Let me start of with, yes, I know this is a touchy subject and that a lot of threads get locked for brining it up, but I see no reason why we can't have a civil discussion about it. I know that there a lot of people on Dakka who can have a civil discussion and I was kinda hoping we could have one about this topic too. Or maybe we can't discuss it, but some people just might want to say how they feel about it at least.
If the mods feel that this is going out of hand then feel free to lock it immedialty. I don't want to start a flame war, I just want to know what other people think about this.

So, here goes:


So, that was my..well, rant, about Religion. Granted, it was mostly about Christianity, but I guess you know what meant. This just something I needed to say. I can't talk about it like that with my familiy and I don't need to talk about it my friends here.

So, what's your take on the subject. Are religious? Yes? No? Why? How?

This kind of thread gets locked when people start shouting at one another. The other danger is insulting religions as that always leads to trouble.

If that can be avoided it will not need to be locked.

"Erstkommunion" is called First Communion in English, which I think means exactly the same.

I think there is more importance paid to it by Roman Catholics, with special dresses for girls, and so on, however Church of England like me, also have to undergo religious education to be confirmed, which is the same thing.

When I was confirmed I felt a strong religious sensation, from the occasion which was in Westminster Abbey, a large ceremony with a bishop and so on and the relatives of all the confirmees. I don't know if it is the same for everyone.

After confirmation I attended communion for several years, until I went to university. However, my religion feeling faded over time, and at some point I stopped going to church except on a few special occasions such as weddings, funerals and sometimes Christmas or Easter.

The last time I went to church, which was for Easter, I refused the communion as I did not feel religious and did not want to insult the ceremony for the truly faithful. So I accepted a blessing instead.

My religious feeling faded because I saw no evidence that God exists and made the universe, also I objected to various aspects of the church's teachings about sin. However it has never entirely disappeared. I have at times prayed in churches of various sects (CoE, Protestant, RC and Russian Orthodox) and also prayed in Shinto shrines and buddhist temples.

What I believe about religion is that it is a product of the structures of the brain which create imagination and intelligence. Religious feelings are therefore present in everyone to some degree or less.

Clearly there are many problems with organised religion, and things like the explanations of the creation of the universe are obviously made up to fill a void in knowledge.

Most major religions have a core of teaching about right action towards other people and the world -- basically being nice. This is a good thing.

It's not unique to religion since philosophy can also teach the same message. Organised religion seems to become a problem when it is used as a power structure to enforce some other kinds of behaviour, usually for the benefit a power elite.

I have to say that for the most part I agree with Anung Un Rama,I to was raised Catholic and started to question things at an early age,I also came to the conclusion that god must be either sasdistic or uncarring(if he/she/it exist),I don't base this opinion on a "gee look at all the suffering in the world"posistion,as with or without a god mankind can create suffering on their own,rather I base it upon dogma I grew up listening toin church,for example the premise that god is omnipotent,omnipresent and all powerful,therfore the creator knows the inevatable outcome of all his creations,so I wonder...why create a living being if ultimitly that soul will be damned to hell to suffer for eternity,now some will say "ah but you have free will and can change and repent."..However,would not god already know who would and would not repent,I mean is it likely you can "suprise" god..therfore he would already know witch of his creations was "doomed" yet create them nontheless,seems a bit sadistic to me.
Now,I don't want to go off on a total anti-religion rant,I do know a few people that pulled themself out of some bad spots (Drugs & such) because they "found god",however i think the same results could have been acchived had they just taken some resposibilty for their actions in the first place....ok rant off.

For a Religion supposedly based on peace, love and understanding, it's awfully violent when trying to persuade the locals to convert.

To me, Religion as an institution is the greatest evil man faces. Essentially, imho, it's an outdated method of controlling a population, so caught up in dogma and tradition that it still tries to terrify the uneducated into obedience.

Now, Faith, faith is personal, and I have no problem with. But Religion seriously needs to just die off. It no longer serves any purpose beyond lining the top fews pockets.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:For a Religion supposedly based on peace, love and understanding, it's awfully violent when trying to persuade the locals to convert.

To me, Religion as an institution is the greatest evil man faces. Essentially, imho, it's an outdated method of controlling a population, so caught up in dogma and tradition that it still tries to terrify the uneducated into obedience.

Now, Faith, faith is personal, and I have no problem with. But Religion seriously needs to just die off. It no longer serves any purpose beyond lining the top fews pockets.

That really depends on the religion. The whole obsession with terror vis a vis the unknown is really only prevalent in Western Christianity. Particularly in the Americas.

I still despise it.

Your Faith should guide you through life, helping to inform your decisions. It shouldn't restrict your options.

Organised, institutional Religion has a lot to answer for.

I am Agnostic and proud!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Your Faith should guide you through life, helping to inform your decisions. It shouldn't restrict your options.

Says who? It's your own personal Jesus and all that, but you are throwing out a statement as if it were automatically expected to be accepted as true without any kind of support or back-up. Because you think so isn't really good enough. As complicated as religion and faith are I'm not sure you get to tell other people what they should believe just because that is what you believe just because you believe it. It is akin to saying something is a 'right' and hoping that is good enough w/o having to explain where or why that thing is a 'right'. Of course that isn't even looking at the possible contradictions. What if by helping to inform choices it restricts options?


As for the rest of the posts. Now I don't mean this in a bad way at all so don't take it that way unless that is your inclination to take everything that way. Nobody here has said anything close to original or new. Every single post has been said a hundred times before by others, many going back a long time. You aren't alone in feeling that way; you aren't even the first to post something similar on the internet. You'll probably laugh to yourself in 10 years when you see someone else say the same thing and realize how ingrained and cyclical these ideas really are.

Everything posted on the internet doesn't have to be original. The OP was looking for support and thoughts from other users. It's inevitable a lot of us will say things which have been said before. That doesn't invalidate them.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything posted on the internet doesn't have to be original. The OP was looking for support and thoughts from other users. It's inevitable a lot of us will say things which have been said before. That doesn't invalidate them.

Please point to where I say it invalidates them. What is that? Oh you can't because I didn't. Please read what is actually written, not what you think is written. For people coming to these conclusions often they feel alone and I am simply pointing out to them that they are not.

I used to go to church a lot, episcopalian. I think it's close to the same as the Church of England but we had to spin off during the American revolution.

I used to go to church all the time. I never go anymore. I'm not really sure why. I suppose my need for my faith to fulfill things in my life became minimal. My understanding of a being like God, all powerful in every aspect is harder to sway now. I just always found myself asking questions no one could give a real answer for. If God is a being so understanding, why does he judge? I eventually came to a conclusion on the matter for myself and it didn't involve worship or prayer anymore, just trying to live and be nice to other people.

I think that's where a lot of religions go wrong and end up getting people killed or injured. They always have someone saying "Just be nice to everybody, that's all. You don't like have to do everything for them, just be nice." then eventually someone else comes along and excludes some people then that keeps happening for awhile. Until you have a lot of dogma and hate.

Ahtman wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Your Faith should guide you through life, helping to inform your decisions. It shouldn't restrict your options.

Says who? It's your own personal Jesus and all that, but you are throwing out a statement as if it were automatically expected to be accepted as true without any kind of support or back-up. Because you think so isn't really good enough. As complicated as religion and faith are I'm not sure you get to tell other people what they should believe just because that is what you believe just because you believe it. It is akin to saying something is a 'right' and hoping that is good enough w/o having to explain where or why that thing is a 'right'. Of course that isn't even looking at the possible contradictions. What if by helping to inform choices it restricts options?


