Do You Believe in God?

[Equus14]

once again, you say that they can be proven untrue...so do so. oh, what, you can disprove Adam and Eve or Noah? big whoop. those aren't exactly essential matters of faith. religion in and of itself is not a "control device." it can and has been used for that purpose by the corrupt and the greedy, certainly. i'm not denying that. but that's not nor has it ever been its purpose or its aim. hell, Jesus preached AGAINST just that. once again, you're imposing your outside prejudices based on limited experiences as a broad generalization on ALL religion. faith itself does not control people because we still have and always will have free will. a church or mosque or temple can tell you what to do or believe, but it's your CHOICE whether or not you do or believe it. if you couldn't there wouldn't be so many sects and denominations. every one of those variations in every faith represents somebody who said "no, i disagree...i believe this instead." so if religion is meant for the sole purpose of controlling people, it's been doing a pretty piss poor job of it for the last few thousand years.

The fact that Adam and Eve and Noah are disprovable, and they have been disproven but religious people refuse to believe the evidence that is the nature of their delusion, throws into question the veracity of the rest of the Bible. It's interlinked; remove one link and the chain falls apart.

or the out group among militant bigoted atheists, or governments that don't tolerate their religion and persecute them merely for believing and practicing their faith. and that IS a fact.

Religious people, on the whole, have proven themselves a danger to the people who are not part of their 'in group'. Don't believe me? Tell that to the victims of the Inquasition, Crudsades, and 9-11. Tell that to the victims of the violence in Ireland, Cosivo, Iraq, Kashmir, and Darfur among many many other places. Religious people are easily manipulated because they embrace their perceptions as reality and don't require evidence. THAT alone makes them dangerous. And for your information no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism. Atheistic governments such as the Soviet Union replaced traditional religions with one of their own The State. With it's own version of authoritarianism and dogma that I speak out against also. An atheistic government that doesn't replace religion would be called Secular. That's what the United States was intended to be. Guess who screwed that up for the rest of us. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. There are those of them who refuse to let people live their lives as they see fit, and religious moderate do NOTHING to stop them because in the end most of them will see it as a good thing.

no, not necessarily. again, you continue to speak in generalizations as if they were facts. not all governments or religions are dependent upon authoritarianism or dogma. they can easily descend into that by becoming TOO institutionalized and thus riddled with corruption and hypocrisy, but that doesn't make the IDEAS behind them at fault, merely the bastards in charge. we're flawed creatures. we can fuck up anything we get our hands on, no matter how beautiful, wise or true. that does not make religion inherently bad, any more than it makes government inherently bad.

What makes you think that your religion wasn't corrupted centuries ago? And if it was, how can you possibly know what was intended originally if all you have today is the corrupt version? What makes your religion 'good'? How do you know that it is 'good' if, as you said, we can fuck up anything we get our hands on......

faith does not equate willful ignorance

No it means embracing your perceptions as factual with no evidence or in spite of contrary evidence. It means believing things when there is really no valid reason to.

if that were true, then our personalities would never change. they would be essential fundamental things that were unalterable. the FACT that they are so dependent upon our experiences and our perceptions, the FACT that we can change them anytime we want to, is proof to me that they are fleeting things. we get married to them and are afraid to change at times, which causes stagnation in our lives, but that's the illusion...that our personalities define us, that we are incapable of being anything else.

No one said that your personality was static. You as a person Evolve. That means change over time. That doesn't mean that you as a person are anything more than what is in your brain.

and i never said the soul was separate. i think it's absolutely integral to our beings. our holistic selves, body, mind and spirit. i've also always been fond of the quote (and may have cited it in here before), "the soul does not exist within the body, the body exists within the soul."

Nonsensical mumbo jumbo.

because i believe there is MORE than just logic, reason, rationality and even reality. there IS something beyond all of this. and part of that is my soul. whether that returns to God, the Source, after i die or whether i reenter the game in another suit and play out another life, i can't say. i have ideas and beliefs, but no firm knowledge. but i believe in the soul, in the eternal essential spark that is me and is God and that connects me to everything and everyone else. my body may rot and decompose and become part of the life cycle of the Earth again (well, i plan on being cremated, so maybe not quite like that...), but i believe in my soul and that eternal fundamental part of me that goes on. you don't have to. and what difference does it make to you whether i do or not?

It matters because you are not an island. Think about that.

and insisting that anyone who believes differently must therefore be delusional and ignorant. no, not closed minded at all.

Anyone who doesn't embrace evidence based reality is flirting with delusional thinking. There is nothing to prevent you from beliving anything at all if you live your perceptions with no evidence.

i don't NEED to prove that my soul exists (once again, not separate). i don't NEED to show you evidence. show me evidence it doesn't and maybe i'll consider not believing in it. i'm not saying you have to believe what i believe. i'm just saying there are other points of view to consider and you don't have to be so belligerent and closed off towards those whose beliefs and opinions differ

Avoid logical and reasonable debate at all costs. You have yet to even realize that it is the one making the positive assertion that something exists that must provide the evidence. No one can disprove the existence of invisible garden gnomes. There's a reason for that. Think about it, if you can that is.

 

[B_8 incher]

The fact that Adam and Eve and Noah are disprovable, and they have been disproven but religious people refuse to believe the evidence that is the nature of their delusion, throws into question the veracity of the rest of the Bible. It's interlinked; remove one link and the chain falls apart.






Religious people, on the whole, have proven themselves a danger to the people who are not part of their 'in group'. Don't believe me? Tell that to the victims of the Inquasition, Crudsades, and 9-11. Tell that to the victims of the violence in Ireland, Cosivo, Iraq, Kashmir, and Darfur among many many other places. Religious people are easily manipulated because they embrace their perceptions as reality and don't require evidence. THAT alone makes them dangerous. And for your information no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism. Atheistic governments such as the Soviet Union replaced traditional religions with one of their own The State. With it's own version of authoritarianism and dogma that I speak out against also. An atheistic government that doesn't replace religion would be called Secular. That's what the United States was intended to be. Guess who screwed that up for the rest of us. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. There are those of them who refuse to let people live their lives as they see fit, and religious moderate do NOTHING to stop them because in the end most of them will see it as a good thing.






