-handers live longer than left-handers. But I don't see anyone touting that we should all be right-handed.

There are also studies which show that there's no measurable effect whatsoever for prayer over people wrt actually getting better. Prayer, of course, being the faith that the universe will be changed just for you if you ask god to make it so.


Maybe not the best source, but it's what Google gave me. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html)
It's not a valid source at all, honestly.

Im an agnostic.

I believe in science and it conflicts whith religion in many ways. If a scientific theory is to be accepted, it shouldnt matter how many times you perform an experiment, the outcome should be the same every time. Religions dont work that way, noone can "proove" that their religion is the right one because there is no proof. How come there are so many religions if one religion was the correct one? You dont really have hundreds of explanations of gravity dont you?

I'll never be religious just because all the overwelming evidence against it. I can't just close my eyes for them. But I must admit that I was religious many years ago but those days are gone.

This first assumes that homosexuality is natural. If this is the case, then it is one exception. I stated the rule, I can go into the reasons why, and you stated the exception. The rule, as such, still stands.

No, it doesn't. Exceptions don't prove rules. Exceptions disprove rules. If an exception to your stated rule is shown then you must explain why the rule still stands despite the exception.

Religions claim the right to control sexuality because they claim the right to control everything that they possibly can. If their justification for their right to control sexuality runs into problems with granting permission for homosexuality, then they simply ban homosexuality. It has nothing to do with abuse, it has to do with political power.

I just don't see the evidence, myself. Why believe in something if there is no evidence that it is so?

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Nothing 'keeps' me from having faith - except a lack of faith.

I don't know why we argue a special exception for religion - I don't have 'faith' in goblins, ghosts, magical pixies, talking pigs, fairies, aliens, Bigfoot or Pacman, either...

What is unknowable cannot be known, and as such I do not know. Frankly I'm sick of people claiming to know the unknowable. Faith in assumption is rediculus.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I'm curious too ;) , tho I've been curious long enough to have satisfied myself re: this issue. I do have faith, but not in anything that seems pretty well made up, however long ago. The difference between myth and religion is no one actively supports myth as true. I have faith in intellectual curiosity and the scientific method.

Easy: no premise is taken on faith. Existence is axiomatic.

Silly epistemological nihilist.
Ah! You're simply saying that the axiom is not a premise.

It seems to me that people cannot deal with the fact that there might actually be nothing after death and that they need something to believe in.

"ignorance is bliss" right?

Yet then again lets think back to the beginning of the universe... Big Bang. Im not entirely clear on what started it and what was there before... also
where does the universe end? What lie beyond that border? or is the universe infinite? Well i dont know how to enterpret that.

God would be a wonderful thing to believe in but there seems to be so much wrong with every religion... My main issue is that humans made up god. We know there were different gods before Jesus and his dad, why dont they exist anymore? hmm... I used to be an atheist but lately ive been thinking.. There are soo many things that we'll never know, that are unexplained... Well maybe its better not knowing some things... that always leaves room for hope and thats what keeps most of us going through the blinck of our existence.

Ah! You're simply saying that the axiom is not a premise.
I don't believe that's what I said.

It seems to me that people cannot deal with the fact that there might actually be nothing after death and that they need something to believe in.

"ignorance is bliss" right?

Yet then again lets think back to the beginning of the universe... Big Bang. Im not entirely clear on what started it and what was there before... also
where does the universe end? What lie beyond that border? or is the universe infinite? Well i dont know how to enterpret that.

God would be a wonderful thing to believe in but there seems to be so much wrong with every religion... My main issue is that humans made up god. We know there were different gods before Jesus and his dad, why dont they exist anymore? hmm... I used to be an atheist but lately ive been thinking.. There are soo many things that we'll never know, that are unexplained... Well maybe its better not knowing some things... that always leaves room for hope and thats what keeps most of us going through the blinck of our existence.

:sniper: :gundge: :mp5:



Fixed

I respect you atheists most of the time(not including the activists and other people like that) but if you don't look for proof, you'll never find it and you'll continue living you lives until you die (than you'll burn in hell but whatever) if you want proof, look at history most of what is in the bible (stories, cities, and such) has been proven so, have you ever seen a book that is true to most extents but all underlying meaning is not true (don't even start about historical fiction, its different) the accuracy of the accounts in the bible is your proof that god exsists and hell, (no pun intended) if you choose to ignore that and all of the other obvious things that back up gods existence someone came up with this for a reason and it's simple. if a person has no morals or doesn't believe in anything than there is a very small chance that he (or she *grumble* stupid feminists) is going to be a respectable person or, not having believed anything, respecting of other peoples beliefs. so you ask "whats the point?" I ask "what the hell isn't the point!!!"

this rant is not over!!!

I would rather believe and be wrong than not and be right

god have mercy on your pitiful souls

I gues I don't feel there is enough proof. My preferd flavour is the mathamtical type. you can trust that proof.

I respect you atheists most of the time(not including the activists and other people like that) but if you don't look for proof, you'll never find it and you'll continue living you lives until you die (than you'll burn in hell but whatever) if you want proof, look at history most of what is in the bible (stories, cities, and such) has been proven so, have you ever seen a book that is true to most extents but all underlying meaning is not true (don't even start about historical fiction, its different) the accuracy of the accounts in the bible is your proof that god exsists and hell, (no pun intended) if you choose to ignore that and all of the other obvious things that back up gods existence someone came up with this for a reason and it's simple. if a person has no morals or doesn't believe in anything than there is a very small chance that he (or she *grumble* stupid feminists) is going to be a respectable person or, not having believed anything, respecting of other peoples beliefs. so you ask "whats the point?" I ask "what the hell isn't the point!!!"

this rant is not over!!!

I've looked for proof.

Not found it.

And any god that would send me to hell for not believing is not worthy of my worship.

as I said If you do not look for proof you will never find it

as I said If you do not look for proof you will never find it

But I have looked.

I've still not found it.

Trilby63;12065629']But I have looked.

I've still not found it.

Have you checked behind the sofa?

Trilby63;12065609']I've looked for proof.

Not found it.

And any god that would send me to hell for not believing is not worthy of my worship.

Seconded, I've never understood why scriptures are always so big on worshipping God anyway you would think he/she would be beyond that kind of ego stroking.

I've looked for proof but haven't found it

you miss my point

and that second statement about hell must have been written by an idiot.
thats like saying that you don't deserve to get an F in a class if you didn't do any work

Have you checked behind the sofa?

I'm afraid to go behind the sofa.

Spiders, you know?

Anyway, I doubt anything behind my sofa could make me believe in God.

Now a Goddess on the other hand.. maybe..

Perhaps a Goddess who looks hot even with a dagger in her bussom and who only gets annoyed when hotdog buns are consumed..

you miss my point

Which was?

I have faith.

I have faith that there is no god.

Trilby63;12065664']Which was?

err wow, I overestimated you.

I'm disappointed

err wow, I overestimated you.

I'm disappointed

I'm sure we can do without cheap shots at people's intelects

What was your point?

I'm sure we can do without cheap shots at people's intelects

What was your point?

Indeed.

I'm sure we can do without cheap shots at people's intelects

What was your point?

do I really have to explain it to you?

btw, you misspelled intellect (ironic eh [no, that was not an insult])

If you don't want to find something you won't

its simple

physically looking for something and actually trying to find something are two completely different things

P.S. it was not a cheap shot or an insult, just a proof of theory

Trilby63;12065659’]Perhaps a Goddess who looks hot even with a dagger in her bussom and who only gets annoyed when hotdog buns are consumed..
Don’t you dare Partake of Hot Dog Buns! And always Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday.

And Never, Ever, Believe what You read.

do I really have to explain it to you?
physically looking for something and actually trying to find something are two completely different things


looking for != trying to find?

do I really have to explain it to you?

btw, you misspelled intellect (ironic eh [no, that was not an insult])

If you don't want to find something you won't

its simple

physically looking for something and actually trying to find something are two completely different things

You're wrong.

I'd love to have faith. I'd love to have the certainty and that belief that whatever happens it'll all be good in the end that comes with it. I envy thiests but no matter how hard I try faith eludes me.

Don’t you dare Partake of Hot Dog Buns! And always Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday.

And Never, Ever, Believe what You read.

You know, Friday is the only day in which I'm not a discordian. Do you have any idea of how much of a hassle it would be to actually go out and find a place that sells hotdogs? I live in a small lincolnshire town. Hotdog demand is quite low here.

looking for != trying to find?

ahh! back to the school metaphor, if you are told to do an assignment that you think is extra credit and you don't think you need to do you wouldn't do it, but as the teachers pet who is known to turn people in for not doing their work walks by what'll you do? you look in the index of the book long enough for him to leave you alone

I do realize that this is not a great metaphor but its the best I can think of right now

which according to my theory (its really just simple psychology) there is no reason arguing with you guys anyway, but what the hell!

you miss my point

and that second statement about hell must have been written by an idiot.
thats like saying that you don't deserve to get an F in a class if you didn't do any work

Back up one goddamn second here. I want to know, are you saying that simply because we don't necessarily believe in God that we're going to hell? What a lovely frickin attitude you have there, that God would be so petty minded that he'd look at a good life and say nope you're going to hell just cause ya didn't believe in me, all those good deeds mean jack.

ahh! back to the school metaphor, if you are told to do an assignment that you think is extra credit and you don't think you need to do you wouldn't do it, but as the teachers pet who is known to turn people in for not doing their work walks by what'll you do? you look in the index of the book long enough for him to leave you alone

I do realize that this is not a great metaphor but its the best I can think of right now

1) It depends on the subject. If it were for one of the sciences then I would do it.

2) I am that teacher's pet.

Trilby63;12065746’]You know, Friday is the only day in which I’m not a discordian. Do you have any idea of how much of a hassle it would be to actually go out and find a place that sells hotdogs? I live in a small lincolnshire town. Hotdog demand is quite low here.
Ahh, I’m just entranced by the majesty and beauty of Eris and all her chaos.

Ahh, I’m just entranced by the majesty and beauty of Eris and all her chaos.

Well exactly.. What do hotdogs matter when confronted with Her glory?

Back up one goddamn second here. I want to know, are you saying that simply because we don't necessarily believe in God that we're going to hell? What a lovely frickin attitude you have there, that God would be so petty minded that he'd look at a good life and say nope you're going to hell just cause ya didn't believe in me, all those good deeds mean jack.

well, mr. panda I do realize that I have a bad attitude about these things, but your angry atheist friends have force theists like me to take a defensive stand.

but as for an explanation, why are you such are good person? riddle me that panda! and yes this is an important question

I'd love to have faith. I'd love to have the certainty and that belief that whatever happens it'll all be good in the end that comes with it. I envy thiests but no matter how hard I try faith eludes me.

no, your wrong, if you wanted so bad to believe, then you would. even scientifically speaking and using your arguments against you, if you need a god, you will find one, or invent one but really, you are lying

no, your wrong, if you wanted so bad to believe, then you would. even scientifically speaking and using your arguments against you, if you need a god, you will find one, or invent one but really, you are lying

That's a little harsh, ain't it?

First the attacks against my intelligence and now the accusations that I'm lying? You don't even know me!

your angry atheist friends have force theists like me to take a defensive stand.


What have I done to to disolusion you so?

Trilby63;12065817']That's a little harsh, ain't it?

First the attacks against my intelligence and now the accusations that I'm lying? You don't even know me!

that was not an insult I just expected people to get it faster, I should have explained it from the beginning and about the lying I'm not really sure what to think because it is not completely on purpose

What have I done to to disolusion you so?
I was making a generalization

that was not an insult I just expected people to get it faster, I should have explained it from the beginning and about the lying I'm not really sure what to think because it is not completely on purpose

I'm not lying, okay?

I can't just click my fingers and change what is a very substantial part of who I am. What evidence I've seen is not enough to convince me either way. Though, saying that, I'm sure if there's a god out there he'd understand that.

Trilby63;12065856']I'm not lying, okay?

I can't just click my fingers and change what is a very substantial part of who I am. What evidence I've seen is not enough to convince me either way. Though, saying that, I'm sure if there's a god out there he'd understand that.

he would, but he would also realize that you could have tried harder, If you believe that there is a god then ok but if you don't then you don't you can't stand on both sides of the fence

Revelation 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other. So, because you are luke warm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Faith in what? You've got to be more specific than that. For instance, I have faith that whoever George Bush selects to do a job will do that job badly. Does that count?

he would, but he would also realize that you could have tried harder, If you believe that there is a god then ok but if you don't then you don't you can't stand on both sides of the fence

Revelation 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other. So, because you are luke warm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

I'm not on both sides of the fence. I'm on the fence itself and it's not comfortable.

Anyway, why is faith more important than deeds?

Trilby63;12065915']I'm not on both sides of the fence. I'm on the fence itself and it's not comfortable.

Anyway, why is faith more important than deeds?

because if you do a good thing for the wrong reason, maybe it wasn't such a good thing to do in the first place

because if you do a good thing for the wrong reason, maybe it wasn't such a good thing to do in the first place

It is still good.

if you want proof, look at history most of what is in the bible (stories, cities, and such) has been proven so, have you ever seen a book that is true to most extents but all underlying meaning is not true (don't even start about historical fiction, its different) the accuracy of the accounts in the bible is your proof that god exsists and hell, (no pun intended) if you choose to ignore that and all of the other obvious things that back up gods existence someone came up with this for a reason
this rant is not over!!!