As for the rest of the posts. Now I don't mean this in a bad way at all so don't take it that way unless that is your inclination to take everything that way. Nobody here has said anything close to original or new. Every single post has been said a hundred times before by others, many going back a long time. You aren't alone in feeling that way; you aren't even the first to post something similar on the internet. You'll probably laugh to yourself in 10 years when you see someone else say the same thing and realize how ingrained and cyclical these ideas really are.

Amazingly the majority of the statements in your first paragraph describe organized religion to a T,as in general many if not all church dogma are geared specificly to tell people what they should belive and,as history shows those who disagree with the church often found themself in..well a fairly bad state.
Also,whether anyone has posted anything original or new,or if every single post has been said before does not debunk the statements made in them.
Incidently,I have no problem with someones "faith" or personal view...if a person chooses to worship a 10 foot plastic chicken then that,by all means,is their affair..I would only have a problem if said person told me if I did'nt fall in line and pray to their chicken I was going to fry for all eternity.

Main reason I'm not religious? Something my Grans Priest told her before she married my Grandad.

Apparently, because he was not just Protestant, but born out of wedlock, if she married him, not only would she go to hell, but so would her children, her grandchildren, and so on.

That is a disgusting way to treat another human being, and further illustrates my point that organised Religion is the very embodiment of evil. I mean, it's just such a pointless threat. Why would marrying someone not of your own exact denomination be so bad?

Hence my view the Church, and not just limited to Christianity, is merely a refuge for bigoted bullies.

So basically, you're basing your view on religion on one bad experience with a priest from one particular denomination, who clearly has some pretty extremist views that are probably not held by most Christians. Or is it something else?

I believe I'll know the answers to the questions of religion someday one way or the other. Until then I can't be certain and can only wonder. Welcome to agnosticism. Some things are just unknowable.

As for organized religion I believe that the concepts of organization of belief run counter to the concepts of belief. Structuring something that can't be fundamentally held, controlled, measured, or truly understood is dangerous and often times counter productive. It gives the churches of the world the means to do many great things but at the same time it gives them the ability to fall away from their message and get involved politically in a way that benefits no one.

That is a disgusting way to treat another human being, and further illustrates my point that organised Religion is the very embodiment of evil. I mean, it's just such a pointless threat.

Yes, because all religions are hardcore protestant. Good job.

There's also something else I'm wondering, this is directed at everyone.

If you don't believe that hell exists, why is it so offensive to you to be told that you're going to hell, or to hear that someone believes you are going to hell?

I even hear this sort of thing from people who say, "Well, I don't personally believe in any higher power, but I think it's okay for someone to have a religious or spiritual belief." Then as soon as someone else believes that a person like this is going to hell for not holding a belief, all of a sudden there's a problem, and people seem to be grossly offended by things they don't even believe exist.

If you don't believe that hell exists, why is it so offensive to you to be told that you're going to hell, or to hear that someone believes you are going to hell?

Because it means that a person fundamentally disapproves of a dynamic of your lifestyle to the point that they believe that you should or will be punished for it. Thats offensive to people that believe otherwise.

Hordini wrote:There's also something else I'm wondering, this is directed at everyone.

If you don't believe that hell exists, why is it so offensive to you to be told that you're going to hell, or to hear that someone believes you are going to hell?

I even hear this sort of thing from people who say, "Well, I don't personally believe in any higher power, but I think it's okay for someone to have a religious or spiritual belief." Then as soon as someone else believes that a person like this is going to hell for not holding a belief, all of a sudden there's a problem, and people seem to be grossly offended by things they don't even believe exist.

Good point. I never got that either.

FITZZ wrote: Also,whether anyone has posted anything original or new,or if every single post has been said before does not debunk the statements made in them.

This really isn't that hard people and I'll state it again. I never 'debunked' anyone. If you read it it doesn't invalidate anything they said or say that it invalidates what they said, only that it has been said before. Letting people who are wrestling with complicated ideas and concepts know they are not alone is usually not considered an insult. I see what everyone is reading into what I said, but try just reading what I said.

Hordini wrote:There's also something else I'm wondering, this is directed at everyone.

If you don't believe that hell exists, why is it so offensive to you to be told that you're going to hell, or to hear that someone believes you are going to hell?

I even hear this sort of thing from people who say, "Well, I don't personally believe in any higher power, but I think it's okay for someone to have a religious or spiritual belief." Then as soon as someone else believes that a person like this is going to hell for not holding a belief, all of a sudden there's a problem, and people seem to be grossly offended by things they don't even believe exist.

Like talking to a puppy, it's not what you say but how you say it. They aren't upset at the idea that they may being going to hell, they get angry because it is an insult. If someone tells you to go to hell they aren't being very friendly usually.

Hordini wrote:There's also something else I'm wondering, this is directed at everyone.

If you don't believe that hell exists, why is it so offensive to you to be told that you're going to hell, or to hear that someone believes you are going to hell?

I even hear this sort of thing from people who say, "Well, I don't personally believe in any higher power, but I think it's okay for someone to have a religious or spiritual belief." Then as soon as someone else believes that a person like this is going to hell for not holding a belief, all of a sudden there's a problem, and people seem to be grossly offended by things they don't even believe exist.

I see what you meen,personaly I don't much care if I am told I'm going to hell by someone,other than the annoyance factor involved. What bothers me most about the whole "hell" concept is it seems only to exist to scare people into obiedence or at the very least bilk them out of money.

Hordini wrote:
If you don't believe that hell exists, why is it so offensive to you to be told that you're going to hell, or to hear that someone believes you are going to hell?

It really isn't offensive to me. In my view hell doesn't exist neither does heaven. I still say stuff like "Oh man I'm terrible, totally going to hell". My friends say things like that too.

Telling someone to go to hell, and saying you believe a person with a certain type of lifestyle or whatever else is going to hell are not the same thing.

I'm not saying it couldn't also be offensive, but it is not the same thing.

Like I said it's the concept of "hell" being used as a scare tactic I find most offensive...not being told I am going there

I can't follow religion for one simple reason, what prove is there that god exists? For me if it can't be proved it dosen't exist, so until god is proved to be real, I will never follow any religion.

FITZZ wrote: Like I said it's the concept of "hell" being used as a scare tactic I find most offensive...not being told I am going there

That also gets me riled up. The concept someone is tainted from birth, committing no evil action and NEEDS a church to save them doesn't flow well with me either.

Basicly look at it from this point of view,If I were to have dominion over a area of land,and on this area I had under my sway 20,000 children and I tought them that there was a wonderful place that when they die they go to,but to get there they had to pray to the 10 foot plastic chicken,give money to the 10 foot plastic chicken,obey the comandments of the 10 foot plastic chicken,only marry other plastic chicken worshipers and should they deviate from this behavior they would,upon death be taken to a dark place and beaten in the head with socks full of wet hampsters,most people would think I was insane.
But,come back to that land in 500 years and you will have millions of devote plastic chickenist,ready to defend to the death the almighty foul and living in fear of the hampster wooping.
To me this sums up orginized religion.

Eh, I'm catholic, and no, I'm not going to spam "blah blah blah you don't believe blah blah blah".