What makes you think that your religion wasn't corrupted centuries ago? And if it was, how can you possibly know what was intended originally if all you have today is the corrupt version? What makes your religion 'good'? How do you know that it is 'good' if, as you said, we can fuck up anything we get our hands on......







No it means embracing your perceptions as factual with no evidence or in spite of contrary evidence. It means believing things when there is really no valid reason to.






No one said that your personality was static. You as a person Evolve. That means change over time. That doesn't mean that you as a person are anything more than what is in your brain.







Nonsensical mumbo jumbo.






It matters because you are not an island. Think about that.





Anyone who doesn't embrace evidence based reality is flirting with delusional thinking. There is nothing to prevent you from beliving anything at all if you live your perceptions with no evidence.





Avoid logical and reasonable debate at all costs. You have yet to even realize that it is the one making the positive assertion that something exists that must provide the evidence. No one can disprove the existence of invisible garden gnomes. There's a reason for that. Think about it, if you can that is.

man gods could exits after all the same with santa :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

 

[Equus14]

man gods could exits after all the same with santa :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

The 8 incher has spoken, let all who read know, believe, and learn for I have been reported and will receive coal in my stocking for Santa denial. Let this not be YOU or there will be great weeping and much sorrow on Christmas Day!
:smile::biggrin1:

 

[schllong]

After the last few years, I am convinced God exists. But, as Bono said, it has to be believed to be seen.

 

[Equus14]

After the last few years, I am convinced God exists. But, as Bono said, it has to be believed to be seen.

So does Tinkerbell. In fact if you stop believing in fairies they die!!!

I've always thought it was rather convenient, as well as telling, that one must have an honest belief in a god before it can be seen.

That is the recipe for generating a psychological illusion for seeing a god in practically everything.

 

[schllong]

Equus14, you just don't get it. Maybe as you become older you'll have enough experiences to draw from to make a different conclusion.

 

[Equus14]

Equus14, you just don't get it. Maybe as you become older you'll have enough experiences to draw from to make a different conclusion.

As a 38 year old who was raised Christian and spent most of his life as a Christian living mostly within the Bible Belt of Tennessee I can tell you that I most definitely DO get it. What you fail to get is that intellectual honesty is more important than 'faith'.

 

[the_reverend]

It's not just against all religion, but against irrationality and unreason. I am equally against other forms of authoritarianism. Religion is just one form. One must create limits for oneself. I tolerate those religions that tolerate the rest of us. Those religions and people who don't I respond in the same manner as they treat others. After all, I'm only treating them as they apparently wish to be treated. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" works both ways.

but i think you've got it backwards...those who use religion as a tool for intolerance, fear and manipulation are the exception, not the rule. they're more vocal and more obviously religious because they make an overt show of it (which, ironically, Jesus preached against) so they draw more attention, but the rest of us of ALL spiritualities and faiths aren't like that.

The problem with the moderate versions of the Abrahamic religions is that in spite of being more of a 'feel good' kind of religion that minds its own business and leaves me to mind my own. The majority of them do virtually NOTHING to stop the more radical versions of running over what they will. Moderate religions create a harbor for their radical versions. If moderate Christianity stood up and collectively told 'conservative' radiacal Christianity to 'SIT DOWN and Shut Up!' I would have less of a problem with moderate Christianity, but they do not do that and will not.

we do. all the time. have you ever had an argument with a fundamentalist of ANY stripe? it's not like they just go away because you disagree with them or tell them to. also, in this country, "sit down and shut up" isn't exactly the right attitude for evolved discourse. it's actually THEIR attitude and i don't see why we should be penalized for not adopting it.

This is where so many religious/spiritual people go wrong. No reality is not an illusion. Reality is what is there in spite of your perceptions. How you perceive a thing is not always what is real. That's why there are people who live in their own little world. That's called mental illness. Some people percieve that they are Napoleon and that Harry Potter is a real person that doesn't mean they are and no amount of perception is going to make them true. Reality is static. It's a set thing. If it weren't there is no way anyone could truly relate to anyone else and have any kind of cohesive conversation. We are all experiencing the reality that is there through our senses, and that reality would be there even if we did not exist.

we just fundamentally disagree here because i think reality IS an illusion. that doesn't make it unreal, it just means that it's not all there is. you state your opinions as absolutes, as though there were no other alternatives. which is making this discussion rather tiresome indeed.

Just because I can't disprove god doesn't mean that if one should exist it is YOURS. It could just as easily be the god of some other religion or the god of no human religion. Or even multiple gods. You are making the assertion that god exists. It's up to you to prove that it does. Otherwise you may as well be saying that garden gnomes exist.

i never said He would be "mine." i believe what i believe, but that doesn't mean that Muslims or Jews or Buddhist or Hindus shouldn't believe what they believe. i think we're all looking at facets of the same thing and when we eventually return to that divine source we'll see we all had a piece of the puzzle. it doesn't matter to me whether God has the head of a lion or a thousand arms or if he's just a big fuzzy ball of glowing blue energy. i don't care if His name is Yahweh, Allah, Brahma or Jehovah. i think God is beyond faces and names, but that they're a medium for us to relate to Him/Her/It/Them. and i don't need to prove anything. i'm not trying to convince you that God exists. i have no interest in that. that's between you and God. i'm arguing my beliefs, my faith. but i don't need them to persuade you. i'm not on this site as a missionary (hell, on this site, i expect to be having an entirely different discussion when the word missionary comes up. )

Why bother? Those are human traits they certainly exist and I don't dispute that. It's your suppositions of the meanings behind them that I disagree with. They're nothing more than what they seem on the surface.

the point is that you can't prove or disprove emotions. you can't quantify them. yet we KNOW they exist because we experience them. I have experienced God in my life and so i believe He exists as well.