I would rather believe and be wrong than not and be right

god have mercy on your pitiful souls

*snipped for size*

no ninja, the stories of the bible have not been proven. many of them are patently false, absurd, borrowed from others or just too stupid to be believed.

aside from a few basics like "there was an egypt" and "there was a jerusalem" which lead no one to any kind of faith, the "good parts" are utterly unproven from adam to jesus.

because if you do a good thing for the wrong reason, maybe it wasn't such a good thing to do in the first place

What wrong reason? The only wrong reason I can see for doing a good deed is for a reward like, oh I don't know, entry into the kingdom of heaven for example?

I'm not perfect but I like to treat people how I would like to be treated and I don't expect to be rewarded for it and I certainly don't expect to be punished for it.

ahh! back to the school metaphor, if you are told to do an assignment that you think is extra credit and you don't think you need to do you wouldn't do it, but as the teachers pet who is known to turn people in for not doing their work walks by what'll you do? you look in the index of the book long enough for him to leave you alone

I do realize that this is not a great metaphor but its the best I can think of right now

which according to my theory (its really just simple psychology) there is no reason arguing with you guys anyway, but what the hell!

HEY its extra credit! if that bitch turns me in, she's the one who is going to look like a fool. its none of her business anyway, i might just kick her ass after school.

It is still good.

but god also knows your intentions and if they aren't...

an example

if you start being really nice to a girl (assuming you're a guy) just because you want her *ahem* in your bed, then were you really doing it for the right reason? and does it still count as a good deed after all is said and done?

but god also knows your intentions and if they aren't...

an example

if you start being really nice to a girl (assuming you're a guy) just because you want her *ahem* in your bed, then were you really doing it for the right reason? and does it still count as a good deed after all is said and done?

That's a little unfair.

I can't talk to a girl without wanting her in my bed.

Come now. Play fair.

Trilby63;12065991']That's a little unfair.

I can't talk to a girl without wanting her in my bed.

Come now. Play fair.

its not like girls can resist your worminess anyway. you hardly have to be nice.

Trilby63;12065991']That's a little unfair.

I can't talk to a girl without wanting her in my bed.

Come now. Play fair.

wow I don't know what to say for the first time in this conversation...


no comment

as I said If you do not look for proof you will never find it

It's going to take a heck of a lot more than a trite comment like this to make me spend the rest of my days looking for something that doesn't exist. Just because you're delusional doesn't mean you get to try to convince me to be delusional with you, okay?

You want me to start believing in God, show me a burning bush with a voice coming out it. Or a burning ring of firey teeth in the sky. Or a whole town of women who have flat skulls, no teeth and stand three feet tall and love guys named Clay who have bad hair and like to build model airplanes. THEN I might be willing to listen. Until then it's a fairytale made up so you can get to sleep at night, because you're genetically wired to be afraid, BECAUSE YOU R ANCESTORS WERE PREY ANIMALS.

but god also knows your intentions and if they aren't...


You assume that I belive in some pervasive moral autority that has the power to strike me to oblivion for not following its desired moral code.


an example

if you start being really nice to a girl (assuming you're a guy) just because you want her *ahem* in your bed, then were you really doing it for the right reason? and does it still count as a good deed after all is said and done?

I would like to belive, oh Ford unproven faith, that I have suficent moral fibre, that's my morals, not to do somthing like that.

But I digress it was a good example. good job.

Well from my agnostic viewpoint lets consider the ten commandments for a starter over half of them can be obeyed by any non believer. Taking joy in what you have in your life and feeling no desire to take what belongs to others though you will happily earn your own equivalent where you can that covers the coveting neighbours ass. Don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't bear false witness and honour your parents. Easy enough to do and by old testament standards you're living a pretty good life.

It gets even easier when we go new testament and consider Jesus all he really wanted us to do was love one another and do unto others as we wished to have done unto us. Take violence of any kind as a last resort, help your fellow man or woman whenever you are able, give to charity think about the world around you and whatever little things you can do to make it a better place. This is what I would define as good as would the majority of humanity.

Now me I'm not a good guy I know that and don't deny it I simply do what I feel to be right at the time. I'll also let you in on something here your position makes the angry atheists laugh, you're winning their fight for them. When you step into the gutter to fight you get dirty too, accept that they might not come to share your belief in God but serve as an example of how to live instead and when they try to deny your beliefs ask them when we lost the right to believe in what we want to.

And also shut up with "if we wanted to we'd find it", faith is not something you find in a shop it comes from within, it can't be forced and your babble only lessens the value and beauty of true faith.

wow I don't know what to say for the first time in this conversation...


no comment

What? No one is immune to lustful thoughts.

And I may have been exaggerating a little.

Can you honestly say that at least 50% of what you do is free from selfishness? I don't think anyone can.

I'm becoming surrounded, too many of you!!!

I need some backup

I can't argue with all of you at once

what the hell, I'll try

Well from my agnostic viewpoint lets consider the ten commandments for a starter over half of them can be obeyed by any non believer

what about the other half, eh?

You assume that I belive in some pervasive moral autority that has the power to strike me to oblivion for not following its desired moral code.

I don't assume anything about your beliefs except that if you're talking to me in this conversation than you don't believe in god, so, no I don't

and thanks for the complement, I try

It's going to take a heck of a lot more than a trite comment like this to make me spend the rest of my days looking for something that doesn't exist. Just because you're delusional doesn't mean you get to try to convince me to be delusional with you, okay?

You want me to start believing in God, show me a burning bush with a voice coming out it. Or a burning ring of firey teeth in the sky. Or a whole town of women who have flat skulls, no teeth and stand three feet tall and love guys named Clay who have bad hair and like to build model airplanes. THEN I might be willing to listen. Until then it's a fairytale made up so you can get to sleep at night, because you're genetically wired to be afraid, BECAUSE YOU R ANCESTORS WERE PREY ANIMALS.

ahh, well, besides just having to say, I forgive you for all of those blatant an uninformed insults. that burning bush thing sort of happened almost every religion and some nonreligious reports from the time confirm it. and I don't quite see where you're coming from with the short toothless ladies, but I'm sure you'll find some people that desperate in Africa that fit that description.
also, oh great master of intelligent arguments, if my ancestors were prey animals, according to Darwin, they were either the smartest damn lemming to ever cross the earth or they would have died off so unless dead animals can carry on bloodlines, I'll stick with intelligent design, thank you

whew, that was a lot of typing

Trilby63;12066049']What? No one is immune to lustful thoughts.

And I may have been exaggerating a little.

Can you honestly say that at least 50% of what you do is free from selfishness? I don't think anyone can.

no, I am not immaculate but the way you said all of the women you meet, god. I was kidding, ok

Until then it's a fairytale made up so you can get to sleep at night, because you're genetically wired to be afraid, BECAUSE YOU R ANCESTORS WERE PREY ANIMALS.

I don't believe in God because I fear him, I believe in God because I want to. Thus, that assertion is wrong.

And my ancestors weren't prey animals, they were photosynthetic algae.

ahh, well, besides just having to say, I forgive you for all of those blatant an uninformed insults. that burning bush thing sort of happened almost every religion and some nonreligious reports from the time confirm it. and I don’t quite see where you’re coming from with the short toothless ladies, but I’m sure you’ll find some people that desperate in Africa that fit that description.
also, oh great master of intelligent arguments, if my ancestors were prey animals, according to Darwin, they were either the smartest damn lemming to ever cross the earth or they would have died off so unless dead animals can carry on bloodlines, I’ll stick with intelligent design, thank you
Prey animals as in animals that weren’t top of the food chain.

Oh, and to quote my favourite songsmith: “that ain’t no god
it’s just a burning bush.”

no, I am not immaculate but the way you said all of the women you meet, god. I was kidding, ok

When I meet them, yes.

But then I get to know them and then maybe I only want to sleep with 90-95%..

Trilby63;12066141']When I meet them, yes.

But then I get to know them and then maybe I only want to sleep with 90-95%..

I hate running jokes *silently praying that he wasn't serious*

your babble only lessens the value and beauty of true faith.

why do you care? you obviously don't have faith so whats your problem with it?
If anything don't say it, if what you said is true than you'll have the last laugh

I hate running jokes *silently praying that he wasn't serious*

How does that whole praying thing work for you anyway?

I don't pray to Eris. Few discordians do. You gotta be very desperate if you're going to ask for something from a goddess of chaos.

I hate running jokes *silently praying that he wasn't serious*

why would you have a problem with his wanting to have sex with women? dont most young men want to have sex with women? especially the straight ones?

Trilby63;12066172']How does that whole praying thing work for you anyway?

I don't pray to Eris. Few discordians do. You gotta be very desperate if you're going to ask for something from a goddess of chaos.

judging by your response it worked pretty well, eh? polytheists are worse than Atheists

A protestant dies and goes to heaven.
It's a wonderful place and the angels show him around

Strangely though there is one place in heaven which is entirely walled off,
there are no obvious entrances but from within he hears the sound of people
laughing and having fun, much the same as groups of people of various
religions and denominations he has already seen around.

"Whose in there" he asks one of the Angels.

Ahh thats the catholics is the response

They think they're the only ones up here.

why would you have a problem with his wanting to have sex with women? dont most young men want to have sex with women? especially the straight ones?

I think you missed the point of my example and its the thought that I doubt that all of that 90-95% of the women he meets would be desirable *ahem*

forget I even said that

judging by your response it worked pretty well, eh? polytheists are worse than Atheists

I am not a polytheists. There is no Goddess except the Goddess and she is my Goddess.

A protestant dies and goes to heaven.
It's a wonderful place and the angels show him around

Strangely though there is one place in heaven which is entirely walled off,
there are no obvious entrances but from within he hears the sound of people
laughing and having fun, much the same as groups of people of various
religions and denominations he has already seen around.

"Whose in there" he asks one of the Angels.

Ahh thats the catholics is the response

They think they're the only ones up here.

that was an uninformed cheap shot

In Ireland in days long gone, there were stories about priests having
some powers of their own. One of them being the ability to cause a person
to be unable to move from the spot in which they were standing.
Who knows why, many priests have a lot of anger to work out perhaps.

Anyway in those long ago days a priest rides into a village on his horse.
He dismounts and tells a young boy hanging around to hold onto his horse
to prevent the horse wandering off.

But the boy refused.

The priest is dumbfounded and demands the boy holds his horse.

Again the boy refuses.

"Don't you realise" says the priest "That I have the power to stick you to the ground"

"If you were so shmart" replies the boy, "you'd stick your auld horse to the ground in the first place"

that was an uninformed cheap shot

OK please try to justify that comment 'cos I'm just dying to make an eejit of you.

Trilby63;12066248']I am not a polytheists. There is no Goddess except the Goddess and she is my Goddess.

whatever, I don't catch what you're saying, I though you were agnostic

A protestant dies and goes to heaven.
It's a wonderful place and the angels show him around

Strangely though there is one place in heaven which is entirely walled off,
there are no obvious entrances but from within he hears the sound of people
laughing and having fun, much the same as groups of people of various
religions and denominations he has already seen around.

"Whose in there" he asks one of the Angels.

Ahh thats the catholics is the response

They think they're the only ones up here.

I seem to recall the exact same thing except with "Southern Baptists" instead of "Catholics".

OK please try to justify that comment 'cos I'm just dying to make an eejit of you.

first off, good job spelling, and secondly, unless you didn't understand your own joke it is implying that catholics (of which I am) do not believe that any other denomination of Christians will go to heaven. so in four words I will juftify it

that is not true

I think you missed the point of my example and its the thought that I doubt that all of that 90-95% of the women he meets would be desirable *ahem*

forget I even said that

then why would you worry that he was serious?

personally i think that all men, even religious ones, are hoping to make time with any pretty young woman they talk to. it was a bad example of bad motives since a religous man would have the same motive.

whatever, I don't catch what you're saying, I though you were agnostic

Mostly..

It depends if I'm in a discordian kinda mood.

You know I'm an official and certified =POPE=

I seem to recall the exact same thing except with "Southern Baptists" instead of "Catholics".

Most peoples tend to use it about their own particular grouping
but its rather harmless poke at another grouping if you don't belong to it.

A rabbi, a priest and an imam are together in a plane when its engines cut out.
The pilot immediately jumps with his parachute leaving them on the plane with no parachutes at all.

They are just a little worried when the Imam says look it will be ok
just do what I do and we'll all live through this.

Immediately he jumps out of the plane and begins to fall, halfway down he shouts out Praise be to Allah

A giant hand comes out of the sky, catches him and gently places him on
the ground, safe and sound.
THe Rabbi jumps out halfway down he forces out the words, praise be to Allah,
again a hand comes out of the sky and brings him safely to the ground.

The priest jumps out, half way down he shouts out Praise be to Allah
and once again the giant hand brings the petitioner to safety.

On solid ground and in one piece "Thanks be to God" says the priest

A giant foot appears in the sky and ....

Ah the classic joke, but I always felt it worked better with Jehovah's witnesses rather than catholics.

I just happen to think you're showing your faith off and acting holier than thou, I've seen true faith and I respect it. The 4 commandments I didn't take into account are dependant on belief in God though you could probably handle the one about not taking the Lords name in vain by considering it respectful to others who do believe. But you did want to know how you could live a good life without believing in God so I answered. I think I did pretty well.

Oh yeah have you never heard of the concept that polytheism is infact worship of God? The central idea is that polytheists mistake aspects of God as individual Gods and so only worship a fragment of the whole, but still worship God, it's a fascinating argument to watch. But anyway you seem to be missing the loving and respect for our fellow man that God is so keen on, you know "hate the sin not the sinner". No cookie for you.

first off, good job spelling, and secondly, unless you didn't understand your own joke it is implying that catholics (of which I am) do not believe that any other denomination of Christians will go to heaven. so in four words I will juftify it

that is not true

Actually and fundamentally the teaching of the Catholic church is that they don't.