Yes, cruel things happen in the world. (i.e. terrorism, genocide etc.) but did God himself commit these crimes? no. People did.

I believe that God gave us the right of choice. So what if you don't believe the exact same thing I do? Does that give me the right to "condemn" you to "hell"? No it doesn't.

Mad Doc, I sympathize with you. There are a good many people around the world who want to go around and judge every single non-believer. But please, not every single religious person is like that. I certainly wouldn't say that, seeing as my friend(s) are Atheist.

In essence, I believe that religion is just another thing that people have to overlook. It's important, and quite touchy, but I mean, come on people. "hell" is no scare tactic, unless wielded by a religious fanatic/devotee.

hopefully, we can discuss this in a civil manner. Flamefests are never fun.

I keep hearing people talk about religion, but it seems we are really talking about western religious traditions, might even skew that to modern western religious traditions. Many of the complaints aren't very applicable to Indigenous or Eastern religious traditions. Criticisms can be leveled at those as well, but they are different criticism.

Ahtman wrote:I keep hearing people talk about religion, but it seems we are really talking about western religious traditions, might even skew that to modern western religious traditions. Many of the complaints aren't very applicable to Indigenous or Eastern religious traditions. Criticisms can be leveled at those as well, but they are different criticism.

Pretty much.

Not too surprising though. Indigenous and Eastern religious traditions just aren't as relevant to the interests of most of the people on this board.

Yes, cruel things happen in the world. (i.e. terrorism, genocide etc.) but did God himself commit these crimes? no. People did.

Is free choice possible when a god that is omnipotent and omniscient exists? I don't mean to get into this but doesn't the fact that ones "creator" knows the exact actions and outcomes of its creation beforehand kind of destroy the concept of free choice? It's like faulting the ball you placed for rolling down the hill you made when you created them both with the knowledge that that exact thing would happen and you did not create them any other way.

Also while I'm into the thing that I don't mean to get into didn't god create the concept of right and wrong and evil and good? Couldn't rape, murder, stealing, and all those other awful things be good if he so chose? It's not like those concepts are set in stone to their creator. Is not creating the very concept and possibility of evil also another strike against the idea that performing such actions should be punished? To follow the previous analogy its like saying that the ball you created is evil for rolling down the hill you made in the way you designed it to roll. And then punishing it for it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I keep hearing people talk about religion, but it seems we are really talking about western religious traditions, might even skew that to modern western religious traditions. Many of the complaints aren't very applicable to Indigenous or Eastern religious traditions. Criticisms can be leveled at those as well, but they are different criticism.

Pretty much.

Not too surprising though. Indigenous and Eastern religious traditions just aren't as relevant to the interests of most of the people on this board.

I would assume that's just due to most of us posting being raised in western culture,so natruly that's going to be the primary focus,however I've never seen a buhdist monk on t.v yelling for money or condeming some one for their sexaul preferance (maybe they do these things I'm just not familiar with it)

I really don't know that much about eastern religions so I can't say anything qualified about them.

One more thing that always bugged me, when it comes to "organized" Religions, is that everybody seems to be sure that his god is the right one. That is of course something for everybody to decide themselves, but I think it's weird how some Religions just came out and stayed on top for so long. I have no reason to believe that Jehova is more "real" then say for example Zeus or Poseidon.

Then again, no matter how much one dislikes religion, western culture has a lot of roots in christianity. Our Calendar would be the most obvious example.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

My views on religion can be summerised into 1 short sentence.

Grown-ups with imaginary friends is stupid.

I understand that some people believe in God because that's how they were brought up, or it's easier to believe that there's some guy up there that will make us rich even if we just sit there doing nothing. But IMHO, limiting your life because of something that was based on a book is... irrational, at least.

NoobLord wrote:My views on religion can be summerised into 1 short sentence.

Grown-ups with imaginary friends is stupid.

I understand that some people believe in God because that's how they were brought up, or it's easier to believe that there's some guy up there that will make us rich even if we just sit there doing nothing. But IMHO, limiting your life because of something that was based on a book is... irrational, at least.

As an unrelated question, how old are you? I ask legitimately.

Cryonicleech wrote:Eh, I'm catholic, and no, I'm not going to spam "blah blah blah you don't believe blah blah blah".

Yes, cruel things happen in the world. (i.e. terrorism, genocide etc.) but did God himself commit these crimes? no. People did.

I believe that God gave us the right of choice. So what if you don't believe the exact same thing I do? Does that give me the right to "condemn" you to "hell"? No it doesn't.

Mad Doc, I sympathize with you. There are a good many people around the world who want to go around and judge every single non-believer. But please, not every single religious person is like that. I certainly wouldn't say that, seeing as my friend(s) are Atheist.

In essence, I believe that religion is just another thing that people have to overlook. It's important, and quite touchy, but I mean, come on people. "hell" is no scare tactic, unless wielded by a religious fanatic/devotee.

hopefully, we can discuss this in a civil manner. Flamefests are never fun.

But God apparently gave us free will. So I ask, how dare he punish me for doing as I wish?

I have many bones to pick with religions, and many holes to poke in them. But I shall refrain as I don't like foisting my views upon others unnecessarily.

Each to their own, and leave each other to it.

Yes, cruel things happen in the world. (i.e. terrorism, genocide etc.) but did God himself commit these crimes? no. People did.

Maybe. But God just sits up there in the clouds and watches? If I were him (if I would believe in that stuff) I would've probably pulled the plug on this gakhole a long time ago. Like, I dunno, around the time God's own Son was nailed to a cross. I mean, sure, that whole "I die so that you can come to heaven when you die" sounds like a pretty nifty deal, but couldn't he just have let him die of old age or something?

I have many bones to pick with religions, and many holes to poke in them.

You only seem to state a single one of those holes though. There are thousands of religions, perhaps state an opinion pertaining to one of the ones that didn't originate in the fertile crescent. Taoism, Buddhism, zoroastronism, druidism, whatever they are calling the wiccan stuff these days. Hell, satanism is an actual religion with tenets and followers.

I always liked Pastafarianism. All hail the meatballs. Ramen.

Anung Un Rama wrote:I always liked Pastafarianism. All hail the meatballs. Ramen.

Pastafarianism isn't a religion though. It's just an ironic method of mocking creationists and their insistence on teaching their beliefs alongside religion in schools.

Also all hail our glorious noodley god. May his meatballs touch your lives.

Well, there is that Anung Un Rama. I don't really know why God does nothing, but I mean, taking religion out of the picture, bad **** happens.


As for nailing his son to a cross, I guess God wanted people to understand that he was willing to do something for people in return for being good.


eh, as Mad Doc said, each their own.

I dunno. To me, taking Religion out of the quation makes certain behaviour much harder to justify.

As an admitedly extreme example, and I apologise for it already, the Westboro Baptist Church and it rampant homophobia. Take their Religious excuses away, and it's just a bunch of nutjobs ranting against the world, as opposed to a bunch of nutjobs with a book ranting against the world.

Hence why I say Religion is ultimately a bad thing, but made sure to show my distinction that Faith is something seperate.

ShumaGorath wrote:

NoobLord wrote:My views on religion can be summerised into 1 short sentence.

Grown-ups with imaginary friends is stupid.

I understand that some people believe in God because that's how they were brought up, or it's easier to believe that there's some guy up there that will make us rich even if we just sit there doing nothing. But IMHO, limiting your life because of something that was based on a book is... irrational, at least.