A lack of evidence for it says that there isn't an afterlife. There is no reason to disprove the existence of invisible gnomes in my garden because there is no reason to believe that they exist due to a lack of evidence. Same thing with the 'afterlife'.

the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. just because you can't prove a thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying that you have to see things MY way. I'm saying that if you leave reality based on evidence and live your perceptions with no evidence you're leaving yourself open to believe ANYTHING your perceptions tell you. That leads to Delusional thinking. There is only one reality, and that's the one we are all sharing. If you could plainly see that there is no invisible garden gnomes in people's gardens because of a total lack of evidence and I came along and told you that they do exist but provide no evidence that it is true apart from my perceptions I shouldn't be surprised to find people calling me delusional. It's the exact same thing with religion. It's not enough that you couldn't care less what I believe. I DO care what others believe for the simple fact that when so many other people believe what is not true, it effects us all. Look at ALL the horrible things that are being done in the name of religion. THAT is what believing things with no evidence creates.

my evidence is person, it's experiential. it's not something i can duplicate in a lab or pass on to someone else. it's beyond that. i believe in things beyond what mere facts can prove, beyond what the rational mind can perceive. that doesn't mean i'm gullible and will believe just anything. i'm still a free thinking and critically minded person. i can think as well as feel. and both are necessary tools when coming to emotional, spiritual, philosophical or ideological truths.

and if you came along and told me there were invisible gnomes in your garden who told you to be kind to your neighbors, to be loving, charitable and forgiving and you lived a good life based around those precepts, then what difference does it make to me whether you believe in gnomes or not? that's your business and i don't think it makes you a bad person. hell, i don't agree with a lot of the Mormon mythology about Christ coming to America...but almost every Mormon i've ever known has been really cool with a great family life, so who am i to begrudge them their beliefs if it works for them and they harm no one else? you just seem inordinately pissed off at ANYONE who believes in God or religion...not because they themselves are bad, but because you had some bad experiences with other religious people and apparently have decided to hold us all accountable.

Religion creates conflict. People instinctively understand there can only be one Truth and in spite of your attitude toward others, which I admit is kinder than some, is still part of that collective unreason which the more unkinder elements feed off of.

religion doesn't create conflict. that's bunk. PEOPLE create conflict. it's in our natures. and it's not necessarily an absolute bad to have conflict. conflict breeds change, growth, adaptation. a static system with no conflict whatsoever will grow stagnant and die. religion has been used as an excuse for conflict. so has politics, sex, drugs and money. hell, we've had years of violence in our streets based on what neighborhood someone's from and what colors they're wearing. and you're going to tell me that RELIGION is the problem? it's tribalism, not theism, that breeds conflict. and any separation or difference will at some point butt heads. but it's up to us as to what extent we take it to and whether we learn from that experience and maybe absorb a bit from each other or just stubbornly continue to fight over the same shit. that goes beyond mere religion.

I know you're not all like that, but I've explained why I treat all religious people the same way.

right, and it seems to fly in the face of the logic and rationality you claim to hold so highly.

 

[the_reverend]

There is a difference between how I treat religious people as PEOPLE and how I treat them as 'Religious' people. Everyone deserves respect as people, beliefs that are collectively negatively effecting others that are unreasonable and irrational deserve derision and ridicule.

but that's YOUR belief that they're negatively affecting others, that they're unreasonable and irrational. for a lot of people, their faith is a fundamental part of WHO they are...and if, as you claim, people's personalities are their true selves, then by deriding and ridiculing what they believe and the way they behave because of it, you AREN'T respecting them.

i work in comedy and do a lot of satire. when i see hypocrisy or corruption or incompetence in any arena, i consider it ripe for mockery...including and especially my own belief systems. but ridiculing people merely for HAVING faith in God or some kind of notion of spirituality? no, that's in no way respecting who they are as people.

you write us all off and paint us with the same brush because that's easier for you to deal with than actually getting to KNOW the person and understand exactly WHAT they believe and WHY they believe it. and you're sadly far from the only one...

Religious suppositions about the afterlife and that which doesn't exist look very much alike.
They are both unprovable.
They are both not disprovable.
It is the lack of evidence that makes then not worth believing.

if you only believe what you can prove, then you can't believe anything. belief, faith, requires a different set of perception than knowledge. it requires embracing the unseen, unheard and unknown. to my mind, religious people who say they KNOW what God is and KNOW there's an after life are just as bad as atheists who say we shouldn't BELIEVE anything because we can't PROVE it.

i'm not saying you have to believe anything that i believe. i'm not telling you to accept my faith. i'm saying this is what i believe, this is my faith. at the very least respect that. if you want to ridicule and get your mad on at how certain people ACT on their faith or use their faith to excuse their bigotry, fear, intolerance and hatred...by all means, go ahead! i'll join you for that fight, hand in sardonic hand. but merely because someone HAS faith? no, i can never agree with that.

Living by perception alone is a mistake. Radial Islam for example lives by perception alone to. Are they right in their 'truths' that are beyond mere fact to?

when they start hurting people or oppressing people against their will (there's a difference between that and people who are willing oppressed), no. but again, that's how they're ACTING upon their faith (and a skewed version of their actual religion at that), not their faith itself. Islam is actually a beautiful and intricate religion that there is much truth to. I don't agree with all of it, of course (i believe in Christ's divinity, they don't. doesn't mean we can't watch Battlestar Galactica together). but i don't have to. that's the beauty of this wonderfully strange world we live in.