But as it's a fairy tale anyway you'd be better off not taking it so serious.

then why would you worry that he was serious?

personally i think that all men, even religious ones, are hoping to make time with any pretty young woman they talk to. it was a bad example of bad motives since a religous man would have the same motive.

I wasn't being serious and could you quit criticizing my examples I didn't have a lot of time to think it over

whatever, I don’t catch what you’re saying, I though you were agnostic
fnord!

Actually and fundamentally the teaching of the Catholic church is that they don't.

But as it's a fairy tale anyway you'd be better off not taking it so serious.

well, NO and I really wasn't it was just a pointless insult to a religion that as far as he was concerned had no representative present

if by fundamental you mean imaginary than yes, if not please, everyone, all learn something about my religion before bashing it

well, NO and I really wasn't it was just a pointless insult to a religion that as far as he was concerned had no representative present

Oh you dingbat
the religion is the fairy tale

the walled part of heaven was a joke.

And often told by catholics
Are you american by any chance?

Just to clarify something for you
I have absolutely no problem with insulting anybodies religion and will do so on most occasions
this however was not one of them.

No he just didn't give a damn and thats probably the version of the joke that stuck in his head, like me with the Jehovahs. Now while it may be true that nowadays Catholics believe that they didn't always, infact when my mother divorced her first husband she was told that she had to confess how many times they had sex, as the Catholic church of the time did not recognise a marriage carried out by a Protestant minister. So judging by that it's fair to say that that was only properly revised in the last 30-40 years.

...
if by fundamental you mean imaginary than yes, if not please, everyone, all learn something about my religion before bashing it

Lets see

I grew up in Ireland, had catholic parents and went to catholic schools
until I was 18

You're so right
I really should try to pick up even the teensiest bit of knowledge about
your religion.

You are american aren't you ? go on just tell us?

Oh you dingbat
the religion is the fairy tale

the walled part of heaven was a joke.

And often told by catholics
Are you american by any chance?

Just to clarify something for you
I have absolutely no problem with insulting anybodies religion and will do so on most occasions
this however was not one of them.

I realize that it was a joke,
I forgive you for your thoughts about my religion,
I am American (and trying to follow your logic, yes I do believe in free speech)

No he just didn't give a damn and thats probably the version of the joke that stuck in his head, like me with the Jehovahs. Now while it may be true that nowadays Catholics believe that they didn't always, infact when my mother divorced her first husband she was told that she had to confess how many times they had sex, as the Catholic church of the time did not recognise a marriage carried out by a Protestant minister. So judging by that it's fair to say that that was only properly revised in the last 30-40 years.

Well that and the fact that thats how I heard it told and by catholics.

I realize that it was a joke,
I forgive you for your thoughts about my religion,
I am American (and trying to follow your logic, yes I do believe in free speech)

Nope

Theres a certain type of idiocy that only comes from ...

I wasn't being serious and could you quit criticizing my examples I didn't have a lot of time to think it over

but its funny!

besides you never responded to my criticism of your original post. 1) there is no proof of anything in the bible but the non religiouos generalities. 2) picking one religion to follow in order to avoid the punishment of its god leaves you open to the punishment of any other god that turns out to be real. id rather just give it all a pass.

Nope

Theres a certain type of idiocy that only comes from ...

Oh shut the hell up. if you want to get racist then fine but you should just stop now

this is getting completely off of the original topic of this thread

You know I'd tell some of the Catholic jokes I remember but most of them centre around Nuns getting their funk on, or Priests being naughty.

but its funny!

besides you never responded to my criticism of your original post. 1) there is no proof of anything in the bible but the non religiouos generalities. 2) picking one religion to follow in order to avoid the punishment of its god leaves you open to the punishment of any other god that turns out to be real. id rather just give it all a pass.

you don't choose a religion because you don't want to be punished, that completely undermines the whole point of religion

Oh shut the hell up. if you want to get racist then fine but you should just stop now

this is getting completely off of the original topic of this thread

Which if I recall was a question for atheists or agnostics?

And please try to explain to yourself that there is no american race
unless you are part of some native american tribe. In which case lay off
the middle eastern god he really has nothing to offer you. Stick with your
own gods and spirits, they at least are part of your country.

Not to mention how cool some of them are, I always love tales of trickster gods.

Which if I recall was a question for atheist or agnostics?

And please try to explain to yourself that there is no american race
unless you are part of some native american tribe. In which case lay off
the middle eastern god he really has nothing to offer you. Stick with your
own gods and spirits, they at least are part of your country.

I realize there is no American race, and in that case, as soon as you insult America you insult every race that lives here, including your own who found it so urgent to come here during the potato famine so shut up

and if you're telling me to worship my own god, how do you justify that the Irish are prominently catholic also

the idea of an all powerfull goes against the idea that i am a god.

Not to mention how cool some of them are, I always love tales of trickster gods.

Its always seemed slight more sensible to have a pantheon going.
It explains a lot more of the contradictions in life.
You may be well up with one god but have really cheesed off another.

And most are not all powerful nor omniscient so the idea that they
are vain worship seekers makes more sense.

And that they are conceptualised as having powers to punish those
who don't worship them enough means you can have people disliking
and disagreeing with one or all of them and yet still giving them their
dues to keep them sweet.

I realize there is no American race, and in that case, as soon as you insult America you insult every race that lives here, including your own who found it so urgent to come here during the potato famine so shut up

and if you're telling me to worship my own god, how do you justify that the Irish are prominently catholic also

1-most of us dont like irish americans.

Yeah I know what you mean but then we have to decide which pantheon is currently running the show. Any preferences?

I realize there is no American race, and in that case, as soon as you insult America you insult every race that lives here, including your own who found it so urgent to come here during the potato famine so shut up

OOOh he's told me to shut up.

But please don't deceive yourself, there are intelligent and clever people in
America, the fact that there are many others like you does not mean all americans are dull and self obsessed.

1-most of us dont like irish americans.

I had been going to explain in detail to him Gorias but decided to keep it simple.

You know why

Aye and not all Scots are drunken misers. But I've noticed his debating skills do seem a little lacking, such a shame really otherwise this would be a lot more fun.

Yeah I know what you mean but then we have to decide which pantheon is currently running the show. Any preferences?

Well I don't think you can really beat the Greeks , so they should
still be around somewhere unless they all made the mistake of
appearing in animal form during a mass culling.
The Norse also had some darn good stuff.

I know what you mean not to mention the Greek gods also hid out among the Romans and spent a little time in Egypt according to some variations so I wouldn't be surprised if they're still around but I'm going with the Norse I love all the melodrama and generally depressing stories they have ,besides I always wanted to see a wolf eat the sun. But I suggest we keep a spot open for the old Irish tales too as I will never forget the tale of Cuchulain.

Well I don't think you can really beat the Greeks , so they should
still be around somewhere unless they all made the mistake of
appearing in animal form during a mass culling.
The Norse also had some darn good stuff.

gorias is a fan of druidism.

But I suggest we keep a spot open for the old Irish tales too as I will never forget the tale of Cuchulain.

which one? :p theres alot.

...
and if you're telling me to worship my own god, how do you justify that the Irish are prominently catholic also

Because they are insane?

I'm an effin atheist for crying out loud. I don't justify anyone being catholic
or any other religion. It's all idiocy, but if they worshipped the old Irish gods
and goddesses at least it would be suited to the country. Instead of being
based on the woman hating, mores and attitudes of the middle east.
Just like judaism and islam.

I don't justify anyone being catholic
or any other religion. It's all idiocy, but if they worshipped the old Irish gods
and goddesses.

gorias supports this. for as said before, i am a celtic god. gorias is also fan of poking wiccas in the eye with a stick.

which one? :p theres alot.

Don't shoot me but the version Rosemary Suttcliffe transcribed for her book. God I loved that book.

Don't shoot me but the version Rosemary Suttcliffe transcribed for her book. God I loved that book.

i ment, what happend in the tale. there lots.

Don't shoot me but the version Rosemary Suttcliffe transcribed for her book. God I loved that book.

God I loved Rosemary Sutcliffe.

Not biblically you understand.

[Question for atheists/agnostics:] What keeps you from having faith?That's a silly question. I'm not just saying that because I'm an agnostic, but because you seem to believe atheists lack religious faith. Faith only requires a belief without proof, which sums up atheism to a T. Besides, religious beliefs aren't the only things that require faith. Surely by now you've noticed that plenty of people worship science, including some atheists who do so with an unparalleled intolerance.

Now, I don't have a problem with atheism as a whole, nor am I saying their core belief is wrong. However, there's something of a hypocritical arrogance that some of them display when they laugh at the religious for their faith, while simultaneously pushing their own beliefs in what amounts to a massive argument to ignorance fallacy on anyone within earshot. (If you're an atheist who can express your beliefs without mockery or insensitivity, obviously this does not apply to you.)

Then of course, there's the ludicruous idea some of them spout about the evils of religion. "Oh yes, religion must be broken because evils were carried out in its name. Please pay no attention to the mass murder count of the atheistic USSR! Please ignore racism, nationalism, and countless other non-religious belief systems! We'd hate for anyone to notice that history proves anything can result in war, intolerence, cruelty, and craploads of other horrible things!" Belief in damn bear anything can divide people, regardless of its nature. To claim religion is somehow more malignant than any other belief system to ignore history.

And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.I tend to lean towards theism, and I have no interest in explaining why. However, I cannot believe in a specific religion because I believe the universe (as a whole) is perfect. Religion is sloppy; what supreme being that could create the universe would then turn around and only give a handful of people a chance to get into Its divine good graces? For all the irrational unanswered questions people have based their atheism on, the only good one I've seen so far is, "Why would G=d offer salvation to a select group of people?"

Why were only a fraction of the people of the Earth offered the chance for salvation, if being Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/whatever was the only route to a better state of being? Even with telecommunications, there are still people who would never have the opportunity to encounter the "right" religion. Are they damned simply for lacking the chance?

Religion, if there truly is only one that is valid in the eyes of G=d, is sloppy work. I am incapable of attributing that to a being that did such a fantastic job on the universe. However, I am not saying that one or all religion started from a mortal source. For all anyone knows, G=d might have created all of the religions just to see if we could grow beyond our intolerence and get along in spite of one another.

Four key moments for me one was the wizard with the axe who called for a contest of blow for blow to see who the bravest warrior was, this was later adapted into arthurian tales as Gawain and the green knight. The second was when he killed his own son with the Bael Bolg i believe it was called. The third when he held the river against the armies of Medb i think her name was while the warriors of the red branch languished under their repeating curse. And the final was his last battle where he tied himself to a tree to stay upright while slaughtering his foes, and so fearsome was he that none would approach him until a crow lighted upon him and they realised he was dead.

Rosemary Suttcliffe and Roger Llewyn Greens compilations of tales were staples of my childhood reading habits.

...

Then of course, there's the ludicruous idea some of them spout about the evils of religion. "Oh yes, religion must be broken because evils were carried out in its name. Please pay no attention to the mass murder count of the atheistic USSR! Please ignore racism, nationalism, and countless other non-religious belief systems! We'd hate for anyone to notice that history proves anything can result in war, intolerence, cruelty, and craploads of other horrible things!" Belief in damn bear anything can divide people, regardless of its nature. To claim religion is somehow more malignant than any other belief system to ignore history.


Think about the episode of Star Trek where a federation captain had
set up a nazi party on another planet believing he could use its
organisational abilities and leave out the hatred other nasty bits.

Some things should never be revived or kept going as they are beyond redemption, stalins communism, hitlers facism and christianity in general.

Religion as in the one omniscient infallible god type of religion
always has been and always will be a problem because eventually the members and the organisers of the religion will fall back on it being true because we say its true and if you disagree with something that we claim
is important to our religion no matter how unrelated such as whether
the world is round or the sun not being the centre of the universe
or man not being created fully formed
we will kill you or torture you until you do agree.

I am agnostic. It means "without knowledge" and is defined as the belief that the ultimate nature of the universe is unknown and probably unknowable. That satisfies me, I have no proof of the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. Until there is some evidence that can be shown besides faith, I will continue to hold my belief that no one knows what reality is and that god is a made up idea that may be possible but that nobody knows in what form it exists. I find atheism arrogant and just as dogmatic and blind as faith in god(s).

Nothing wrong with looking for god, or pondering eternal mysteries, just don't make legislation that impacts me based solely on those beliefs! Laws have to have a general moral acceptance from all citizens, not just the religious ones. Murder seems wrong to any person who isn't a total sociopath, I don't need god to tell me that.

Some people think keeping an open mind is a cop-out but I would say that deciding on metaphysical subjects from revealed sources is a far larger cop-out. Science itself doesn't claim to have final answers to questions that go beyond the purview of the scientific method, such as the reasons for reality and the perplexing question of what came before time and space. It is comforting to think you have those answers but even religion can't adequately answer those questions, instead saying god existed forever and was not created which just begs the question "who made god"?

Some things in life just aren't knowable and it drives some people crazy to think they can't understand reality so they make up nice stories that fill the gap between knowledge and ignorance. Religion seems to be a comfortable way to forget that you just won't ever know what happens after you die until you do (and maybe not even then!)