As an unrelated question, how old are you? I ask legitimately.

14.

Also... I really don't get the point of teaching "religion" as a subject in school in some countries. I understand learning ABOUT religions, but having a local priest come in and tell me about the Bible and how amazing Jesus was isn't exactly gonna help me in life, even if I was Christian. If I wanna learn about God, then I'll read some Bible and go to church.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I have many bones to pick with religions, and many holes to poke in them.

You only seem to state a single one of those holes though. There are thousands of religions, perhaps state an opinion pertaining to one of the ones that didn't originate in the fertile crescent. Taoism, Buddhism, zoroastronism, druidism, whatever they are calling the wiccan stuff these days. Hell, satanism is an actual religion with tenets and followers.

I don't know if satanism could honestly be called a religion,if you read Anton Levays books it's more of a religon of anti-religion and common sense.

14.

I figured. A softer view and tolerance of religion and religious beliefs tends to come later in development when a person begins to learn how fundamentally important the concepts of religion are and how little humanity really understands the world around itself.

If I wanna learn about God, then I'll read some Bible and go to church.

Understanding religions and religious teachings is a fundamental requirement if you want to understand the world around you. It's as simple as that. If you refuse to know or understand the beliefs by which the majority of the planet guide their lives then you'll be sorely equipped to understand their ideals and actions.

FITZZ wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I have many bones to pick with religions, and many holes to poke in them.

You only seem to state a single one of those holes though. There are thousands of religions, perhaps state an opinion pertaining to one of the ones that didn't originate in the fertile crescent. Taoism, Buddhism, zoroastronism, druidism, whatever they are calling the wiccan stuff these days. Hell, satanism is an actual religion with tenets and followers.

I don't know if satanism could honestly be called a religion,if you read Anton Levays books it's more of a religon of anti-religion and common sense.

I can not honestly imagine satanism not being a religion, if even Jedism is.

FITZZ wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I have many bones to pick with religions, and many holes to poke in them.

You only seem to state a single one of those holes though. There are thousands of religions, perhaps state an opinion pertaining to one of the ones that didn't originate in the fertile crescent. Taoism, Buddhism, zoroastronism, druidism, whatever they are calling the wiccan stuff these days. Hell, satanism is an actual religion with tenets and followers.

I don't know if satanism could honestly be called a religion,if you read Anton Levays books it's more of a religon of anti-religion and common sense.

Feng sui isn't so different then that. Nor is buddhism. Religions are not quantifiable by the method of belief or what is taught. The concept itself is pretty nebulous and undefined.

I can not honestly imagine satanism not being a religion, if even Jedism is.

Why is that exactly? How much do you actually know about the religion itself.

NoobLord wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I have many bones to pick with religions, and many holes to poke in them.

You only seem to state a single one of those holes though. There are thousands of religions, perhaps state an opinion pertaining to one of the ones that didn't originate in the fertile crescent. Taoism, Buddhism, zoroastronism, druidism, whatever they are calling the wiccan stuff these days. Hell, satanism is an actual religion with tenets and followers.

I don't know if satanism could honestly be called a religion,if you read Anton Levays books it's more of a religon of anti-religion and common sense.

I can not honestly imagine satanism not being a religion, if even Jedism is.

I suppose in a broad description it could be considered a religion,however my point was,in the books I read "religion" is seen as more of a crutch and self relince is seen as the greatest virtue and being wilfully stupid seen as the greatest sin.
Hell,Anton Levay even states that no actual "satan" exist.

IMHO, a general description of religion is a system of beliefs defining what is good and bad by interference with the "spiritual world".

Very hard to put stuff like this into words...

I'm agnostic personally. I don't think religion is the greatest evil in humanity or anything close, I think that sort of hyperbole is pretty dumb actually.

My lack of faith came from basically gradually discovering that there was no evidence of supernatural things ever. And then later, thinking seriously about the idea of a compassionate god, and realising that he can't exist, because he created an unfair universe.
(Yeah, fair is an odd concept, but when you think about an omnipotent being it becomes a bit easier to get where I'm coming from.)

Eventually I decided that I didn't know one way or another about God- I mean, there could be one, there could not be. But I decided I'd be happier if a God who could think on the same scale as me didn't exist, as it would just be depressing. I'm very interested in religions and why people are religious though, it's fascinating. And I generally don't have problems with people of faith unless they are knob ends.

MDG: How come you capitalise words that aren't proper nouns so often?

I can't wrap my head around an omnipotent being who gives you free choice, but I imagine
it's much like Dr. Manhattan in the Watchman. Yes, he knows that x is going to happen, yet
he's still hurt for it to be revealed to him.

Or maybe it's like being a parent. You know they're going to mess up, how they're going to
mess up, why they're going to mess up, but you let kids do it anyway and only make yourself
available as a last resort.

NoobLord wrote:
Very hard to put stuff like this into words...

That's largely the point. Much of religion is built on the appreciation, or avoidance, of paradox. God is omnipotent, but free will exists. God is one, but also three. Its all meant to bend the mind, in order to give that mind an appreciation of its limits.

Or the whole thing is just a mishmash of random ideas cherry picked over the centuries by those in power?

For example, The Holy Trinity *could* have been an attempt to include the Brittoni (not Celts. Strictly speaking no such thing as Celts) religions into the Biblical fold. The Hag, Maiden and Girlchild I think it is in Druidic stuffs.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Or the whole thing is just a mishmash of random ideas cherry picked over the centuries by those in power?

Sure, that's been part of religion in the past. Myth is often used in order to inspire collective action. These myths do not have to be related to a god, or anything else we ordinarily conceive of as religious. Communism, for example, was a religion for many.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For example, The Holy Trinity *could* have been an attempt to include the Brittoni (not Celts. Strictly speaking no such thing as Celts) religions into the Biblical fold. The Hag, Maiden and Girlchild I think it is in Druidic stuffs.

But it wasn't, because it was first conceived by people with no knowledge of the Brittoni religions.

I'm an atheist, that's what I would tell someone if asked, but very, very technically I'm agnostic. By this I mean that I acknowledge the possibility of a God or creator, but believe the probability is so remote that it isn't worth considering.

I don't like the idea of organised religion in the same way as I don't like the idea of any unchallengable form of power.

The most important point for me, and one that I always agree with non-nujob people with a religion on, is:

"If there is a God who created something as large and expansive as the universe, how can he expect an object as relatively insignificant as a human brain to undertsand His power?" (mangled quote from a Hindu scholar)

ie. Why should I worship any God who is vain enough to damn me to Hell for not believing in him without proof? I'm a good person, the aim of my life is to not add to the toll of human suffering in this world, I never deliberately hurt another. Surely my skepticism shouldn't condemn me to an eternity in Hell?

myself, i was raised in the south, as a southern baptist.
we would be at the church sunday morning, sunday evening, and most wednesdays.

While i was young, i would hear about how wonderful jesus was, and how great heaven would be, but as i got older and into the standard sermons, it changed into a constant barrage of hellfire and damnnation. do what the book says, or you burn forever.

Ever been to a tent revival? its equal parts songs about how much heaven is great, immediatly followed by hours on end about how your all going ot hell if you don't donate some cash and follow the bible, and not just any bible, but the king james version, since those other versions aren't correct enough.

by the time i was in highschool, i found myself looking at what i was taught to believe, and finding that it either made no sense when you examinded it, or was in some way impossible. the earlier think i remember questioning being the noah story, not because of the ark, but because it claimed one family was all that made it, yet we aren't all genetic mutants.