I do every day in what I do for them without question. That is the evidence.

no, that's merely evidence of the fact that you do for them without question. from that observation, i might infer that you've been conditioned and trained to do for them without question. or i might assume you have some animal need for acceptance from your progenitors. but i don't. you tell me you believe your parents and i have no reason to distrust you or claim that can't be true because it's not proveable because only YOU know if it's absolutely true. you might be lying to me. you might be delusional and love is just a series of synapses firing in a certain sequence. maybe love doesn't exist. but i believe it does, and if you tell me you love your parents then i'll believe you.

mounds of observed phenomena related to those things IS EVIDENCE. With enough evidence for a particular thing it can create an almost near certainty which may as well mean fact. Where is your evidence for your spiritual beliefs? Where is your evidence that the afterlife exists? Where is your evidence that the god that you claim exists is YOURS as oppose to someone else's? Where is your evidence that your perceptions are reality with no evidence?

no, the observed phenomena prove only themselves. you then make an inference based on those things to suppose that the conclusions must be true. but you can't actually prove it. nor should you have to. if someone says they're a reggae fan, why doubt them? if someone says they poured their soul into a painting or a poem, what purpose does it serve to tell them to prove it? maybe i can prove to you that i'm a reggae fan based on my huge album collection and killer stash of weed, but i can't prove to you that reggae is "good" if you don't like it. maybe you'll find some artist or recording you DO like and come around and maybe we can discuss it and i can convince you to consider it, but i can't prove it to you scientifically. it's subjective. in the same way, i can prove that I believe in God. i have a few different Bibles, several books on religion, spirituality and philosophy and i try to live my life according to the fundamental principles of my faith(s). but i can't prove to you that God is real. you might come around and find some belief in Him someday, or we can discuss God and you might change your mind and consider that He exists and His nature, but i can't prove Him. and there's no need to. faith is personal, it's subjective. my belief in God is different than anyone else's. you want me to prove He exists? that's a shame, because i'm not going to and I don't need to. because i don't need you to believe as i believe, or even to believe at all. that's your journey. wear comfortable shoes.

 

[the_reverend]

The fact that Adam and Eve and Noah are disprovable, and they have been disproven but religious people refuse to believe the evidence that is the nature of their delusion, throws into question the veracity of the rest of the Bible. It's interlinked; remove one link and the chain falls apart.

that's as ridiculous as the fundamentalists who say you have to believe every word in the Bible as literal truth or you can't believe in any of it. there are plenty of Christians and Jews who don't believe in the actual literal truth of Adam and Eve or Noah. they're stories. stories are powerful things. they can teach us a lot and have wonderful encoded meaning. it doesn't mean they actual occurred. the fact that they actually occurred does not lessen their power. removing one link and replacing it with a stronger one does not make the chain fall apart. neither does refining and strengthening one's faith by doubting and resolving contrary and contradictory information. to me, that's the only TRUE faith. blind faith is no faith at all.

Religious people, on the whole, have proven themselves a danger to the people who are not part of their 'in group'. Don't believe me? Tell that to the victims of the Inquasition, Crudsades, and 9-11. Tell that to the victims of the violence in Ireland, Cosivo, Iraq, Kashmir, and Darfur among many many other places. Religious people are easily manipulated because they embrace their perceptions as reality and don't require evidence. THAT alone makes them dangerous. And for your information no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism. Atheistic governments such as the Soviet Union replaced traditional religions with one of their own The State. With it's own version of authoritarianism and dogma that I speak out against also. An atheistic government that doesn't replace religion would be called Secular. That's what the United States was intended to be. Guess who screwed that up for the rest of us. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. There are those of them who refuse to let people live their lives as they see fit, and religious moderate do NOTHING to stop them because in the end most of them will see it as a good thing.

and once again, we come to the fact that HOW some people act on their beliefs (religious or not, and you can split semantic hairs and call "The State" a religion if you want to, that's fine) may be bad, but religion itself is not an absolute evil, nor are all religious and spiritual people bad or dangerous. most of us are just regular folk who happen to believe in some form of God. and by most of us, i mean the majority of the world. if youre theories on religion and religious people were so true, we'd all be dead by now.

and this country was founded and nurtured BY religious people. they may not have all worshipped in the same way or believed the same things, but even great Enlightenment style thinkers like Jefferson, Franklin and Paine all believed in God in some form. the system they set up was not only to protect government from religion, but to protect religion from government. and it wasn't really until the 1980s with Reagan and the birth of the neo-con movement with their backing from the Falwells, Robertsons and Dobsons of the world that it really became a problem. like i said, i'll stand on the front lines with you when it comes to applying authoritarian or dogmatic thinking to religion OR government. but neither one is INHERENTLY authoritarian or dogmatic.

What makes you think that your religion wasn't corrupted centuries ago? And if it was, how can you possibly know what was intended originally if all you have today is the corrupt version? What makes your religion 'good'? How do you know that it is 'good' if, as you said, we can fuck up anything we get our hands on......

if the corrupt version of my religion says to love my family, my neighbors and even my enemies, to forgive those who do me wrong and to show kindness and charity to even the lowest in society...well, i'd be curious to see what kind of hippie crap got thrown out before the corruption set in.

No it means embracing your perceptions as factual with no evidence or in spite of contrary evidence. It means believing things when there is really no valid reason to.

you don't see them as valid reasons. we do. or evidence is experiential, it's personal. it's not something we can pour into a jar and show you.

No one said that your personality was static. You as a person Evolve. That means change over time. That doesn't mean that you as a person are anything more than what is in your brain.

it doesn't mean we're not either.

Nonsensical mumbo jumbo.

do you even expect to have a sincere and honest exchange when you say shit like this? or am i thinking too much of you to assume that you might actually want that? beyond the mere fact that you don't believe in a soul, what's so nonsensical about it?

It matters because you are not an island. Think about that.

i do. i believe in the interconnectedness of all life on multiple levels. so why would i consider myself an island? and what difference does that make to my belief in the soul? hell, my belief in the soul is part of what makes me believe in that interconnection.

Anyone who doesn't embrace evidence based reality is flirting with delusional thinking. There is nothing to prevent you from beliving anything at all if you live your perceptions with no evidence.

except the fact that we still possess rational minds and free will, capable of critical thought and choice. just because we CHOOSE to believe certain things doesn't mean we suddenly become incapable of deliberate thought and choice. it does not equate gullibility.

by your rationale, all thought and consideration beyond the observable is pointless. no room for philosophy or poetry, for talk on things unseen and unknown...perhaps unknowable. sorry, that's not a world i want to live in. it sounds horribly boring, for one thing.