Meaning is something humans create, it isn't given to them. If you want your life to have meaning, make one up. Don't just passively accept what some other person claims is eternal truth without some solid evidence to back it up, they usually just want your money. :)

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

reason.

i see no reason in having faith
i see no reason TO have faith

since i have no intrinsic faith (i was not brought up that way) there is nothing to convince me that i should have faith.

hitlers facism and christianity in general.
.

hitler wasnt a proper fascist.
what star trek episode? sounds good. i like the one were they go back in time to fight the nazis.

I am agnostic. It means "without knowledge" and is defined as the belief that the ultimate nature of the universe is unknown and probably unknowable. That satisfies me, I have no proof of the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. Until there is some evidence that can be shown besides faith, I will continue to hold my belief that no one knows what reality is and that god is a made up idea that may be possible but that nobody knows in what form it exists. I find atheism arrogant and just as dogmatic and blind as faith in god(s).

Nothing wrong with looking for god, or pondering eternal mysteries, just don't make legislation that impacts me based solely on those beliefs! Laws have to have a general moral acceptance from all citizens, not just the religious ones. Murder seems wrong to any person who isn't a total sociopath, I don't need god to tell me that.

Some people think keeping an open mind is a cop-out but I would say that deciding on metaphysical subjects from revealed sources is a far larger cop-out. Science itself doesn't claim to have final answers to questions that go beyond the purview of the scientific method, such as the reasons for reality and the perplexing question of what came before time and space. It is comforting to think you have those answers but even religion can't adequately answer those questions, instead saying god existed forever and was not created which just begs the question "who made god"?

Some things in life just aren't knowable and it drives some people crazy to think they can't understand reality so they make up nice stories that fill the gap between knowledge and ignorance. Religion seems to be a comfortable way to forget that you just won't ever know what happens after you die until you do (and maybe not even then!)

Meaning is something humans create, it isn't given to them. If you want your life to have meaning, make one up. Don't just passively accept what some other person claims is eternal truth without some solid evidence to back it up, they usually just want your money. :)

I always hold that agnosticism is effectively the same as
holding that a lunatic claiming to be napoleon
probably is not napoleon but might be.

Atheists are those who would argue there would need to be something
anything even remotely realistic
to suggest it was remotely possible that he could be Napoleon
before moving onto just doubting the story and being agnostics.

For me, the question of whether or not there is a god is somewhat academic. Currently, the only way I can decide what is right or wrong is through my own perceptions. To let someone else dictate such to me is, as I see it, somewhat irresponsible (no offense intended). As written, I could not worship any of the god figures I have studied. That is not to say that I could not worship anything at all... I just don't know if anything exists that I could devote myself to so entirely.

hitler wasnt a proper fascist.
what star trek episode? sounds good. i like the one were they go back in time to fight the nazis.

Star Trek - The Original Series, Episode 52: Patterns of Force (1966)

if i was the christian/jew/islamic god. i would be very bored right now.
"dam still the same show on."

Star Trek - The Original Series, Episode 52: Patterns of Force (1966)

is there any sites that let you watch them? like www.southparkzone.com

if i was the christian/jew/islamic god. i would be very bored right now.
"dam still the same show on."

That's why he and jesus sneak down and plant magic mushrooms and dinosaur fossils.

That's why he and jesus sneak down and plant magic mushrooms and dinosaur fossils.

but it seemed so plauseable!

is there any sites that let you watch them? like www.southparkzone.com

I'm agnostic on that one

I don't actually know
but there could be.

but it seemed so plauseable!

Hicks hi 5

Think about the episode of Star Trek where a federation captain had set up a nazi party on another planet believing he could use its organisational abilities and leave out the hatred other nasty bits.I'm sorry, but what does an instance of a work of fiction prove that the whole of human history doesn't?

I always hold that agnosticism is effectively the same as holding that a lunatic claiming to be napoleon probably is not napoleon but might be.

Atheists are those who would argue there would need to be something
anything even remotely realistic to suggest it was remotely possible that he could be Napoleon before moving onto just doubting the story and being agnostics.Yet you countered my points about the many divisive, non-religious beliefs that have led to the same problems that religion has... by referencing an episode of Star Trek. What part of that work of fiction serves as a "realistic" counterpoint to actual human history?

Agnosticism is the acceptance that any belief about the unprovable is equally as unproven, atheism included.

I'm sorry, but what does an instance of a work of fiction prove that the whole of human history doesn't?

Yet you countered my points about the many divisive, non-religious beliefs that have led to the same problems that religion has... by referencing an episode of Star Trek. What part of that work of fiction serves as a "realistic" counterpoint to actual human history?

Agnosticism is the acceptance that any belief about the unprovable is equally as unproven, atheism included.

i pick star trek over the bible any day.

i pick star trek over the bible any day.I brought up history, not the bible.

I'm sorry, but what does an instance of a work of fiction prove that the whole of human history doesn't?

Yet you countered my points about the many divisive, non-religious beliefs that have led to the same problems that religion has... by referencing an episode of Star Trek. What part of that work of fiction serves as a "realistic" counterpoint to actual human history?

Agnosticism is the acceptance that any belief about the unprovable is equally as unproven, atheism included.

Yes there are dictionary definitions of Agnosticism and Atheism
and there are the definitions Atheists tend to use.

The episode of fiction I referenced was to refer to the attitude and beliefs
that people have that you can have a system that has good sides and
bad sides but that the bad can be inherent in the system itself and
therefore cannot exist without having that bad side.
The fact that it turned up in fiction for the populous means it was believed
to be a commonly held and easily understood concept.
Especially seeing as it was made for an american television audience.

Atheism for atheists (at least my type of atheist) is simply if you expect
any credibility for an incredible story there must be some possibility of it
being true even if not likely before we would move to saying well it could
be true I don't have enough information to come down on any particular side.

Which is effectively what agnosticism is supposed to be.

In your case agnosticism seems to mean you believe in a god but not
as he she or it has been defined in any religion that you are aware of to date.

Which to me means you believe in god and therefore are neither an atheist nor an agnostic.

Agnosticism is the acceptance that any belief about the unprovable is equally as unproven, atheism included.

Take for example my first cousin Wendy.

She has triplets, they are identical.

One of them will one day become pope.

Now you don't know if one day one of those triplets will become pope
You don't know if there really are triplets
you don't know if my cousin is called wendy
and you don't actually know if I have a cousin.

You could be agnostic about whether one of the triplets becomes pope
but before you were you really should insist on having some proof about
whether there is even a cousin wendy because if that isn't true then
you would look rather foolish saying one of her triplets may become pope someday.


As it happens I have no cousin Wendy.

Take for example my first cousin Wendy.

She has triplets, they are identical.

One of them will one day become pope.

Now you don't know if one day one of those triplets will become pope
You don't know if there really are triplets
you don't know if my cousin is called wendy
and you don't actually know if I have a cousin.

You could be agnostic about whether one of the triplets becomes pope
but before you were you really should insist on having some proof about
whether there is even a cousin wendy because if that isn't true then
you would look rather foolish saying one of her triplets may become pope someday.


As it happens I have no cousin Wendy.

Good example. But what religious people are saying sounds more like claiming your cousins triplet actually is the pope.

Good example. But what religious people are saying sounds more like claiming your cousins triplet actually is the pope.

But the problem is that nobody can know for certain if they are right or wrong. They believe they are right, and a good number of religious people have had spiritual experiences that display the truth of their beliefs to them, so it's ultimately something that can't be argued for or against using evidence.

But the problem is that nobody can know for certain if they are right or wrong. They believe they are right, and a good number of religious people have had spiritual experiences that display the truth of their beliefs to them, so it's ultimately something that can't be argued for or against using evidence.

Someone must have known, at some point. The guy, or group, that put the bible together knew they were making it all up, just as muhammad knew he hadnt really talked to Gabriel, and Dunlaoire knew he had no cousin wendy.

Just because we dont know, doesnt mean no one does.

Someone must have known, at some point. The guy, or group, that put the bible together knew they were making it all up, just as muhammad knew he hadnt really talked to Gabriel, and Dunlaoire knew he had no cousin wendy.

Unless they really did receive it from God. I mean, that's entirely possible.

But the problem is that nobody can know for certain if they are right or wrong. They believe they are right, and a good number of religious people have had spiritual experiences that display the truth of their beliefs to them, so it's ultimately something that can't be argued for or against using evidence.

Ultimately fanatics who favour the one god thing come down to he exists,
the creation of the universe is the proof that he exists, you cannot
explain with 100% certainty how the universe was created, therefore god
must have created it.
So, they say,
it makes more sense to be "pick a one god religion of your choice"

But even if it made sense enough for you to think well he if he existed he might have created the universe you would still have to go an awful long way to explain why he would want or need people to believe in him never mind worship him.

The various cultists* are unable to prove he created the universe
they do not get that even if he exists and if he did create the universe
that just begs the question where did he come from and how was he created.


In other words there is no point at which there is sufficient credibility to the proposal for it to get to the point where you have something to be agnostic about.

Once again madmen who think they are Napoleon cannot be proven to be wrong. But logically there is no reason to believe there is even a possibility that they are correct.

And so the reasonable view is to believe they are wrong and/or mad.
Unreasonable views would be to believe them or to believe it is possible that
they could be correct even if you think they probably are not.

* Intentional use of the word to slight people's religious organisations

Unless they really did receive it from God. I mean, that's entirely possible.

It's only possible if
1 a god exists
2 that god interacts with humans


If those 2 conditions were met then it would be possible they received it from god

It would still leave open possibilities that
he is not the only god
he is not all powerful
he is not ever present
he is not everlasting
that
god doesn't always tell the whole truth
or
wilfully misleads people
or
he is a vain self aggrandising character desperate for people to worship him

But even if it made sense enough for you to think well he if he existed he might have created the universe you would still have to go an awful long way to explain why he would want or need people to believe in him never mind worship him.

Unless the point of worship is for our benefit; by providing a reason to pay attention to God, we are capable of achieving a higher degree of moral and social order. God may command us to worship so that we focus on his moral and ethical laws, rather than him getting some kind of satisfaction from it.

The various cultists* are unable to prove he created the universe
they do not get that even if he exists and if he did create the universe
that just begs the question where did he come from and how was he created.

But the contrary is also true: How did the physical universe come in to existence? If it just appeared, then it can stand to reason that God simply created himself and then created the universe.

In other words there is no point at which there is sufficient credibility to the proposal for it to get to the point where you have something to be agnostic about.

I think it's an entirely credible idea. Quite simply, there is no adequate explanation of the "why" behind the existence of the universe that is not a just-so story; saying "it just did" is no more credible an argument, and is in fact a philosophically weaker argument, than attributing it to God or some other higher force.

Science's limit is the Big Bang. Before that, anything else is speculation and creation mythology no matter the explanation given.

Once again madmen who think they are Napoleon cannot be proven to be wrong. But logically there is no reason to believe there is even a possibility that they are correct.

And so the reasonable view is to believe they are wrong and/or mad.
Unreasonable views would be to believe them or to believe it is possible that
they could be correct even if you think they probably are not.

They're not the same, however; a person who is religious is not mentally unstable and they are not delusional. Mental illness can be cured through medication and psychotherapy; you can't "treat" someone of their religious beliefs because it isn't something wrong with them but rather a sincere belief based upon the evidence they have been taught or have seen.

I mean, you can argue against someone being Napoleon using empirical evidence and historical fact. God isn't the same thing.

It's only possible if
1 a god exists
2 that god interacts with humans


If those 2 conditions were met then it would be possible they received it from god

It would still leave open possibilities that
he is not the only god
he is not all powerful
he is not ever present
he is not everlasting
that
god doesn't always tell the whole truth
or
wilfully misleads people
or
he is a vain self aggrandising character desperate for people to worship him

All are plausible. The main problem is: What is God?

Or, it's also possible that God gave his revelation to man through various religions and it was corrupted by human desires and anthropomorphizing of God in to a human form. It may be man that corrupted God rather than God being corrupt in and of himself.

Unless the point of worship is for our benefit; by providing a reason to pay attention to God, we are capable of achieving a higher degree of moral and social order. God may command us to worship so that we focus on his moral and ethical laws, rather than him getting some kind of satisfaction from it.


If it wasn't for his benefit then he would actually just ask you to focus
on the laws, immoral and unethical as they may be.


But the contrary is also true: How did the physical universe come in to existence? If it just appeared, then it can stand to reason that God simply created himself and then created the universe.

No it couldn't stand to reason.
It doesn't stand to reason for the universe and it wouldn't stand to reason
for the existence of any god or gods


I think it's an entirely credible idea. Quite simply, there is no adequate explanation of the "why" behind the existence of the universe that is not a just-so story; saying "it just did" is no more credible an argument, and is in fact a philosophically weaker argument, than attributing it to God or some other higher force.
No one says it just did
they say we don't know
lets try and find out.


They're not the same, however; a person who is religious is not mentally unstable and they are not delusional.

I hate to say this, but, "says you".


Mental illness can be cured through medication and psychotherapy;

sometimes it can be cured, sometimes it can be treated, sometimes it
can be managed and sometimes it cannot.


you can't "treat" someone of their religious beliefs because it isn't something wrong with them but rather a sincere belief based upon the evidence they have been taught or have seen.

You can treat them, we just don't.

I mean, you can argue against someone being Napoleon using empirical evidence and historical fact.

You can argue it but you cannot prove it

God isn't the same thing.
Thats right, Napoleon really existed.