My viewpoint changed over time, and for years i operated under a more, what was described to me by a friend as a deist approach i belive. I didn't want to give up on the devine, so i thought of god more the great clockmaker, he set everything in motion, and then stepped back and let it run its course.

still, this didn't really satisfy the part of me that wanted to believe is something greater, for lack of a better phrase, so i spent a few years looking at other religions, learning what i could about them.

These days, i'm agnostic in my beliefs, i don't know if anything great exists, but i'm not ruling out the possibility. That, and i honestly just got to the point that i know longer cared about a religion, so long as i could follow my own personal, um, code i suppose will work.

Its been my experience that while the organized religions i've been exposed to can help instill some good elements in a person, those religions can also cause an untold amount of harm.

i've seen family and friends scarred by bad experiencs with their religion, hurt in ways that the everyday just isn't often capable of.

while i have no plans to attack religion, or convice those i meet of the "errors of their ways" or somesuch, i doubt i'll ever practice a religion again, and any children i have will be raised to act in a way we would consider "good" because is the right thing to do, but because if they don't that great big shotgun in the sky will smite them or punish them for all eternity

CS Lewis referred to himself jokingly as a ‘lapsed atheist’ and I kind of feel it describes me pretty well.

I was raised with no religious upbringing, and most of the time I still default to an atheist view, but more and more I have moments where I sense something greater. Now, I’m not at all interested in the God depicted in most religions, fixated on humans and their moral behaviour, because I just don’t see any evidence of a God that cares at all about what we do.

But when I see the scale and beauty of this universe, sometimes I get a glimpse of something greater.

Lord Bingo wrote:I can't follow religion for one simple reason, what prove is there that god exists? For me if it can't be proved it dosen't exist, so until god is proved to be real, I will never follow any religion.

That’s why they call it faith. God (or the supernatural in general) exists by definition outside the realm of observable reality. If it existed in observable reality, it would no longer be supernatural, and belief in it wouldn’t be faith.

Cryonicleech wrote:Eh, I'm catholic, and no, I'm not going to spam "blah blah blah you don't believe blah blah blah".

Yes, cruel things happen in the world. (i.e. terrorism, genocide etc.) but did God himself commit these crimes? no. People did.

It isn’t so much the terrorism and genocide but the kid born with a hole in his heart that dies after a couple of hours, and all the earthquakes and tsunamis. Random chance brings misery into the lives of many.

ShumaGorath wrote:Is free choice possible when a god that is omnipotent and omniscient exists? I don't mean to get into this but doesn't the fact that ones "creator" knows the exact actions and outcomes of its creation beforehand kind of destroy the concept of free choice? It's like faulting the ball you placed for rolling down the hill you made when you created them both with the knowledge that that exact thing would happen and you did not create them any other way.

You must know a guy that will do the same stupid thing every time he finds himself in a situation. Do you have that mate that will not back down from a scuffle at the pub with another guy. You sit there and you watch and you know exactly what’s going to happen and are watching it all play out as you expected, but you aren’t controlling events, your idiot mate is still making his choice.

Also while I'm into the thing that I don't mean to get into didn't god create the concept of right and wrong and evil and good? Couldn't rape, murder, stealing, and all those other awful things be good if he so chose? It's not like those concepts are set in stone to their creator. Is not creating the very concept and possibility of evil also another strike against the idea that performing such actions should be punished? To follow the previous analogy its like saying that the ball you created is evil for rolling down the hill you made in the way you designed it to roll. And then punishing it for it.

The argument is that removing free will is the greatest of evils. That a central part of humanity and life is the ability to choose our course of action, and that includes the ability to choose an evil action. While life might be happy and full of puppy dogs and rainbows if only God stopped us from murder and theft, what kind of people would we be? How could we grow and develop into mature, responsible people if we were stopped by God from ever doing anything wrong?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But God apparently gave us free will. So I ask, how dare he punish me for doing as I wish?

He gave you free will because he wanted you to grow and mature, make decisions and take their consequences. God also gave you the power to know right from wrong.

It’s also worth pointing out, assuming we’re talking about Christianity here, that Hell is hardly mentioned in the Bible. The book spends a lot of time talking about kind works and forgiveness, and a whole lot of time ragging on the rich, but hardly any time talking about Hell. It just isn’t the focus of the faith, according to the Bible.

I have many bones to pick with religions, and many holes to poke in them. But I shall refrain as I don't like foisting my views upon others unnecessarily.

Each to their own, and leave each other to it.

There’s nothing wrong with discussing religion. As long as everyone remains polite and the arguments used have merit.

There's an old saw, which asks: can god create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it?

The answer of course, is, "if he wanted to." Of course, if he than later wanted to be able to lift it, he could. the point being that God is outside of space and time, and concepts that we cling to wouldn't apply.

I'm not going to reply to every post here, I'm a bad preacher and I don't think this board is ripe with potential converts.

Just because God can know everything doesn't mean he actually does know everything. I'm Catholic, so the whole concept of god is a paradox: a three in one. Why wouldn't the god that I pray to be unaware of my future? Why couldn't the freedom of will that I've been given be legit? If god can create a rock he can't lift, than he can create knowledge that he doesn't possess.

Freewill isn't a gift, by the way. It's the whole reason I believe that god created us: so that there would be those that chose whether or not to seek him out. In my view, God was lonely. Creating beings that could freely chose to leave or accept him offered him the possibility of a certain companionship that he otherwise lacked. that's the whole reason the offer includes eternal life in paradise: it's not a reward for those that believe, but a way to only let in the people that want to go to the party. I mean, if you knew there was a god, why wouldn't you ask him favors?

Likewise, the counter offer isn't eternal damnation, it's simply death. Separation from the divine would result, not in fires and devils, but in a fairly simple lack of existence.

True, but I object to people talking at me about their Religious views, so it is only right and just if I refrain from doing the same.

I have enough respect to acknowledge those people of Faith are generally smart enough to have examined it.

And sadly, the ones that haven't are terrible debaters.

sebster wrote:CS Lewis referred to himself jokingly as a ‘lapsed atheist’ and I kind of feel it describes me pretty well.

I was raised with no religious upbringing, and most of the time I still default to an atheist view, but more and more I have moments where I sense something greater. Now, I’m not at all interested in the God depicted in most religions, fixated on humans and their moral behaviour, because I just don’t see any evidence of a God that cares at all about what we do.

But when I see the scale and beauty of this universe, sometimes I get a glimpse of something greater.

Sounds sort of like deism.

A little bit of interesting reading for folks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2267426

Without meaning to get preachy, this to me serves as a good arguement for Religion being a load of stuff and nonsense, as having been pretty well documented, we can follow the evolution of these cults fairly accurately. And some of the decisions etc are just plain daft.

MDG, I'm not sure if you're simply being overly casual in your comments, or if the contempt you seem to have for religion is as real as you seem to make it out to be, but poiting out the ridiculous or tragic or silly aspects of religion ignores the aspects of religion and spirituality that are postiive. We get it, some or even many religions have flaws.

I look at it this way: love is responsible for horrible things, it leads to jealousy and angst and loss and remorse. Abuse and neglect and rape and all manner of sins are committed by those in the throes of some combination or love or lust. Still, I would not deny the power and wonder that is both love and sex.