Avoid logical and reasonable debate at all costs. You have yet to even realize that it is the one making the positive assertion that something exists that must provide the evidence. No one can disprove the existence of invisible garden gnomes. There's a reason for that. Think about it, if you can that is.

except that i'm not trying to prove to you that God exists. i have no need to do that. whether you believe in Him or not has no bearing on my belief in Him. i'm merely arguing that religion, faith, spirituality...these things are not inherently bad and the people who choose to walk those paths are not the delusional or deranged people you'd like to paint them as. i'm not avoiding logical or reasonable debate with you. i've been having one all this time. feel free to show up for it whenever you like...

What you fail to get is that intellectual honesty is more important than 'faith'.

and i think what you fail to get is that the two are not incompatible.

 

[B_Hung Jon]

that's as ridiculous as the fundamentalists who say you have to believe every word in the Bible as literal truth or you can't believe in any of it. there are plenty of Christians and Jews who don't believe in the actual literal truth of Adam and Eve or Noah. they're stories. stories are powerful things. they can teach us a lot and have wonderful encoded meaning. it doesn't mean they actual occurred. the fact that they actually occurred does not lessen their power. removing one link and replacing it with a stronger one does not make the chain fall apart. neither does refining and strengthening one's faith by doubting and resolving contrary and contradictory information. to me, that's the only TRUE faith. blind faith is no faith at all.



and once again, we come to the fact that HOW some people act on their beliefs (religious or not, and you can split semantic hairs and call "The State" a religion if you want to, that's fine) may be bad, but religion itself is not an absolute evil, nor are all religious and spiritual people bad or dangerous. most of us are just regular folk who happen to believe in some form of God. and by most of us, i mean the majority of the world. if youre theories on religion and religious people were so true, we'd all be dead by now.

and this country was founded and nurtured BY religious people. they may not have all worshipped in the same way or believed the same things, but even great Enlightenment style thinkers like Jefferson, Franklin and Paine all believed in God in some form. the system they set up was not only to protect government from religion, but to protect religion from government. and it wasn't really until the 1980s with Reagan and the birth of the neo-con movement with their backing from the Falwells, Robertsons and Dobsons of the world that it really became a problem. like i said, i'll stand on the front lines with you when it comes to applying authoritarian or dogmatic thinking to religion OR government. but neither one is INHERENTLY authoritarian or dogmatic.



if the corrupt version of my religion says to love my family, my neighbors and even my enemies, to forgive those who do me wrong and to show kindness and charity to even the lowest in society...well, i'd be curious to see what kind of hippie crap got thrown out before the corruption set in.



you don't see them as valid reasons. we do. or evidence is experiential, it's personal. it's not something we can pour into a jar and show you.



it doesn't mean we're not either.



do you even expect to have a sincere and honest exchange when you say shit like this? or am i thinking too much of you to assume that you might actually want that? beyond the mere fact that you don't believe in a soul, what's so nonsensical about it?



i do. i believe in the interconnectedness of all life on multiple levels. so why would i consider myself an island? and what difference does that make to my belief in the soul? hell, my belief in the soul is part of what makes me believe in that interconnection.



except the fact that we still possess rational minds and free will, capable of critical thought and choice. just because we CHOOSE to believe certain things doesn't mean we suddenly become incapable of deliberate thought and choice. it does not equate gullibility.

by your rationale, all thought and consideration beyond the observable is pointless. no room for philosophy or poetry, for talk on things unseen and unknown...perhaps unknowable. sorry, that's not a world i want to live in. it sounds horribly boring, for one thing.



except that i'm not trying to prove to you that God exists. i have no need to do that. whether you believe in Him or not has no bearing on my belief in Him. i'm merely arguing that religion, faith, spirituality...these things are not inherently bad and the people who choose to walk those paths are not the delusional or deranged people you'd like to paint them as. i'm not avoiding logical or reasonable debate with you. i've been having one all this time. feel free to show up for it whenever you like...



and i think what you fail to get is that the two are not incompatible.

Christopher Hitchens says that a belief in God and especially in the after-life is the ultimate totatitarian sysytem, that there's an all-powerful being who can damn people to ever-lasting torment. It's like a dictatorship that that continues forever.

 

[the_reverend]

Christopher Hitchens says that a belief in God and especially in the after-life is the ultimate totatitarian sysytem, that there's an all-powerful being who can damn people to ever-lasting torment. It's like a dictatorship that that continues forever.

well, i don't think it'll come as any surprise to anyone that i disagree with about 90% of everything i've ever heard Hitchens say. he's the kind of obnoxious "fundamentalist" atheist that i hate dealing with because he can permit for no other points of view than his own. like the Jerry Falwell of atheism. :biggrin1:

on a more theological level, i don't believe it's God who damns us. we "damn" ourselves. it's a choice. God is ever loving, ever forgiving, His grace always open to us. i also don't believe in Hell as a geographic location you go to, more as a spiritual state of being. you don't "go" to Hell...more like Hell comes to you, or you create it yourself.

on a related note, here's a small bit of poetry by Alan Moore from his epic run on Swamp Thing:

"Think you GOD build this place, wish man ill
and not lusts uncontrolled or swords unsheathed?
Not God, my friend. The truth's more hideous still:
These halls were carved by MEN while yet they breathed.

"God is no parent or policeman grim
dispensing treats or punishments to all.
Each soul climbs or descends by its own whim.
He mourns, but He cannot preven their fall."

 

[RogersPkBi]

God truly exists.

 

[Equus14]

that's as ridiculous as the fundamentalists who say you have to believe every word in the Bible as literal truth or you can't believe in any of it. there are plenty of Christians and Jews who don't believe in the actual literal truth of Adam and Eve or Noah. they're stories. stories are powerful things. they can teach us a lot and have wonderful encoded meaning. it doesn't mean they actual occurred. the fact that they actually occurred does not lessen their power. removing one link and replacing it with a stronger one does not make the chain fall apart. neither does refining and strengthening one's faith by doubting and resolving contrary and contradictory information. to me, that's the only TRUE faith. blind faith is no faith at all.