Three feet tall, flat head for resting your beer mug on while she's giving you a toothless bj...

as for forgiving me...what's to forgive? I don't proseletize you, as long as you don't proseletize me. I'm simply pointing out that while to you I may be going to hell, from my perspective you're delusional and should be restrained so you don't hurt anybody else.


and as for your "recorded history" of a burning bush--bull.
No bush ever caught fire and projected god's voice. You can't claim your bible as a reference source, or other religions, sorry.
Unless you give me a first person account that isn't using said account for biased reasons...say to justify the belief in a deity, then said miricle is nothing but a lie...okay a fairy tale, made up to support the religion in question.

The main issue is that the universe can be explained without god. It's not a necessary being.

I agree with Moosle.
My own reasons for not having faith mostly have to do with a lack of inclination toward faith. I used to be a Christian, for the first 2/3 of my life, but I just hit a point where the idea of a god seemed so preposterous and unnecessary and out of order with nature (as in universal nature, not just nature like trees and mountains and ponds) that I just forfeited my faith in favor of living a full life on my own terms. Religion seems even more preposterous than god, and I have never had much desire, even when I was a Christian, to concern myself a great deal with a large number of rules that served only to get me a place in Heaven, a place in which I had virtually no belief.

The main issue is that the universe can be explained without god. It's not a necessary being.

To a point. There's a limit to our knowledge of the universe, and explanations for what happens prior to that are the realm of religion and philosophy rather than science.

God is not necessary within the universe, but outside of it is an entirely different aspect.

To a point. There's a limit to our knowledge of the universe, and explanations for what happens prior to that are the realm of religion and philosophy rather than science.

God is not necessary within the universe, but outside of it is an entirely different aspect.

Completely agree with you. And in fact, my statement could be turned against me, in that supposing god does in fact exist, the universe might rely upon it for existence.

I suppose it's a matter that the universe can be explained without god, so atheists/ agnositics/ I don't really feel anything missing.

Those who do believe in god are providing an explanation for a problem where such an explanation is not the only possible option.

Completely agree with you. And in fact, my statement could be turned against me, in that supposing god does in fact exist, the universe might rely upon it for existence.

I suppose it's a matter that the universe can be explained without god, so atheists/ agnositics/ I don't really feel anything missing.

Those who do believe in god are providing an explanation for a problem where such an explanation is not the only possible option.

And that's why I'm agnostic; neither side has the kind of proof to convince me. I imagine the only thing that could change that is a spiritual experience happening to me, or clear proof that this entire universe was some kind of magical accident. The burden of proof lies on both sides for me.

I do not believe in god because I have not witnessed or been a part of any act of god...if something happened that changed this completely I imagine it would have to be a pretty huge event.

And that's why I'm agnostic; neither side has the kind of proof to convince me. I imagine the only thing that could change that is a spiritual experience happening to me, or clear proof that this entire universe was some kind of magical accident. The burden of proof lies on both sides for me.

I'm glad to hear you say that; it sounds like we have at least this much in common.

Often I hear the argument given that the 'god-exists' side has the burden of proof, since they are making the positive assertion, but that sounds like a cop-out answer. Both sides are responsible for their respective arguments.

I do not believe in god because I have not witnessed or been a part of any act of god...if something happened that changed this completely I imagine it would have to be a pretty huge event.

Ah, but you have made the assumption that you have not been a part of any act of god. How do you know?

Also, why would it have to be this huge event? Do you always need a huge event to prove things to you? Did your math teacher have to find two elephants and parade them one after the other down the classroom before you realized that 1 + 1 = 2?

I don't understand this idea that god must do something amazing and miraculous in order to provide proof of its existence.

well I cannot feel god, see god, hear god...so I just don't believe. Maybe something will change in my life, I mean huge, as in large enough to recognize it to be an actual act of god. But, I am more of a realist. I look at the logical explanation of things and that which I cannot explain I understand to be unknown or undiscovered ( and do not create or believe in a bunch of stories to comfort that void)

/snip
Very good answer! I must admit, I have been quite impressed with the people on NS tonight.

i consider myself an agnostic. but really, i have a faith, it's just a non-existent one that only i follow. i understand that all of it might be bullshit, but i also understand that anything is possible. religion does not need to be strict. it needs to be what you believe is right.

If a group of people were raised without ever having heard of god, or the concept of religion at all, and science answered every question they could ask about anything, then how would they react if someone suggested god to them? I really hope they would just think it absurd, but human nature being what it is I guess thats not a certainty.

If a group of people were raised without ever having heard of god, or the concept of religion at all, and science answered every question they could ask about anything, then how would they react if someone suggested god to them? I really hope they would just think it absurd, but human nature being what it is I guess thats not a certainty.

They would be the same as people who have been raised totally steeped in religion without science: irrational fanatics. Stifling freedom of thought like that would have the same effects on them as raising someone in a repressive religious environment would, just in this case replacing "God" with "science" as their unifying principle.

They would be the same as people who have been raised totally steeped in religion without science: irrational fanatics. Stifling freedom of thought like that would have the same effects on them as raising someone in a repressive religious environment would, just in this case replacing "God" with "science" as their unifying principle.

Would it? Plenty of people are raised by atheists and turn out fine, albeit with the constant background noise of religion, but im not talking about raising people to be against religion, im talking about just not mentioning it to them. Im not stifling freedom of thought or indoctrinating them, just asking them to use logic and reason to answer questions about life. THey would not be repressed, they just wouldnt have heard of religion.

First, a quick note to Dwarfstein, a flaw I see in your argument is you state that "science answer[s] every question" for the people. Well, no science answers everything, the only way this would be possible is if you had complete faith in science and its ability to answer all questions. I tend to side with Vetalia in saying your people would blindly follow science as others blindly follow religion, since in both cases the people blindly and wholeheartedly believe in their method of understanding, absolutely regardless of the accuracy of that belief. Science is a faith, a faith in the senses and empirical knowledge, but a faith nonetheless.
Also, thank you everyone for your good responses to my questions.
- Seth

Would it? Plenty of people are raised by atheists and turn out fine, albeit with the constant background noise of religion, but im not talking about raising people to be against religion, im talking about just not mentioning it to them. Im not stifling freedom of thought or indoctrinating them, just asking them to use logic and reason to answer questions about life. THey would not be repressed, they just wouldnt have heard of religion.

If you were never presented with an airplane growing up, would you believe that people could fly?

You would probably have the concept of people flying, though you would probably feel it to be impossible.

I think that this would be the same thing as your situation. People would still create the idea of a god/ religion/ own ideas about afterlife, but would consider them just interesting fun thoughts; nothing really probable.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

The fact that there are millions of different religions that all borrow bits and pieces from eachother yet vastly disagree on what they mean.
As far as I can tell every religion has an equally strong claim to state it "tells the truth" as any other. Even the more nutty ones like scientology, or even deliberate parodies like the flying spaghetti monster. Their claim to "truthiness" is just as valid as that of Christianity, Islam and so on.

Since there is no consensus, I go with the things that can be verified and suspend belief.

If you were never presented with an airplane growing up, would you believe that people could fly?

No. When one however shows me or explains the underlying principles I will believe that people are able to fly in an airplane.

Now, show me God.

If you were never presented with an airplane growing up, would you believe that people could fly?

You would probably have the concept of people flying, though you would probably feel it to be impossible.

I think that this would be the same thing as your situation. People would still create the idea of a god/ religion/ own ideas about afterlife, but would consider them just interesting fun thoughts; nothing really probable.

If someone told me about flight without showing me any evidence then I probably wouldnt believe them. If they showed me a plane fliying I would be really impressed but ofcourse believe it.

Also in my example it was a hypothetical future where science has all the answers. I meant if any question anyone thought of, there was a definitive answer that was known to be correct, thus leaving no room for the supernatural.

Since there is no consensus, I go with the things that can be verified and suspend belief.

The mere strength in numbers does not sway you? I mean, there's a lot of people out there who believe that god exists, even if they disagree on his/her/its finer points.

And you concentrate on the disimilarities. What of the many similarities?

The mere strength in numbers does not sway you? I mean, there's a lot of people out there who believe that god exists, even if they disagree on his/her/its finer points.

Those "finer points" more or less include the complete morality, number of gods, their nature and what they want you to do.

"Something higher exists", that is about all the many believers share.

And you concentrate on the disimilarities. What of the many similarities?

You mean how Jesus is a cheap ripoff of Mithras ;) ?

Would it? Plenty of people are raised by atheists and turn out fine, albeit with the constant background noise of religion, but im not talking about raising people to be against religion, im talking about just not mentioning it to them. Im not stifling freedom of thought or indoctrinating them, just asking them to use logic and reason to answer questions about life. THey would not be repressed, they just wouldnt have heard of religion.

Kids are naturally curious, and if they see a church or mosque, or a religious reference in a book, or have religious friends or whatever they're going to investigate it. I don't think it's logical or fair to hide an extremely important part of human culture and history from children for any reason, especially considering that religion is the source of some of the most world-changing events in our history. Hell, even understanding science is difficult without knowing the religious and cultural climate of the time.

That means that the kids are going to ultimately make their own decisions based upon what they've experienced. It's entirely possible that an atheist parent would end up with Christian children, or vice versa, or something totally different. Now, if the parent indoctrinates them with atheism, that's something different and is just as wrong as a parent drilling religious faith in to their kids without the opportunity to think for themselves.

To belive, to have faith, is to maintain continuity, where there can be no natural continuity. To belive is to maintain exsistence, in a hostile and unnatural environment. Why would I be there? So, how can I have a idol, a hero!? And I'm not, and I dont wana be there!

Faith has nothing to do with life in reality, but it has everything to do with "me", the center of the universe - the dictate of egotism. And it's nothing but a fantasy, an idear, they are just an expression of the past, so its realy nothing, but a memory. And to make this idear a live, to maintain it in order for you - the worshipper to be sussesfull, you will eventually becoma follower of some one bigger and fare more sussesfull ego tripper, because when it comes to maintaining a worship, its way easyer to share an opject of woreship with the masses, so the beliver will end up as a follower of bigger egoes, like adolf hitler, bush, jesus or buddha. etc.

But, is the hero a saver, one who gathers them pieces of broken hearts, in order to keep it intact, all because some stupid guy, is incapable ad the moment? Is that a hero? You know - It takes a stonehart heart to break, so is'n it so that the hero infact is the very one that breaks that heart, wide open? So MR. Stupid can get a breack, and take an other chance?

Or, is the hero neither one, but one who tells you to throw away all the crutches that we have been made to belive is are essential for our survivel. The one that says;
"Throw them away and dont replace them. You can walk and if you fall you will rise and walk again." Is that a hero?

oh'dear, belivers are soo kinky! oh...sometimes I wish I was a beliver tooo....but

There is no salvation. You simply have to save you self, but only from the saviors!

The reason I have no faith in any religion is that Ive never seen any reason to convince me that any kind of God is out there.
I was raised as a Christian, but it was never enforced, and was always left up to me.
I wanted to be believe, I really did.

The idea that some all-powerful kindly old man in the sky is watching down on us and looking out for us all is a comforting one.
Problem is that if he were real, he wouldnt really be all that nice of a guy would he?

Bad things happen to good people all the time, and the level of depravity in humankind knows no bounds.
I cant imagine any kind person with the power to stop some of the things that take place on this planet would simply choose to allow them, in order to make some silly spiritual point about loyalty and faith.

That makes God somewhat of a jackass, then wouldnt it?

I mean, if he allowed thousands and thousands to die in a Tsunami a few years ago, what purpose would that serve to his followers?
Some sort of message about how you must remain loyal to him or be smitten?

Even if that were so, killing so many as any kind of message, good or bad, is altogether a nasty business.

At any rate, I do not believe that God exists outside of a persons own mind.
By that, I mean to say that I believe people have to convince themselves that God exists, through a few different ways.

This is, of course, why there is absolutely no proof of any sort of God.
Becuase he does not exist anywhere but in the imagination of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/whateverAbrahamicmonotheisticreligionyouhappentofolow.

Kids are naturally curious, and if they see a church or mosque, or a religious reference in a book, or have religious friends or whatever they're going to investigate it. I don't think it's logical or fair to hide an extremely important part of human culture and history from children for any reason, especially considering that religion is the source of some of the most world-changing events in our history. Hell, even understanding science is difficult without knowing the religious and cultural climate of the time.

That means that the kids are going to ultimately make their own decisions based upon what they've experienced. It's entirely possible that an atheist parent would end up with Christian children, or vice versa, or something totally different. Now, if the parent indoctrinates them with atheism, that's something different and is just as wrong as a parent drilling religious faith in to their kids without the opportunity to think for themselves.

It may not be logical or fair, but it would be a damn interesting (if horribly unethical) experiment. There wouldnt be a worry of them seeing mosques or anything though, because in the original plan, it took place on the moon, in a big dome. Of ourse, living on the moon would probably screw the kids up far more than any religion or lack thereof.

While raising kids completely ignorant of religion would be pointless, other than to see the effects, raising them to view all religions the same way (more or less) would be perhaps a good idea. Most posters on this board come from the standpoint of believing, or not believing in the christian/jewish/muslim God, and even the atheists, myself included, seem to view this god as the default one they dont think exists.

Does Zeus exist? or Thor? Or Ra? Or that elephant dude with loads of arms? None of us (well probably a couple) have even considered that they might, despite having always heard of them from a very young age.

While I cant speak for any other atheist (except for one who's quoted saying something similar in someones sig), I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in any of those other gods none of us considered, and possibly for the same reason the religious people do not believe in those gods.

If one were to teach children about all world religions, and all historical ones, (or as many as is practical) and show them how the religions of different cultures developed, often independently but in parallel, they would have a much greater unerstanding of religion and humanity than any of us do, because we are disadvantaged by our default gods.

That way would also save a lot of money compared to the moon bas experiment.