I'm not here to defend organized religion, but I think that many people are willing to concede the flaws of the structure while respecting their beliefs, and many of your posts seem overly thrilled with the idea of demolishing religion more than anything else.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Sounds sort of like deism.

Maybe related, but I like the idea of revelation. The idea of reasoning one's way to God is just a little boring .

Polonius, I'd say you are partially right.

I do have nothing but contempt for religions, yet nothing but respect for faith.

I just fail to see why someones life should be restricted by the views of another just because that other person claims to be speaking for God.

But as I said, each to their own. I have strength of conviction for my views, and I do not fool myself that people of faith have similar in their own views.

Hold on, quick edit. I think it's more accurate to say I have nothing but contempt for the organisers of Religion. Take the Pope. Position of power, yet not answerable to anyone. It seems to me being head or a head of a major religion is akin to being a Dictator. You can say what you want, and have a lot of people meet your will. Surely, surely we as a species should be moving beyond such lunacy?

You must know a guy that will do the same stupid thing every time he finds himself in a situation. Do you have that mate that will not back down from a scuffle at the pub with another guy. You sit there and you watch and you know exactly what’s going to happen and are watching it all play out as you expected, but you aren’t controlling events, your idiot mate is still making his choice.

Yes, but I didn't create him. I do not have absolute and certain knowledge of his actions, nor did I have knowledge of those actions before he even existed. I also don't have the ability to fundamentally change him into the sort of person that wouldn't do such things. God has all those abilities and far more (if he is omnipotent and omniscient).

The argument is that removing free will is the greatest of evils. That a central part of humanity and life is the ability to choose our course of action, and that includes the ability to choose an evil action. While life might be happy and full of puppy dogs and rainbows if only God stopped us from murder and theft, what kind of people would we be? How could we grow and develop into mature, responsible people if we were stopped by God from ever doing anything wrong?

I think the rift between us here is that the god you describe is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. God doesn't need to stop us from murdering and thieving. God created existence with those very concepts and actions as possibility. Why? Why create murder and then create murderers. God knows what we will do before we do it, if it doesn't it's not all knowing. God created us with the intention of crafting our exact actions, if he didn't he's not omnipotent. Every facet of existence was shaped by god, that includes things that exist only conceptually such as killing and murder. An omnipotent being could create an existence that functions so vastly differently from this one that we could not even imagine it. Literally.

Given that, why create the universe as it is?

If god knew that a person would be a murderer and created them as such then god created a murderer intentionally. And thus later punishes the individual for the flaws that were crafted intentionally. That is unless you are saying god can make mistakes, but then that's impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient being. It also strains the imagination to think of a being that is all knowing having free will itself. Does god? Does it not know the actions it will take? God exists outside of time does it not?


Then again the idea of an all knowing all powerful being is one that is by definition contradictory. An all powerful being has no power if it is all knowing, and an all knowing being has no knowledge if everything in all of everything is under its control.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Polonius, I'd say you are partially right.

I do have nothing but contempt for religions, yet nothing but respect for faith.

I just fail to see why someones life should be restricted by the views of another just because that other person claims to be speaking for God.

But as I said, each to their own. I have strength of conviction for my views, and I do not fool myself that people of faith have similar in their own views.

Hold on, quick edit. I think it's more accurate to say I have nothing but contempt for the organisers of Religion. Take the Pope. Position of power, yet not answerable to anyone. It seems to me being head or a head of a major religion is akin to being a Dictator. You can say what you want, and have a lot of people meet your will. Surely, surely we as a species should be moving beyond such lunacy?

Mmm, but there's a problem differentiating religion and faith. Or rather, that one will inevitably lead to the other. I mean, if five people all have similar views about faith, and they get together and start talking about what they have in common then suddenly you have a religion. The 'faith is fine, religion is bad' is a rhetorical dodge. It's like arguing that you have no problem with cars, just with driving.

You're also ignoring the good that's come out of religion. Religion stored most of our art and knowledge for a very long time. The anti-slavery movement in the US was primarily led by religious groups.

My parents were raised catholic, I was baptised. I haven't been to church in years. I think of myself as a lay person, and the closest I will put myself to a religon is buddism. I believe god hates us all, but some more than others. She (I said it.) also loves us, and tests us on earth. The more good we do, the more she will show her love. The more evil we do, she brings more of her hate upon us. The greatest sin is theft. Theft of life. If you kill a man, you take his right to live, to be happy, to have a lover. You steal his children's right to a father, his lovers right to a friend and partner. I believe the catholic church is the greatest lier , as Anung said of one of the passages they don't want us to see. I believe the leaders of organized religon are mostly powerhungry. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in one god. Why are we killing each other over little details? We'll all find out when we die anyway. That is my take. If you don't like it, too bad. Have your own take on it. Youe entitled to it.

I dunno. A group of people discussing their beliefs, to me, does not a religion make.

A religion is about restricting what people believe in, cajoling, threatening and bullying the congregation into doing so through the use of Hell or other divine punishment.

Now, good can come from anything. For example, most of the 20th Centuries biggest technological leaps came from the various War Efforts. Whether the end ever justifies the means is an open question I leave entirely to the individual to answer for themselves. You used the example of religious leaders being instrumental in ending the slave trade. True enough, but it was also religious leaders who justified it as well.

I cannot help but wonder what the world would be like if the excuses of 'Gods will' and 'God says so' were entirely removed from the vocabulary of the human race.

Again I would like to raise the nature of the position of Pope. Apparently, because somebody once said so (Peter or Paul I think?) they are Gods representative on Earth, because Jesus said so. Now, this isn't what annoys, insults and scares me. What does that, is that it is a non-democratic position then held for life, and ultimately answerable to no one. Now think about that. Leaders of the Free World tend to meet with the Pope as part and parcel of position. Why I ask? How is the position of Pope any more tolerable to Democratic countries than any other Dictator or 'President For Life'. I even extend the same question to the Dalai Llama. Not elected. Just appointed. Whether or not they have done any evil, deliberately or otherwise, they are nowhere near Democratic leaders.

Thus, surely they should be shunned and sanctioned as much as the next tinpot despot?

Ahh see, now y'all got me think'n bout my religion now.

I actually kind of see life as a test. Not that serious "Do or Die tests" but a simple test.

A test of what? Morals. Believe in God or not, is rape a good thing? Even if God said "Rape is ok", would that make the option good?

No. I don't think so. People make mistakes. I, for example, have gotten in some fights at my school. Now, God isn't going to blast me to hell because I have been a bad soul. He wants me to say, "Hey, even if many of those fights were justified, were they right?" of course not. Many of those people I fought are some of my closest friends now. God wants me to realize that what I do is wrong, and that I should be sorry for it. Now, many people who hear this say, "So, a rapist gets away with what he does, pretends to be sorry, and goes to Heaven?" No, this is not how the system works.

ShumaGorath, all of your posts make absolute sense. But try to bear with me for a second. God does not create murders. He creates people. Normal, everyday people to the stuff of legends. He gives them weaknesses, I believe at least, to test that person's resolve. If I wanted to, I could kill, rape, steal etc. But, in the end, what happens? I am probably going to get jailed, even possibly killed, etc. Now, I'm not going to say weak people are murderers, but it certainly at least takes some restraint to hold in violent and/or negative feelings.