Of all the things you've said you've really summed yourself up here in your beliefs and this is what I see.

You're really no different than any other moderate Christian. You've taken your base religion watered it down and distilled it into something you can live with. When it comes to the Bible you keep the things you like and make sense to you and those things you agree with while discarding the rest, and believe me there is much you've discarded.

Luke 14:28 for example:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."


I can very easily see that and I'm an atheist. So congradulations you've created your own personal sect of Christianity. You've marginalized it so that to you it can make some modicum of sense. To you Everyone is right even when you disagree with them, but if they would actively disagree with you they're wrong. You have the perfect religion. You can believe whatever you like (funny, that's what all moderates do) and you don't have to prove it to anyone because it can't be proven, nor disproven. Convenient.

You're just as delusional as all the other religious people I've ever encountered. Perhaps better at argument, but still just as delusional. You think that just because you're not directly harming anyone no one is being harmed. That simply because religion isn't INHERANTLY authoritarian or dogmatic that somehow excuses it for all the centuries it has been so. The point is that religion is very often used in that manner. People who are religious are obviously easily led. They don't call groups of religious people a 'flock' for nothing. You're all sheep.

But why should I be surprised you don't live in reality and I have no doubt that you'll do whatever it takes to maintain your delusion. That's what religious people do, until they're ready to embrace reality that is.

 

[Equus14]

on a more theological level, i don't believe it's God who damns us. we "damn" ourselves. it's a choice. God is ever loving, ever forgiving, His grace always open to us.

You've obviously not thought this through.
Clearly ou believe that God created the universe. That God would had to have set up the laws governing the universe. Obviously you believe in some form of positive/negative repercussion of our actions, otherwise what is forgiveness/grace for right? So who do you think it was who created those positive or negative repercussions? It must have been that same God who created the Universe right? So if that God who created the universe created that specific set of repercussions regardless of how you interpret them then it must be God who, from the get go, decided that those who didn't beg forgiveness would recieve the negative. That means it isn't your choice to recieve the negative that's what you get if you don't toe the line. See Hitchens was right all along.

i also don't believe in Hell as a geographic location you go to, more as a spiritual state of being. you don't "go" to Hell...more like Hell comes to you, or you create it yourself.

And you believe that all in spite of every Biblical verse to the contrary how brave of you!


The 'Truth' about Hell
The Truth About Hell

This link includes a great many examples of Biblical verses in which Hell is an actual place of torment and even gives the location of Hell from a Biblical perspective.

Isn't that interesting for those of us who simply refuse to believe that our all Loving God would do such a terrible thing!

 

[the_reverend]

Of all the things you've said you've really summed yourself up here in your beliefs and this is what I see.

You're really no different than any other moderate Christian. You've taken your base religion watered it down and distilled it into something you can live with. When it comes to the Bible you keep the things you like and make sense to you and those things you agree with while discarding the rest, and believe me there is much you've discarded.

no, i've examined the primary book of my central faith (as i've also adopted parts of Zen Buddhism and Taoism into my beliefs as well), considered what it has to say, agreed with the fundamental tenets and precepts, the philosophy of Christianity, and either discarded those elements i find contrary to that philosophy with the knowledge that the Bible, while divinely inspired, was mundanely transcribed by flawed and fallible men...or meditated upon those elements to discover how they CAN co-exist with that philosophy. Luke 12:57 "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" Luke 17:21 "For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you." We are capable of thinking for ourselves and finding Truth for ourselves. Scriptures, clergy, churches, etc. are all just sign posts along our paths.

allow me to demonstrate:

Luke 14:28 for example:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

the early church was highly persecuted, by both the Jewish authorities and the Roman occupiers. beyond the legal ramifications, there was a cultural stigma on following Jesus, both before and after his torture and execution. anyone who decided to follow Christ, to become his disciple could face ostracization at home and possibly imprisonment and death at the hands of the authorities. the passage is not saying one HAS to hate one's family and life, but that one must be willing to discard them if necessary to follow one's spiritual journey and dedicate one's self to Christ. if they would rather seek the acceptance of their family and not risk their life at all, then they should do that instead.

in a parallel way, Abraham, Buddha and Mohammed all faced similar shunning and ridicule from their families and societies for preaching a faith that was contradictory to the dominant beliefs of the time, for challenging the status quo. Christ didn't necessarily face such shunning from his family, but he was ridiculed, tortured and executed in one of the most excruciating methods man has ever devised for the same reasons.

I can very easily see that and I'm an atheist. So congradulations you've created your own personal sect of Christianity. You've marginalized it so that to you it can make some modicum of sense. To you Everyone is right even when you disagree with them, but if they would actively disagree with you they're wrong. You have the perfect religion. You can believe whatever you like (funny, that's what all moderates do) and you don't have to prove it to anyone because it can't be proven, nor disproven. Convenient.

i've argued all along that faith and spirituality are personal matters. in that sense, everyone who believes in Christ has their own personal sect of Christianity. everyone who follows the Koran has their own denomination of Islam. i don't need to marginalize it to make it make sense because it makes sense to me. just because i don't believe in the infallibility of the scriptures doesn't mean i don't believe in the underlying truth and meaning behind them, the Word beyond the words.

nor does faith have to be proven. that's the nature of faith. i don't need you to agree with me or believe what i believe, so what's the purpose of trying to prove the unproveable to you?

i think everyone has a viewpoint and everyone's worth hearing out, but i never said everyone was right. hell, personally i think everybody (including me) is wrong because it's impossible for any of us to truly KNOW anything. it's all beliefs and opinions and theories to some extent. subjectivity and perspective. so, yes, when i disagree with someone else's opinion, i'm going to argue against it, just the same as you would. it doesn't mean that their opinion is automatically without value or merit. so i can argue against them without having to automatically write them off as wrong or delusional.