It must do some good or else it wouldn't have lasted so long. And I'm not saying you should have faith, I'm just curious to why it is that you don't

malaria has been around for quite some time too...

The reason I have no faith in any religion is that Ive never seen any reason to convince me that any kind of God is out there.
I was raised as a Christian, but it was never enforced, and was always left up to me.
I wanted to be believe, I really did.

The idea that some all-powerful kindly old man in the sky is watching down on us and looking out for us all is a comforting one.
Problem is that if he were real, he wouldnt really be all that nice of a guy would he?

Bad things happen to good people all the time, and the level of depravity in humankind knows no bounds.
I cant imagine any kind person with the power to stop some of the things that take place on this planet would simply choose to allow them, in order to make some silly spiritual point about loyalty and faith.

That makes God somewhat of a jackass, then wouldnt it?

I mean, if he allowed thousands and thousands to die in a Tsunami a few years ago, what purpose would that serve to his followers?
Some sort of message about how you must remain loyal to him or be smitten?

Even if that were so, killing so many as any kind of message, good or bad, is altogether a nasty business.

At any rate, I do not believe that God exists outside of a persons own mind.
By that, I mean to say that I believe people have to convince themselves that God exists, through a few different ways.

This is, of course, why there is absolutely no proof of any sort of God.
Becuase he does not exist anywhere but in the imagination of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/whateverAbrahamicmonotheisticreligionyouhappentofolow.

Heh I love this sort of thing. Now let me state that I'm not taking the piss outa you personaly BackwoodsSquatches, just this line of logic.

Let me explain.

Obviously I belive in God, and i'm not here to try to convert anybody, belive what you want I really don't care. However to establish a non beliefe in God based only around one concept God, is logic defying. And to have non belife in God based around percived problems with only one concept of God is doubly so.

Heh I love this sort of thing. Now let me state that I'm not taking the piss outa you personaly BackwoodsSquatches, just this line of logic.

Let me explain.

Obviously I belive in God, and i'm not here to try to convert anybody, belive what you want I really don't care. However to establish a non beliefe in God based only around one concept God, is logic defying. And to have non belife in God based around percived problems with only one concept of God is doubly so.

Care to elaborate?

One concept of God?

Care to elaborate?

One concept of God?

Certianly.

You said:

'The idea that some all-powerful kindly old man in the sky...'

And:

'I mean, if he allowed thousands and thousands to die in a Tsunami a few years ago...'

And finally:

'imagination of the Cristian/Muslim/Jewish/whateverAbrahamicmonotheisticreligionyouhappentofolow.'

All of which show that what you mean when you say God is the classic Christian/Jewish/Islammic concept of God.

So to base a disbelife in God on this one concept denies you other data, based on other concepts of God from which to make up your mind. In effect you have made a choice without first examining all of the infomation. Heh a thing that really makes me laugh when ever I get told of my irrational unlogical mind.

What about the Hindu concept of God, or the many Pagan, neo-Pagan, concepts, what about the Sikh view of God. How does one go about not belifeing in God if one does not understand what followers of Thor get from their faith, for example?

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I just never felt the need for religion or any other supernatural thing. Plus, religions are based on faith (absolute belief without any need for proof), and I always check my ideas against facts, through logics and experience. This makes me quite un-religious, I guess.
I find religions interesting just because they're a social and psychological phenomenon with a large influence on humans. Sometimes I have difficulties in stifling a laughter at utterly irrational beliefs - I know it isn't polite, but I happen to lose my self-control sometimes.

I just never felt the need for religion or any other supernatural thing. Plus, religions are based on faith (absolute belief without any need for proof), and I always check my ideas against facts, through logics and experience. This makes me quite un-religious, I guess.
I find religions interesting just because they're a social and psychological phenomenon with a large influence on humans. Sometimes I have difficulties in stifling a laughter at utterly irrational beliefs - I know it isn't polite, but I happen to lose my self-control sometimes.

Heh and this is another view from the all knowing objective, rational thinking, non belivers that makes me laugh.

Show me any objective proof you have for any of your beliefs.

Here is a truth for you. All religious people are so not because of irrational belife, but because of faith based subjective evidance.

There are in fact objective truths out there, but any thing we belive to be true is based soley on subjective, and realtive reasons.

Certianly.

You said:

'The idea that some all-powerful kindly old man in the sky...'

And:

'I mean, if he allowed thousands and thousands to die in a Tsunami a few years ago...'

And finally:

'imagination of the Cristian/Muslim/Jewish/whateverAbrahamicmonotheisticreligionyouhappentofolow.'

All of which show that what you mean when you say God is the classic Christian/Jewish/Islammic concept of God.

No, not literally.

These are just examples most often referred to on this board, and in most western conversations of "God".
Indeed, as I pointed out, I was referring to the Abrahamic ideal of God earlier, but that is certainly not to imply that I have based my belief soley due to my inablity to believe in that one particular ideal of what a "God" is.


So to base a disbelife in God on this one concept denies you other data, based on other concepts of God from which to make up your mind. In effect you have made a choice without first examining all of the infomation. Heh a thing that really makes me laugh when ever I get told of my irrational unlogical mind.]

What about the Hindu concept of God, or the many Pagan, neo-Pagan, concepts, what about the Sikh view of God. How does one go about not belifeing in God if one does not understand what followers of Thor get from their faith, for example?

Please see above.

Ive read all the major religious texts available to me at one time or another, and even do the occasional bit of research into early Christian history.
(Know thy enemy, so to speak :) )

I believe they all have one thing in common:

They were all invented by the people who worship/ped them.

No, not literally.

These are just examples most often referred to on this board, and in most western conversations of "God".
Indeed, as I pointed out, I was referring to the Abrahamic ideal of God earlier, but that is certainly not to imply that I have based my belief soley due to my inablity to believe in that one particular ideal of what a "God" is.



Please see above.

Ive read all the major religious texts available to me at one time or another, and even do the occasional bit of research into early Christian history.
(Know thy enemy, so to speak :) )

I believe they all have one thing in common:

They were all invented by the people who worship/ped them.

Heh remember when I said that I'm not taking the piss outa you personaly?

Sorry I failed to understand your meaning. All religions were invented by, people beliving in what God, Gods, religion, reliogns, what?


Ohh and reading the holy scripture is just the first step on understanding that particular religion.

Heh and this is another view from the all knowing objective, rational thinking, non belivers that makes me laugh.

Show me any objective proof you have for any of your beliefs.

I didn't say I have proof for the non-existance of a god. But there aren't proofs for the existance, either. So, since the god hypotesis is quite far-fetched and based on people saying "god came down and spake unto me" or variations on this theme, I reject it, at least until I see some proof or objective evidence.

Here is a truth for you. All religious people are so not because of irrational belife, but because of faith based subjective evidance.
Where is the "rational belief" in "subjective evidence"? It is anything but rational. It cannot be debated. It cannot be checked. Any judge would reject it. So, your truth isn't a truth after all. I do respect your belief, but this won't make it true, or objective.


There are in fact objective truths out there, but any thing we belive to be true is based soley on subjective, and realtive reasons.
Yea. So belief is subjective. This is why I don't believe.

Truth is a logical attribute. So truth isn't "out there". Truth is in the human mind.
Reality is about objectivity and measuring. Matter is real and measurable. Energy is real and measurable.
Reality is a different thing from truth. Measure god, measure faith, measure a miracle - DIRECTLY, not quoting "sacred" books or "gospel" - tell me how you did it, then I will check your measures.

Heh remember when I said that I'm not taking the piss outa you personaly?

Absolutely.

If I had thought otherwise....I would have been all like "Oy! you bastard!" or something....
I didnt.


Sorry I failed to understand your meaning. All religions were invented by, people beliving in what God, Gods, religion, reliogns, what?

Gods are invented by those that believe in them.
They are a product of our imaginations, and insecurities.
Its in our natures to desire to be protected, and since humans are spiritual (or at least superstitious) creatures, we develop religions as coping mechansims.

In essence, we develop Gods and religions as spirtual band-aids.

Human comes up with important question he cant answer...he makes up a God to answer that question, and give himself piece of mind.

So..to boil it down....People must first convince themselves that God exists.
They can do this in a number of ways.
It could be a simple matter of believing, out of percieved obligation.
Many are taught not to question..so they do not.
Others believe it out of gratitude from social benefits.
That is to say that when joining a church group, with it often comes a strong sense of community to others in that group.

Many, such as you yourself claim, to have a sort of "evidence" that mainly occurs within ones own mind.
Perhaps a certain feeling experieced while in church or something else attributed to divine contact.
Whatever it is, its usually never something that can be fully explained or even shared with another.


Ohh and reading the holy scripture is just the first step on understanding that particular religion.

I agree.

For a long period, I went through a spiritual sojourn of sorts like many dissafected Christians.
I did much reading and learning of other religions to see if any suited me.
Not much really did.

Eastern religions fascinate me, but only at an academic level.

I think most of our beliefs are based on what sources we use to obtain our information and the level of trust we place in those sources.

For some people those sources may be our parents, our friends and our local congregation, books distributed by other folk of the same religious persuasion etc etc.. these sources are trusted as they are good people who provide them to you... people who have proven themselves to be worthy of your trust over and over again. It makes it very easy to take their word over the word of a few faceless strangers who tell you that your beliefs aren't based on real facts and are actually completely illogical.

It would take a very strong and perhaps irrational person to disbelieve all the evidence they have been presented with in the past and trust some new and untested source of knowledge. Some people are so loyal they would never even consider it.

Thats the "truth" of religion. Strength in numbers.

Its no less real to the person who is experiencing it than the strength of numbers in the scientific community.

Personaly I grew up with a mother who was a Professor of evolutionary biology and a father who was a physicist before working for IBM in the 60s.... it was natural for me to see through religion. The evidence was all there from people I spoke to, books I read, and most importantly the world around me. I consider myself very lucky in that respect.

Are my beliefs any more valid than someone elses? Are my sources any more trustworthy? I can measure a lot of what I read against what I see around me, and logic allows me to extend what I see to being able to see how what I read could be true.

I can see how me saying that I am an Atheist could really offend a lot of people because it is a direct affront to all the people who religious folk have put their trust in. If I am right then they were wrong. So religious conviction can be a lot stronger than scientific conviction. I happen to trust my own senses and power of reason... plenty of other people place their trust in other people. It can be a lot easier to believe in other peoples honesty than to believe in your own and a bunch of faceless strangers.

But when it comes down to it. Taking the sources out of the loop and looking at the information as objectively as possible I believe its pretty easy to see that most religions are simply a construct. There may be a superior being out there somewhere in the universe... but a god or gods in the classic sense of the word... in the way it is used by human religions just seems so improbable as to be worthless considering.

It might just be the sources I have used and the trust I have placed in them speaking.. but there is no way to really separate yourself from that.. so we are stuck with our own personal interpretations...

I didn't say I have proof for the non-existance of a god. But there aren't proofs for the existance, either. So, since the god hypotesis is quite far-fetched and based on people saying "god came down and spake unto me" or variations on this theme, I reject it, at least until I see some proof or objective evidence.

Hey Risottia,

Naaa I didn't ask you for proof of God's non existance. I wrote mainly in responce to your remark 'Sometimes I have difficulties in stifling a laughter at utterly irrational beliefs', which means then that you must belive that the inverse is correct. Or that only belifes based on rattional objectivity are correct? My remarke was intended to show that such a thing as objective proof is actualy an oxymoron(such is my belife) and thus to show that all belifes are in this sense based on irrational subjective evidance. I asked you to show me any objective proof for any of your belives to counter this.


Where is the "rational belief" in "subjective evidence"? It is anything but rational. It cannot be debated. It cannot be checked. Any judge would reject it. So, your truth isn't a truth after all. I do respect your belief, but this won't make it true, or objective.

Of course it can both be checked and argued. If it is my stance that all belifes come to us via a process of subjectice evidance, then the mere fact that we are arguing shows you wrong. A point for you. You belive(I hope) that your perants love you, yet you acctuly have nothing but subjective evidance that this is the case. Yet I would certianly call it irrational to not belive your parents love you. Subjectivity does not = irrational.




Yea. So belief is subjective. This is why I don't believe.

Truth is a logical attribute. So truth isn't "out there". Truth is in the human mind.
Reality is about objectivity and measuring. Matter is real and measurable. Energy is real and measurable.
Reality is a different thing from truth. Measure god, measure faith, measure a miracle - DIRECTLY, not quoting "sacred" books or "gospel" - tell me how you did it, then I will check your measures.

Yet your objective reality is based upon the subjective interupretaion of your sensory input, and your lifes experiances. When I say truth in this context I mean what is correct. Yes we can objectively say that gravity exists is true.
But we can also subjectivly say that God is, is another truth.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general.
Nothing "keeps me" from having faith, because having faith is not the default position. All humans are born agnostic and atheist, because we neither know of God nor do we know that we should have faith in God for any particular reason.

I have never been given sufficient reason to believe that God/gods exist/s at all. I also have never felt the need to assume that God/gods exist/s. So I do not have faith in the existence of any God or gods.


Is it because you don't want to follow rules,

Lack of god-belief does not mean a life free from rules, nor does the presence of god-belief mean that one must follow rules. A great many people invent an image of God that allows them to do everything they wanted to do anyhow. A great many people choose to follow whichever religion has the rules that they WANT to follow, and following rules when you feel like it is easy.


you think science conflicts with religion,

Science does conflict with certain claims made by many religions, but that is a different matter from God-belief itself. Science can only address concrete, material claims, and cannot test supernatural or "spiritual" claims.


you don't want there to be a God,

Whether or not I want there to be a God is irrelevant to my belief in God. I don't want there to be rapists, or AIDS, or nuclear war, either. That doesn't mean those things don't or can't exist.