God doesn't know how these people will live their lives. God does not plan out every persons lives. God simply creates people, I believe, to test them. To see if those people can, at least, avoid the dark, "evil" inner feelings. Now, God does not take joy in this. He doesn't take amusement in this. God loves his children like a father to his sons/daughters. He wants them to succeed. He wants people to go to Heaven, but after the Devil's traitorous actions, he had to guard his followers from the Devil's actions.

Even then, forget organized religion for a moment. Is worship of God bad? even then, is what the Ten Commandments at least say bad? Don't kill, Don't wish for another man's wife etc. The church isn't trying to act dictatorial, they simply wish to pass on the love of the Lord onto others.


P.S. This, IS NOT a flame. Everyone here has made PERFECT SENSE. It is 100% understandable. I am not trying to say, "Worship God or burn in hell." I'm simply trying to show that religions aren't bad. They are just, different. Hopefully this doesn't come across as a flame. I mean no offense. none. There is nothing wrong with Atheists, people who don't like religions, or even people who hate them.

ShumaGorath wrote: I think the rift between us here is that the god you describe is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. God doesn't need to stop us from murdering and thieving. God created existence with those very concepts and actions as possibility. Why? Why create murder and then create murderers. God knows what we will do before we do it, if it doesn't it's not all knowing. God created us with the intention of crafting our exact actions, if he didn't he's not omnipotent. Every facet of existence was shaped by god, that includes things that exist only conceptually such as killing and murder. An omnipotent being could create an existence that functions so vastly differently from this one that we could not even imagine it. Literally.

No, the God I describe is omnipotent and omniscient. He simply left us with a universe with the safeties turned off. Now you can argue that God, being all powerful, should be able to create a universe where man can grow and become mature and responsible while still being free from the consequences of his actions. I could reply that omnipotence doesn’t mean the ability t deny basic tenants of logic, God can be God all he wants but 1+1 will always equal two, and a person whose actions cannot cause repercussions will never become a full human being. Then you can reply that if He is all He says he is, then He should be able to create a universe where we can grow into great people without having any of that pain or misfortune. But then I reply that it’s rising above suffering and hardship that makes us, and suddenly we’re in the middle of a theological debate that’s occupied religious thinking for centuries.

But really, why bother? If you want to talk about the problems of an omnipotent, omniscient and all caring God, and compare it to the real world you don’t really need to delve into such piffle. Just ask about the tsunamis, or children born with conditions that cause them to die moments after birth. There you have hardship and suffering completely beyond the control of man, so free will never enters the issue.

At which point you get the simple reply, why does God have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving to be God, and deserve worship?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I dunno. A group of people discussing their beliefs, to me, does not a religion make.

A religion is about restricting what people believe in, cajoling, threatening and bullying the congregation into doing so through the use of Hell or other divine punishment.

Not every religion is based around sin, punishment and Hell. Even those that feature such ideas don’t spend that much time on them.

Now, good can come from anything. For example, most of the 20th Centuries biggest technological leaps came from the various War Efforts. Whether the end ever justifies the means is an open question I leave entirely to the individual to answer for themselves. You used the example of religious leaders being instrumental in ending the slave trade. True enough, but it was also religious leaders who justified it as well.

So it’s as if, being a human organisation full of people with varying points of view and principles, a church can result in good as well as evil?

Cryonicleech wrote:Ahh see, now y'all got me think'n bout my religion now.

I actually kind of see life as a test. Not that serious "Do or Die tests" but a simple test.

A test of what? Morals. Believe in God or not, is rape a good thing? Even if God said "Rape is ok", would that make the option good?

No. I don't think so. People make mistakes. I, for example, have gotten in some fights at my school. Now, God isn't going to blast me to hell because I have been a bad soul. He wants me to say, "Hey, even if many of those fights were justified, were they right?" of course not. Many of those people I fought are some of my closest friends now. God wants me to realize that what I do is wrong, and that I should be sorry for it. Now, many people who hear this say, "So, a rapist gets away with what he does, pretends to be sorry, and goes to Heaven?" No, this is not how the system works.

ShumaGorath, all of your posts make absolute sense. But try to bear with me for a second. God does not create murders. He creates people. Normal, everyday people to the stuff of legends. He gives them weaknesses, I believe at least, to test that person's resolve. If I wanted to, I could kill, rape, steal etc. Now, I'm not going to say weak people are murderers, but it certainly at least takes some restraint to hold in violent and/or negative feelings.

God doesn't know how these people will live their lives. God does not plan out every persons lives. God simply creates people, I believe, to test them. To see if those people can, at least, avoid the dark, "evil" inner feelings. Now, God does not take joy in this. He doesn't take amusement in this. God loves his children like a father to his sons/daughters. He wants them to succeed. He wants people to go to Heaven, but after the Devil's traitorous actions, he had to guard his followers from the Devil's actions.

Even then, forget organized religion for a moment. Is worship of God bad? even then, is what the Ten Commandments at least say bad? Don't kill, Don't wish for another man's wife etc. The church isn't trying to act dictatorial, they simply wish to pass on the love of the Lord onto others.


P.S. This, IS NOT a flame. Everyone here has made PERFECT SENSE. It is 100% understandable. I am not trying to say, "Worship God or burn in hell." I'm simply trying to show that religions aren't bad. They are just, different. Hopefully this doesn't come across as a flame. I mean no offense. none. There is nothing wrong with Atheists.

You said He. perhaps God is a She? Not to piss anyone off, but what if? What if the churches lied about go being a man? Just food for thought.

God is typically portrayed as Male in the Bible. This sort of rubs off onto your vocabulary, rather than being latent sexism on behalf of the poster.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:God is typically portrayed as Male in the Bible. This sort of rubs off onto your vocabulary, rather than being latent sexism on behalf of the poster.

The ancient greeks, believed in a Great Goddess before Zeus. They did so because of women giving birth, before they learned of mens part in it. Damn. Religon confuses me.

Golden Eye, you may be right. I've just simply referred to God as Him simply because it's what is said in the Bible. I don't want to be sexist, but if the Bible is right, then God is male.

It's an interesting theory though. I guess I'll never know.

It's an odd idea, that God would either be male or female. It assumes he has form at all, for a start.

Roman and Greek Gods are another reason I do not believe.

Entire Civilisations and Empires have come and gone, and the Gods they believed in with them. Thus, it would seem Gods are just as transitory as man.

Add in that for an apparently loving deity, the Christian God is clearly some sort of bastard for only letting a few in on the secret, thus condeming all humans who lived and died before having the word spread to them to burn in the firey pits of hell. Or do they get a special Heaven pass because they missed the memo?

But thats enough. As I said, I have strength of conviction behind my beliefs, and being happy with that, it's not my place or my intention to belittle those of others.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I dunno. A group of people discussing their beliefs, to me, does not a religion make.

A religion is about restricting what people believe in, cajoling, threatening and bullying the congregation into doing so through the use of Hell or other divine punishment.

This is where you go off the rails, I think. You're defining religion as something that's bad, and than saying "see, religion is bad!" I'm also not sure that religions restrict belief any more than any other force in the world. It's clear that you simply hate religion, and that's fine, but I think you're being very unfair in your definitions.

Now, good can come from anything. For example, most of the 20th Centuries biggest technological leaps came from the various War Efforts. Whether the end ever justifies the means is an open question I leave entirely to the individual to answer for themselves. You used the example of religious leaders being instrumental in ending the slave trade. True enough, but it was also religious leaders who justified it as well.