You're just as delusional as all the other religious people I've ever encountered. Perhaps better at argument, but still just as delusional. You think that just because you're not directly harming anyone no one is being harmed. That simply because religion isn't INHERANTLY authoritarian or dogmatic that somehow excuses it for all the centuries it has been so. The point is that religion is very often used in that manner. People who are religious are obviously easily led. They don't call groups of religious people a 'flock' for nothing. You're all sheep.

i think that if someone uses a beautiful flower to poison another human being, it's not the flower's fault. in the same way, because some people have used and exploited religion in the past to manipulate others to their own ends does not make religion itself wicked. i can use a chair to smack someone over the head, that doesn't mean it's the chair's purpose.

i think that if I and the majority of other religious and spiritual people are not harming anyone merely by believing in God, then it's not our fault or religion's fault if a fringe group blows themselves up or wages war in His name. anymore than a college student who thinks Marx had some interesting ideas is responsible for those killed, persecuted and oppressed by Stalin or Mao. as i've said from the beginning, there are bastards in every group. but the bastards don't DEFINE the group.

But why should I be surprised you don't live in reality and I have no doubt that you'll do whatever it takes to maintain your delusion. That's what religious people do, until they're ready to embrace reality that is.

i live in reality everyday...i just believe that there's more than that.

the problem has nothing to do with my "delusion" and everything to do with your prejudices. you've already predetermined the terms of the debate, and so no one else can possibly offer a point of view. if i say i believe in God, the afterlife or a soul, then i'm delusional and incapable of rational thought. whatever i say can simply be excused by that. and in your own mind, you've won.

if i give examples of how I and others differ from the radicals and fundamentalists of our respective faiths, then we're moderates who've watered down our religions and our opinions and actions don't count because we're somehow less genuine than the caricaturish image you impose upon all religious people regardless of what they believe or how they act on it. and in your own mind, you've won.

if i refuse to try and prove the existence of God or the soul to you when you've already made up your mind and there's no physical demonstration i can give you of either, then everything i say is invalidated because i'm unable to prove the unproveable...even when the argument itself is NOT over the existence of God, but the relative merits of religion. and in your own mind, you've won.

so we've both apparently got our delusions...but i think i prefer mine to yours. at least mine doesn't make me act like a prick to other people just for their beliefs.

 

[the_reverend]

You've obviously not thought this through.
Clearly ou believe that God created the universe. That God would had to have set up the laws governing the universe. Obviously you believe in some form of positive/negative repercussion of our actions, otherwise what is forgiveness/grace for right? So who do you think it was who created those positive or negative repercussions? It must have been that same God who created the Universe right? So if that God who created the universe created that specific set of repercussions regardless of how you interpret them then it must be God who, from the get go, decided that those who didn't beg forgiveness would recieve the negative. That means it isn't your choice to recieve the negative that's what you get if you don't toe the line. See Hitchens was right all along.

oh, yeah, you're right, i've never thought about this.

kindly knock off the straw man arguments. if you have a question or something in my argument you'd like to refute, feel free to do so. but don't make assumptions about what i believe and then attack your assumptions. mm-kay?

God created the universe. true. and yes, there is right and wrong...though i don't believe them to be absolutes. it's more complicated than that. we have a nature within us, a fundamental and essential part of us that i believe is the soul (which i know you don't believe in, but you don't believe in God, Heaven or Hell either, so let's put that aside for a moment...). that soul is our divine spark, the part of us closest to the Source of all things, God. when we act contrary to that divine nature, we experience and place ourselves in a spiritual state of Hell, separation from the divine. our guilt and shame, often masked with pride, keeps us locked in that state. we choose our Hell, our demons are ourselves. but when we are capable of letting go of that psychic burden and find it within ourselves to forgive ourselves, then God's grace is there to accept us back to our true divine natures. there's no need to BEG for forgiveness. the forgiveness is offered and all we have to do is realize we're worthy of it. because even the sin and the suffering serves a purpose. whether Hell's another dimension, some psychic underworld or just the spiritual state of being i believe it to be...you don't have to stay anywhere forever.

(another interesting viewpoint that i've considered is that Hell is our view of that divine state, which is so powerful and intense and all consuming, reabsorbing us back into the Source, that some of us reject it and try to cling to our egos/personalities and the material world and it is that conflict that creates the torment and suffering that we view as Hell, in line with the Buddhist notion that desire leads to suffering. it is only when we release our desires and detach ourselves from our egos that we can fully obtain that divine state of Nirvana and enlightenment, or Heaven from another perspective.)

And you believe that all in spite of every Biblical verse to the contrary how brave of you!

if i don't believe in the literal truth of the Garden of Eden or Noah's Ark, or angels waging sword fights in the clouds but instead view them as semiotically charged stories with underlying meaning and truth...then why would i not view the passages about Hell in the same way? heck, even the Vatican has acknowledged that Hell is less of a physical place and more of a spiritual state. not that i always agree with the Vatican, but when the most uptight dogmatic group among the sects and denominations of my particular faith come down and say, "hey, maybe it's more like this!", it's worth thinking about.

as i quoted before, Christ said the Kingdom of Heaven was WITHIN us. if Heaven is within us, then why wouldn't Hell be too?

Isn't that interesting for those of us who simply refuse to believe that our all Loving God would do such a terrible thing!

you're right, He wouldn't. thanks for coming around. :tongue:

 

[JustAsking]

You've obviously not thought this through.
Clearly ou believe that God created the universe. That God would had to have set up the laws governing the universe. Obviously you believe in some form of positive/negative repercussion of our actions, otherwise what is forgiveness/grace for right? So who do you think it was who created those positive or negative repercussions? It must have been that same God who created the Universe right? So if that God who created the universe created that specific set of repercussions regardless of how you interpret them then it must be God who, from the get go, decided that those who didn't beg forgiveness would recieve the negative. That means it isn't your choice to recieve the negative that's what you get if you don't toe the line. ..