Now, I admit, the image of God that many humans have created for themselves can be disgusting to me. However, whether or not I like a vision of God doesn't say squat about how likely it is to be accurate. It simply determines how likely I would be to worship that particular God if it did exist.

Rapists exist, and I don't worship them. If the Christian God existed, I wouldn't worship it either, and for much the same reason.


you weren't brought up in it?
I think my upbringing did play a large part in my belief system. I was taken to religious and philosophical services of many kinds, and I was probably exposed to more religious traditions than 99% of believers encounter in their lifetimes. However, I also was exposed to my parents' way of life, in which God simply isn't necessary. My parents don't need God any more than they need Santa or leprechauns, and, while they both love to read stories and myths, they aren't particularly interested in living in a fantasy world. I was brought up to find joy and fulfillment in this world, and so far it has been more than enough.

To a point. There's a limit to our knowledge of the universe, and explanations for what happens prior to that are the realm of religion and philosophy rather than science.

God is not necessary within the universe, but outside of it is an entirely different aspect.
"Outside of the universe" makes no ontological sense whatsoever, and is in fact begging the question/stealing the concept.

Gods are invented by those that believe in them. They are a product of our imaginations, and insecurities. Its in our natures to desire to be protected, and since humans are spiritual (or at least superstitious) creatures, we develop religions as coping mechansims.

Heh you may of course be quite correct there, but as the history of God and mankind streches back waaaay into our pre-history it is rather a moot point.

It is very cool though that people can use thir own subjective belifes to counter other peoples subjective belifesm don't you think?;)


In essence, we develop Gods and religions as spirtual band-aids.

Human comes up with important question he cant answer...he makes up a God to answer that question, and give himself piece of mind.

Granted agian this may have been the way it happend. Obviously though my belife is differant, I do belife that religion, and that is each and every relgion we have, has been directluy communicted to man by God. Still how though does this belief of mine, actualy differ from the one you posit above, except in it's stance?



So..to boil it down....People must first convince themselves that God exists.
They can do this in a number of ways.
It could be a simple matter of believing, out of percieved obligation.
Many are taught not to question..so they do not.
Others believe it out of gratitude from social benefits.
That is to say that when joining a church group, with it often comes a strong sense of community to others in that group.

Many, such as you yourself claim, to have a sort of "evidence" that mainly occurs within ones own mind.
Perhaps a certain feeling experieced while in church or something else attributed to divine contact.
Whatever it is, its usually never something that can be fully explained or even shared with another.

I copmpletly agree.



I agree.

For a long period, I went through a spiritual sojourn of sorts like many dissafected Christians.
I did much reading and learning of other religions to see if any suited me.
Not much really did.

Eastern religions fascinate me, but only at an academic level.

Well you know each to their own huh:D , for the record I was never once a Christian, nor do I expect I shall ever be one.

I think most of our beliefs are based on what sources we use to obtain our information and the level of trust we place in those sources.......



Ahhhh many many thanks to you. Probably the very first person to actly state what I belive to be true, which is there is no differance or higher worth in a belife in God vs a non belife in God as all belifes come from the same source. It is our subjectivity that applies worth or vaule to any idea, be that an irratioanl one or otherwise.

And all comeing form sombody in the other camp, so to speak. I'm highly impressed.

Heh you may of course be quite correct there, but as the history of God and mankind streches back waaaay into our pre-history it is rather a moot point.

It is very cool though that people can use thir own subjective belifes to counter other peoples subjective belifesm don't you think?;)

Indeed I do.



Granted agian this may have been the way it happend. Obviously though my belife is differant, I do belife that religion, and that is each and every relgion we have, has been directluy communicted to man by God. Still how though does this belief of mine, actualy differ from the one you posit above, except in it's stance?

The source is different, for one.

You believe all such religions are one branch of the same tree, more or less.

I say the tree has no roots.




I completly agree.




Well you know each to their own huh:D , for the record I was never once a Christian, nor do I expect I shall ever be one.

I feel I should note, that even though an atheist,
I do not feel like all religions are useless.

Spiritual well-being is nice at almost any price.
Those who gain such from thier faith, gain something positive.

Granted agian this may have been the way it happend. Obviously though my belife is differant, I do belife that religion, and that is each and every relgion we have, has been directluy communicted to man by God.
Does this include all the religions that have, as an integral part of their belief structure, the concept that their religion is the only True Religion?

If so, why would the "source" of all these religions directly communicate this conflicting tribalism to so many different faiths? If not, then how do you decide which parts of religion are directly communicated by God and which parts are not?

Does this include all the religions that have, as an integral part of their belief structure, the concept that their religion is the only True Religion?

If so, why would the "source" of all these religions directly communicate this conflicting tribalism to so many different faiths? If not, then how do you decide which parts of religion are directly communicated by God and which parts are not?

Hey Bottle, long time no ummm direct communication with ya!!?(yeah that'll do).

Yes it includes all religion, even those that claim their way is the one true way.

Anytime you find that a tenent of faith contradicts the message of an all loving, never punishing, chance upon chance giving God, then that has been added by man.

God has given us many ways, precisly because we have split into many peoples. Gods, words have been handed down, time and time and time agin, in differant places in differant eras, but the message has always been the same.

Come to me, and let me take away your suffering.

Firstly, my parents are not religious, so i didn't have anyone forcing their beliefs at me.

Secondly, my school was not religious - again, things are cool. I am taught the beliefs/history of different religions (christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism, Buddhism, to name a few). I'm able to make an informed decision if religion is something i could believe.

i consider the world, the condition, what people do to one another........

come to the opinion that religion is really redundant in this world. It was ok before industrialisation, gave people a raison d'etre, something to explain why things are so bad in life.

As Marx said religion is the "opium for the people".

PS, atheists also follow rules they normally come in the form of the law, conscience and morals.

Why believe in something that has casued so much suffering in the world, and continues to do so.

They're not the same, however; a person who is religious is not mentally unstable and they are not delusional. Mental illness can be cured through medication and psychotherapy; you can't "treat" someone of their religious beliefs because it isn't something wrong with them but rather a sincere belief based upon the evidence they have been taught or have seen.


actually, it has been proven that the belief is god is a purely volutary one. my idol, darren brown has proven that he is able to convert people to christianity by a touch of his hand. its very freaky to watch. he can also de-convert people. so i regard people who are very religous to have a mental problem.

actually, it has been proven that the belief is god is a purely volutary one. my idol, darren brown has proven that he is able to convert people to christianity by a touch of his hand. its very freaky to watch. he can also de-convert people. so i regard people who are very religous to have a mental problem.



HAhahah all based on watching your self professed idol Darren Brown?

Hey Bottle, long time no ummm direct communication with ya!!?(yeah that'll do).
Howdy! :D


Yes it includes all religion, even those that claim their way is the one true way.

Anytime you find that a tenent of faith contradicts the message of an all loving, never punishing, chance upon chance giving God, then that has been added by man.

So religions which do not involve belief in that sort of God are not God-inspired?


God has given us many ways, precisly because we have split into many peoples. Gods, words have been handed down, time and time and time agin, in differant places in differant eras, but the message has always been the same.

Come to me, and let me take away your suffering.
If you look across all of human history, the image of a monotheistic religion centering on an all-loving God who takes away human suffering is actually pretty rare.

More often than not, God has been a harsh, if generally well-meaning, figure. God has often been angry, cruel, or unloving in different ways. God has been indifferent. God has been many gods, all of whom possess different motivations, many of which have nothing to do with loving humanity or alleviating our suffering.

Very often, God's loving nature has been viewed as the reason for God to cause humans to suffer. Far from telling us to "come to me, and let me take away your suffering," the message has been that God sends us suffering to make us strong, or virtuous, or to test us for worthiness.

I guess my question is, what leads you to conclude that the message you chose (God loves us and will take away our suffering if we come unto him) is the "real" message imparted by God, while all the other many messages and driving forces behind religion are made by humans? There are other messages that have been far more consistently a part of religious traditions throughout human history, so why aren't those the "real" messages while the loving-God message is human-invented?

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I'm just going to be honest here. The reason I am agnostic is I don't care. Seriously. I do not care if there is a God or not. If I go to hell for not believing in Jesus, Mohammad, Buddah or whoever, then I accept my fate. There is no sense in wasting my time on this earth worrying about things in the afterlife that aren't necessarily guaranteed. I am in charge of my own destiny and can only blame myself for my faults and mishaps.

Let me ask you this. Is your life so miserable that you are banking on heaven to give you riches and wealth to make up for your desolate life right now?

HAhahah all based on watching your self professed idol Darren Brown?

no i base it on other things as well, just darren brown was the most convincing. look him up on youtube see what he can do. he is fantastic. the show i mentioned was called, "the messiah".

I am neither a believer or an Athiest. The problem with Athiesm is that a true athiest believes there is no god. The problem with this is that it would require positive proof that their is no God, and I at least haven't seen any. Same for believers, I have never been presented with any proof in favor of Gods existance. Based on an absolute lack of proof on either side of the argument, I am sticking with being an agnostic, since it is the only logical position.

Now for all of those people who think that believing in God is rational... Well it might make you feel better, but the reality is that faith is a belief in something not based on proof. So while you might be able to say you have a strong faith that is not the same thing as saying you can prove it.

actually, it has been proven that the belief is god is a purely volutary one. my idol, darren brown has proven that he is able to convert people to christianity by a touch of his hand. its very freaky to watch. he can also de-convert people. so i regard people who are very religous to have a mental problem.

no i base it on other things as well, just darren brown was the most convincing. look him up on youtube see what he can do. he is fantastic. the show i mentioned was called, "the messiah".

Darren Brown is the human embodiment of win.

but under this view it would be logically impossible to know anything more. and therefore god would be omniscient - it knows all that is possible to know.

and the god in quest most certainly could be both eternal and uncreated. what makes you think otherwise?



eh, 'classical theism' is obviously rubbish. not only does it run into a whole host of obvious logical contradictions, but it isn't even remotely related to the holy texts it claims to be coming out of. not to mention the sheer lunacy of excluding all the other theists from being 'classical'...

1) if god is all-everything then it cannot be limited by possibility (indeed to be omnipotent it needs to be able to turn all possibility into actuality... and if it does not choose to turn the possiblity of knowing everything into actuality then it is not omniscient)

2) for god to be eternal and uncreated means that it must have existed before time and space itself and thus it is outside it... if it is bound by time and space it could have not existed before time and space

classical theism as in one god, creator, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent (thats it)

Darren Brown is the human embodiment of win.

new sig!
thats it i'm starting a ucd darren brown society, called "brown soc"!

What is god? God is an easy answer for all the questions that hasn't been answered by men like what happens after death and how was the world created(before big bang). We havent been able to proove that yet so the easiest solution would naturally be "god created the world" and "After death we go to paradise or heaven". Instead of actually try to come up with a logical conclusion based on research and scientific evidence, people just say "god, god, god..." so they they dont have to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, I think religions will still survive even if science prooves everything that can be prooved because some people are just so narrow minded that they wouldnt be prepared to admit that they are wrong. Like today, it's even silly that there's a debate over evolution and creationism when there are so many prooves that support evolution and dismiss creationism.

Howdy! :D
So religions which do not involve belief in that sort of God are not God-inspired?

Ahhh now that is the big question, and i'm glad you asked it.

Nope all religoins come from God, any religion that shows God to be anything other has mistaken certian parts of Gods message, and this is reflected in their holy scripture. Or any part of Scripture that shows God to be anything other than all loving is not to be read as literal, but in some other fashion.

Look at Buddhist scripture, on the surrface it is full of contradictions, it is only when a deep understanding comes that they begin to make sense. This is true for all religoin, the exoteric(the hook) and the esoteric(the real message)


If you look across all of human history, the image of a monotheistic religion centering on an all-loving God who takes away human suffering is actually pretty rare.

More often than not, God has been a harsh, if generally well-meaning, figure. God has often been angry, cruel, or unloving in different ways. God has been indifferent. God has been many gods, all of whom possess different motivations, many of which have nothing to do with loving humanity or alleviating our suffering.

Very often, God's loving nature has been viewed as the reason for God to cause humans to suffer. Far from telling us to "come to me, and let me take away your suffering," the message has been that God sends us suffering to make us strong, or virtuous, or to test us for worthiness.

That is very true, but the word to focus on is monotheistic, or the three big religions. Heh as you may be able to tell I'm not a fan of any of those three and indeed I almost find my self agreeing with prof Dawkins in regard to them and evil, almost.

It is very sad though to see what people do to Gods word, and for what, power in the temporal world? Greed? or just plain stupidness, I dunno?


I guess my question is, what leads you to conclude that the message you chose (God loves us and will take away our suffering if we come unto him) is the "real" message imparted by God, while all the other many messages and driving forces behind religion are made by humans? There are other messages that have been far more consistently a part of religious traditions throughout human history, so why aren't those the "real" messages while the loving-God message is human-invented?

Ohh a lot of things really, the actual religon that I belong to proffers this meassage, my thoughts and feelings on God prior to the uptake of my religion(in fact the reason I choose the religon I am, is because it best married up to what my beliefs have brought to me) because as faith in Gods go my faith is unthreatening, non viloent, does not preach that mine is the only way, etc..

Obviosly any faith in God is purley subjective, it is therefore my subjective understanding based , on my subjective reasoning, that this is true.