Equus,
You are an excellent theologian. Martin Luther came to the same conclusion in the late 1500s that you have come to today. He was a brilliant man and an exceptionally devout monk. However, while in the midst of all that, he realized that all of us, even at our best, are just rat bastards after all.

He realized that the reward/punishment notions about behavior and piety of the Christian traditions of the time could not possibly be the whole point of human existence or of God's plan.

He reread St. Paul's letter to the church in Rome, called Romans in the Bible, and realized that this is what Paul was talking about. It is basically as you said it, that noone could possibly live up to the standards set by the Old Testament's Jews as they were trying to adhere to the Mosaic Covenant. As Paul says in Romans, "No one turns towards God.".

Paul says that by the old religious Law, we all deserve death for our human failings. But God, being the creator of the world and the human condition already knows this and could not possibly do anything else but declare us incompetent to stand trial.

So God's judgement is not to punish us for what is a chronic condition, but instead to send us Jesus.

So yes, you are right. According to the Bible, God offers unconditional love and forgiveness to the flawed human condition which he created.

What Luther did with his realization was to conclude that the practices of the Roman Catholic church at the time were not consistent with this notion of Grace. He tried to reform the church but they rejected him. He ended up as a main cause of the Protestant Reformation.

Although we have figured out a way to twist it all up again into punishment/reward transactional stuff, many denominations continue to spread The Good News quietly and tirelessly of God's Grace. It is the original definition of evangelize, which means to spread The Good News.

Somehow conservative religious groups got that confused and end up spreading The Bad News, but I chalk that up to the fact that most humans would rather be judged than forgiven. It seems most of us seek an abusive relationship with God and work very hard to construct religions that revolve around that.

Your reaction to this nastiness, and the reaction of others here is very deserved. I would rather you all be atheists than believe in a nasty "Santa Claus" God who is making a list about you and checking it twice in order to burn you in hell for eternity. All I can say is WTF!

We are complex and flawed creatures who are each of us capable of great good and great nastiness all within our short lifetimes. The idea of a God who burns us in hell for eternity for just trying to conduct our confused and sometimes desperate lives is just downright evil. I can't believe it is legal to teach stuff like this to children. Why isn't that considered emotional child abuse?

Anyway, please continue your campaign against that kind of theology, Equus, but realize that at the heart of some of the major Christian denominations lies something completely different. It is a subtle message and you don't find people from those faiths on TV. Instead you find the Fred Phelps of the world, causing misery and suffering for everyone around them.

 

[Guy-jin]

I saw that a few days ago someone was "LOL"ing at the idea of religious people basically laying the groundwork for our current science. People brought up the originators of the major theories of our day that were quite religious, like Darwin, Mendel, Newton, Einstein, and even Hawking.

I just wanted to further point out that for a very long time, the Muslims were actually the most mathematically and scientifically advanced people in the world, and that without the discoveries made by then, Newton wouldn't have had a framework to make his own discoveries in.

I realize it's not relevant to the conversation at hand, but I recall, especially with the last few decades when the Muslim world has largely become seen as "backwards thinking", how amazed I was when I learned that there was a time when they were the most forward thinking and scientifically inclined people in the world, and it was Christians who were the "backwards thinkers" for quite a while.

Anyway, food for thought. Maybe it's just finally becoming the time of the Atheist in the world of the intellectual. Or maybe I just feel that way because I'm Atheist academic. :biggrin1:

 

[the_reverend]

We are complex and flawed creatures who are each of us capable of great good and great nastiness all within our short lifetimes. The idea of a God who burns us in hell for eternity for just trying to conduct our confused and sometimes desperate lives is just downright evil. I can't believe it is legal to teach stuff like this to children. Why isn't that considered emotional child abuse?

Anyway, please continue your campaign against that kind of theology, Equus, but realize that at the heart of some of the major Christian denominations lies something completely different. It is a subtle message and you don't find people from those faiths on TV. Instead you find the Fred Phelps of the world, causing misery and suffering for everyone around them.

on that note, i do want to reiterate that while i have strongly disagreed with and argued against Equus' views on religion in general that (as i've said on multiple occasions) i'm completely with him when it comes to opposition of authoritarianism and blind faith in dogma of ANY stripe of ideology.

hell, Equus...if this argument were framed just a bit differently, you and i would be arguing on the same side, as i've noticed ideas in your posts that i've argued to more fundamentalist types that i've encountered over the years (and i was actually able to open up a few of their minds, so it IS possible!).

I saw that a few days ago someone was "LOL"ing at the idea of religious people basically laying the groundwork for our current science. People brought up the originators of the major theories of our day that were quite religious, like Darwin, Mendel, Newton, Einstein, and even Hawking.

I just wanted to further point out that for a very long time, the Muslims were actually the most mathematically and scientifically advanced people in the world, and that without the discoveries made by then, Newton wouldn't have had a framework to make his own discoveries in.

I realize it's not relevant to the conversation at hand, but I recall, especially with the last few decades when the Muslim world has largely become seen as "backwards thinking", how amazed I was when I learned that there was a time when they were the most forward thinking and scientifically inclined people in the world, and it was Christians who were the "backwards thinkers" for quite a while.

Anyway, food for thought. Maybe it's just finally becoming the time of the Atheist in the world of the intellectual. Or maybe I just feel that way because I'm Atheist academic. :biggrin1:

i tried to point out the advancements that Muslims made in math, science and astronomy, but beyond creating algebra it was difficult to cite specific examples because i'm woefully under educated when it comes to individual minds and achievements. i know the broad strokes, but sadly no specifics. which for a comparative religion junkie like me is a bit upsetting. :biggrin1:

but yeah, it's strange for me to watch the news and documentaries and see the abject poverty, ruin and war that people in the Arab and Muslim world live in now, cowed by fear and manipulated by those who would exploit their beautiful religion, when i know academically that they were once the most advanced civilization on Earth. kind of gives me pause for our own fate as a civilization...