However if none of it is true in the end, then I have lost nowt, and gained much in my life.

Ahhh now that is the big question, and i'm glad you asked it.

Nope all religoins come from God, any religion that shows God to be anything other has mistaken certian parts of Gods message, and this is reflected in their holy scripture. Or any part of Scripture that shows God to be anything other than all loving is not to be read as literal, but in some other fashion.

Why? What leads you to assume that the real God is loving?


Look at Buddhist scripture, on the surrface it is full of contradictions, it is only when a deep understanding comes that they begin to make sense. This is true for all religoin, the exoteric(the hook) and the esoteric(the real message)

That is very true, but the word to focus on is monotheistic, or the three big religions. Heh as you may be able to tell I'm not a fan of any of those three and indeed I almost find my self agreeing with prof Dawkins in regard to them and evil, almost.

It is very sad though to see what people do to Gods word, and for what, power in the temporal world? Greed? or just plain stupidness, I dunno?

I only included "monotheism" in my post because you refered to God in the singular. I was not assuming that we were talking about the "big three," though your concept of God does seem to be essentially the same as the fundamental idea set forth by these faiths.


Ohh a lot of things really, the actual religon that I belong to proffers this meassage, my thoughts and feelings on God prior to the uptake of my religion(in fact the reason I choose the religon I am, is because it best married up to what my beliefs have brought to me) because as faith in Gods go my faith is unthreatening, non viloent, does not preach that mine is the only way, etc..

Obviosly any faith in God is purley subjective, it is therefore my subjective understanding based , on my subjective reasoning, that this is true.

However if none of it is true in the end, then I have lost nowt, and gained much in my life.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you simply assume a vision of God which is most compatible with your world-view and your faith, right? This world-view and this faith is helpful to you and allows you to gain much in your life, so you embrace a vision of God that is consistent with your subjective value scheme.

I am neither a believer or an Athiest. The problem with Athiesm is that a true athiest believes there is no god. The problem with this is that it would require positive proof that their is no God, and I at least haven't seen any. Same for believers, I have never been presented with any proof in favor of Gods existance. Based on an absolute lack of proof on either side of the argument, I am sticking with being an agnostic, since it is the only logical position.

Now for all of those people who think that believing in God is rational... Well it might make you feel better, but the reality is that faith is a belief in something not based on proof. So while you might be able to say you have a strong faith that is not the same thing as saying you can prove it.

Heh and what do you say to those of us that think all knowledge is irrational based on subjectivity as it is?

no i base it on other things as well, just darren brown was the most convincing. look him up on youtube see what he can do. he is fantastic. the show i mentioned was called, "the messiah".


I watched it, it was a great show.

Unfortunately, I think religions will still survive even if science prooves everything that can be prooved because some people are just so narrow minded that they wouldnt be prepared to admit that they are wrong. Like today, it's even silly that there's a debate over evolution and creationism when there are so many prooves that support evolution and dismiss creationism.

This sort of rethoric is also laughable. He talks about narrow mindedness and does not see the irony in it's usage here.

Religion is the root of many of the world’s problems past and present. How many wars have been and are being fought in the name of a god we can’t even prove exists? How many people have been killed in the name of this god because they don’t meet his/her/its standards as written in some 2000 year old book that has been censored and edited by the church to make it say whatever they want it to say?

Why? What leads you to assume that the real God is loving?

All that I have read about God, and all that my phliospoical musings say must be true of God, for there to be such a thing, tells me that God is loving


I only included "monotheism" in my post because you refered to God in the singular. I was not assuming that we were talking about the "big three," though your concept of God does seem to be essentially the same as the fundamental idea set forth by these faiths.

Heh fair enough, a perfectly honest to make for the both of us. Let me clarify, I use God in the sigular, because it is my belief that there is only one God, all concepts of God talk about the same one.


So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you simply assume a vision of God which is most compatible with your world-view and your faith, right? This world-view and this faith is helpful to you and allows you to gain much in your life, so you embrace a vision of God that is consistent with your subjective value scheme.

You know that's about as honest a way of putting it that I have heard. Yes that's about the score of it. Except I want to stress that my faith is not a made up thing, that my religoin is a real, non cultist, proper devinly handed down one. Hah perhaps it is just bloody good luck that my searching has brought me to it, or perhaps it is the will of God that such a thing has happend. Shit after all we are talking about a faith based belife, so who knows huh!

I would though like to understand why you see my views as fundementalist? or 'the same as the funemental ideas....?'

Bahk;12068857']Religion is the root of many of the world’s problems past and present. How many wars have been and are being fought in the name of a god we can’t even prove exists? How many people have been killed in the name of this god because they don’t meet his/her/its standards as written in some 2000 year old book that has been censored and edited by the church to make it say whatever they want it to say?


Or asked another way, how many wars have been fought by evil men using religoin as an excuse for power, or money or land, or all of the above?

All that I have read about God,

Really? I've found that my own reading has been pretty well mixed. Many cultures describe God or gods as loving, but just as many see God as unloving, harsh, or possessing a sort of reasoning and feeling that is entirely beyond human comprehension.


and all that my phliospoical musings say must be true of God, for there to be such a thing, tells me that God is loving

Heh fair enough, a perfectly honest to make for the both of us. Let me clarify, I use God in the sigular, because it is my belief that there is only one God, all concepts of God talk about the same one.

Well, clearly all concepts of God aren't talking about the same God, since many of them contain contradictory visions of God. Saying that they all are talking about the same God is like saying that if my friend is describing a red-haired tall man with a goatee and I am talking about a black-haired short woman with one leg then we are talking about the same thing because both the woman and the man are human beings. They may share one important quality (the quality of being human persons), but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Similarly, just because many religions worship a God that has the quality of being all-loving does not mean they are worshipping the same God.

What you are saying is that they all share some things in common, such as the idea that God is all-loving. However, all the religions that do NOT describe God as all-loving are (based on your reasoning) not "real" faiths, in the sense that they are not divinely-inspired.


You know that's about as honest a way of putting it that I have heard. Yes that's about the score of it. Except I want to stress that my faith is not a made up thing, that my religoin is a real, non cultist, proper devinly handed down one.

I'm absolutely not intending to be rude here, but would it really matter if your faith was a "cultist" religion? I mean, you're using your subjective values to define God, and then using that subjective definition to define what is and is not a "real" religion, so pretty much whatever you believe in is a "real" religion, regardless of how the rest of the world views it.


Hah perhaps it is just bloody good luck that my searching has brought me to it, or perhaps it is the will of God that such a thing has happend. Shit after all we are talking about a faith based belife, so who knows huh!

I would though like to understand why you see my views as fundementalist? or 'the same as the funemental ideas....?'
I should clarify, when I said "the fundamental" ideas behind the Big Three, I wasn't refering to "fundamentalism" as the term is most often used these days. I was simply talking about the basic notion of God as an all-powerful and all-good being who loves humanity.

Really? I've found that my own reading has been pretty well mixed. Many cultures describe God or gods as loving, but just as many see God as unloving, harsh, or possessing a sort of reasoning and feeling that is entirely beyond human comprehension.

Then we are just talking about the differance in our subjective understanding. I do agree though that God is beyond our understanding. My perception of God is that God is the all, so I guess if you want to lump evil, or whatever other human trait we have, then by my reasoning this must also be God.


Well, clearly all concepts of God aren't talking about the same God, since many of them contain contradictory visions of God. Saying that they all are talking about the same God is like saying that if my friend is describing a red-haired tall man with a goatee and I am talking about a black-haired short woman with one leg then we are talking about the same thing because both the woman and the man are human beings. They may share one important quality (the quality of being human persons), but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Similarly, just because many religions worship a God that has the quality of being all-loving does not mean they are worshipping the same God.

Again this is just down to a differance in our reading of such stuff. Do you know the short story about the blind beggars and the elephant? Each man was asked to feel the elephant and tell what it was, of course every man felt a differant piece and so described a differant thing.

One man says God is like this, whilst another mans says no God is like this, who is right? Well they both are, God is all so God must be like everything.



What you are saying is that they all share some things in common, such as the idea that God is all-loving. However, all the religions that do NOT describe God as all-loving are (based on your reasoning) not "real" faiths, in the sense that they are not divinely-inspired.

Nooo not at all, I belive what I said was that all religoin is God given, but some people for their own ends have changed Gods word. I don't deny that the core message preached by Christianity, or Islam is God given, only that somewhere along the line, Gods words have been changed by unscupless man. When I read the Bible of Christianity, one message blares out at me:

Love you God, and loves God's creation as you would your God.


I'm absolutely not intending to be rude here, but would it really matter if your faith was a "cultist" religion? I mean, you're using your subjective values to define God, and then using that subjective definition to define what is and is not a "real" religion, so pretty much whatever you believe in is a "real" religion, regardless of how the rest of the world views it.

I guess not, heh but we all get defensive of our ideas huh!


I should clarify, when I said "the fundamental" ideas behind the Big Three, I wasn't refering to "fundamentalism" as the term is most often used these days. I was simply talking about the basic notion of God as an all-powerful and all-good being who loves humanity.


Ahhh got ya, then I am indeed guilty of that.

I watched it, it was a great show.

if i could been anyone in the world, i would be. him. but i wouldnt have done the tv show. i would have used my abilities for political gain. he must have those dam moral thingys.

This sort of rethoric is also laughable. He talks about narrow mindedness and does not see the irony in it's usage here.

It's not narrow minded to dismiss a "theory" totally if you have solid prooves that its wrong. If you could use religion to proove anything wrong with science be my guest.

if i could been anyone in the world, i would be. him. but i wouldnt have done the tv show. i would have used my abilities for political gain. he must have those dam moral thingys.

heheh yeah or of course the other reason that he may not use his powers for personal gain, is that it is all a trick and he can't really do these things?

:eek:

if i could been anyone in the world, i would be. him. but i wouldnt have done the tv show. i would have used my abilities for political gain. he must have those dam moral thingys.

Perhaps he has and just hypnotised us all so we don't notice. I say he is a witch and we should burn him. Burn the witch, burn the witch...

heheh yeah or of course the other reason that he may not use his powers for personal gain, is that it is all a trick and he can't really do these things?

:eek:

he is a pychologist origionally by profession. he now calls himself a mental illusionist. i've seen him live and i know vaguely how most of his stuff works. i'm trying to learn it myself.
have yoou seen his other shows? he is able to go up to somebody in a both at horse races and make them think he has the winning ticket. this is actually legal in england.

It's not narrow minded to dismiss a "theory" totally if you have solid prooves that its wrong. If you could use religion to proove anything wrong with science be my guest.


Okay then you have solid proff that God does not exist?

Perhaps he has and just hypnotised us all so we don't notice. I say he is a witch and we should burn him. Burn the witch, burn the witch...

gorias is against the idea of burning witches. wiccas on the other hand....

he is a pychologist origionally by profession. he now calls himself a mental illusionist. i've seen him live and i know vaguely how most of his stuff works. i'm trying to learn it myself.
have yoou seen his other shows? he is able to go up to somebody in a both at horse races and make them think he has the winning ticket. this is actually legal in england.


I know all about him, I quite like what he does, and I also have a vauge knowledge how he does somethings.

Okay then you have solid proff that God does not exist?

How can you have solid proof for something not existing?

How can you have solid proof for something not existing?

Exactly. So when an Atheist says, and all based on subjective beliefe;

'Relious people are narrow minded'

I can see the irony in this statement.

Exactly. So when an Atheist says, and all based on subjective beliefe;

'Relious people are narrow minded'

I can see the irony in this statement.

I think you miss my point. You can't place the burden of proof on the atheists, because they aren't the ones claiming that something hitherto unproven exists. The burden of proof is on the religious.

I think you miss my point. You can't place the burden of proof on the atheists, because they aren't the ones claiming that something hitherto unproven exists. The burden of proof is on the religious.


I think you miss my point. I don't wish to prove anythink, belive or not in God I don't really mind.

My point was purly one of Irony.

A person said, 'Religouse people are narrow minded' thus showing his own narrow mindedness, for makeing a statment that was not objectivly verifiable, but instead his personal subjective POV, I merley said i can see the irony.

Exactly. So when an Atheist says, and all based on subjective beliefe;

'Relious people are narrow minded'

I can see the irony in this statement.

It's up to you to proove that you're right, not up to med to proove that youre wrong.

And btw, stop quoting me wrong!!! I never said "Religious people are narrow minded". I have met many very un-narrow-minded religious people who belive in science and think that science and faith are two separate things which shouldn't be mixed together. What you did was that you made a conclusion and made it look like you quoted me. this is what I said:

"What is god? God is an easy answer for all the questions that hasn't been answered by men like what happens after death and how was the world created(before big bang). We havent been able to proove that yet so the easiest solution would naturally be "god created the world" and "After death we go to paradise or heaven". Instead of actually try to come up with a logical conclusion based on research and scientific evidence, people just say "god, god, god..." so they they dont have to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, I think religions will still survive even if science prooves everything that can be prooved because some people are just so narrow minded that they wouldnt be prepared to admit that they are wrong. Like today, it's even silly that there's a debate over evolution and creationism when there are so many prooves that support evolution and dismiss creationism."

So if you had actually read it you would have concluded that I think people that close their eyes for scientific evidence and say that they are wrong without being able to proove them wrong, in spite how many and strong they are, are narrow minded. And I think that god is an answer for all the things we don't know which I made very clear. Before, people thought rain and thunder was caused by gods because they didn't knew what caused it. Now we know.

Btw, agnosthic is a much better word than atheist when I think about it.