So, religion can be both bad and good. That's all some of us are arguing here. They are human organizations, and have flaws and failings just like any other.

I cannot help but wonder what the world would be like if the excuses of 'Gods will' and 'God says so' were entirely removed from the vocabulary of the human race.

Probably a lot like our current world. People crave authority (see the Milgram experiments, among others), and if not based on religion, it can be based on pretty much anything.

Again I would like to raise the nature of the position of Pope. Apparently, because somebody once said so (Peter or Paul I think?) they are Gods representative on Earth, because Jesus said so. Now, this isn't what annoys, insults and scares me. What does that, is that it is a non-democratic position then held for life, and ultimately answerable to no one. Now think about that. Leaders of the Free World tend to meet with the Pope as part and parcel of position. Why I ask? How is the position of Pope any more tolerable to Democratic countries than any other Dictator or 'President For Life'. I even extend the same question to the Dalai Llama. Not elected. Just appointed. Whether or not they have done any evil, deliberately or otherwise, they are nowhere near Democratic leaders.
Thus, surely they should be shunned and sanctioned as much as the next tinpot despot?

Wow, again man, you seem to just have a real vendetta here. First off, get some history straight. In the Bible, Jesus calls Peter the rock on which he'll build his church, and that he will have certain spiritual authority. As time passed, Peter became the first bishop of rome, which eventually became the first among equals, and finally the head of the Catholic Church. Second, the Pope is elected, it's just that only Cardinals may vote. Third, the Pope, while technically sovereign of the Vatican, doesn't really rule any people that don't accept his leadership. I don't see meeting with the Pope as being that different from say, meeting with the Owner of a large corporation.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Roman and Greek Gods are another reason I do not believe.

Entire Civilisations and Empires have come and gone, and the Gods they believed in with them. Thus, it would seem Gods are just as transitory as man.

Add in that for an apparently loving deity, the Christian God is clearly some sort of bastard for only letting a few in on the secret, thus condeming all humans who lived and died before having the word spread to them to burn in the firey pits of hell. Or do they get a special Heaven pass because they missed the memo?

But thats enough. As I said, I have strength of conviction behind my beliefs, and being happy with that, it's not my place or my intention to belittle those of others.

Christian teaching says that if you were never exposed to the word then you aren't expected to have accepted Jesus. You still would have known right from wrong and would be judged on those grounds. And remember that 'accepts Jesus' isn't a key element of all Christian groups, for most 'leads a good life' is a much bigger idea.

And yeah, Gods are transitory. It's a good argument against dogmatic, absolutist religion, not against all religion.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Add in that for an apparently loving deity, the Christian God is clearly some sort of bastard for only letting a few in on the secret, thus condemned all humans who lived and died before having the word spread to them to burn in the firey pits of hell. Or do they get a special Heaven pass because they missed the memo?

something along those lines was one of the things that got me, back in the day. I found myself thinking "if not knowing gets you a free pass, then wouldn't it be better to never tell anyone else, so they got in to"

it seems to me that organized religions lose a lot of force if one discount the existence, or perhaps importance of an afterlife.

one reason i believe i stopped looking for a religion was deciding I'm not bothered by the idea of going "poof" when i go.

Keep in mind that to the Greeks, the Gods and Goddesses that we know and love were just one class of gods. Plato and Aristotle often discussed a creator god that was closer to our conception of the Divine. In addition, while the names are often transitory, the archtypes of gods are shared by nearly every culture. I think that seeing how similar gods make appearances in different times and regions shows that the idea of the divine has some lasting power.

sebster wrote:
Maybe related, but I like the idea of revelation. The idea of reasoning one's way to God is just a little boring .

Exactly. If you can reason your way to everything why not just spend your free time sitting alone in a room. Though I suppose there are plenty of people throughout history that have done exactly that.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Entire Civilisations and Empires have come and gone, and the Gods they believed in with them. Thus, it would seem Gods are just as transitory as man.

God is a word which denotes a concept. The concept has been referred to by many words, and continues to be so denoted today. What has come and gone are the specific means of denoting a higher power, not the concept of a higher power itself.

Polonius wrote:Third, the Pope, while technically sovereign of the Vatican, doesn't really rule any people that don't accept his leadership. I don't see meeting with the Pope as being that different from say, meeting with the Owner of a large corporation.

The pope's hat is way cooler.

But when you have Millions of devout Catholics looking to the Pope for guidance, thats dangerous. If we don't like the stuff coming out a President or Prime Ministers mouth, it's a matter of scant years until we can get shot of the bugger.

But not the Pope. Or the Dalai Llama (put him in deliberately to try and shift my emphasis off the Catholic Church. I begrudge all Religions equally!). The world is stuck with their thoughts until they pop their clogs.

And having a bunch of Cardinals doesn't make things democratic either. I always felt Britain and America had a cheek calling themsleves democratic before allowing ALL members of society, regardless of class, gender or creed vote.

But at to the Religion thing, I do agree that the exact definition is the important thing, so here goes with my take (feel free to disagree, but do keep it in mind when reading my posts. With any luck they'll appear more considered and less rabid )

Religion. To me, Religion is any faith with Vicars, Fathers, Priests etc. To my mind, anything which relies on a more or less self appointed person to tell others how to the live their lives is not a good thing. It is also a fundamentally outdated model. As I am sure you are aware, Priests etc were for hundreds of years, the few people that could read and write. At this point, you know, fair enough I suppose. But as education has improved so vastly, what role do they have that is genuinely relevant? If I have my copy of the Holy Text, I am more than capable of reading it for myself and making my own mind up.

But Faith. Faith is good and healthy. That to me is your own personal view point, possibly shared and developed with others, but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me, even if I don't think your beliefs are positive or well considered. Each to their own!

Actually, Mad Doc, you may have a point there.

Now, I'm not "switching sides" but the man does have a point. Kudos to you, sir.

Is the point of debate.

Don't want people to change their minds, just examine their own stand point.

Oh, and I forgot to thank Polonius for correcting me about the Pope and Jesus and that. Always nice to know when you have the wrong end of the stick so you can change it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Religion. To me, Religion is any faith with Vicars, Fathers, Priests etc. To my mind, anything which relies on a more or less self appointed person to tell others how to the live their lives is not a good thing.

This is an honest question, not a jab. Do you believe that a religion must be organized around self-acknowledged God?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is also a fundamentally outdated model. As I am sure you are aware, Priests etc were for hundreds of years, the few people that could read and write. At this point, you know, fair enough I suppose. But as education has improved so vastly, what role do they have that is genuinely relevant? If I have my copy of the Holy Text, I am more than capable of reading it for myself and making my own mind up.

Again, not meant to be insulting. Reading a holy text properly requires a vast amount of training because reading a holy text properly requires a vast amount of contextual knowledge. It isn't enough to know what the Bible says. You also have to know what other versions of the Bible say, and the nature of the world depicted in the Bible.

In many ways it is like reading a book on theoretical physics. I can read the book. I will even understand most of it. But I will never understand all of it, because I can never experience the things which are being discussed within it. The best I can do is open my mind in order to experience the model as portrayed. The role (well, in my view) of the Priest, Rabbi, Imam, etc. is to aid the individual in maintaining that open mind.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But Faith. Faith is good and healthy. That to me is your own personal view point, possibly shared and developed with others, but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me, even if I don't think your beliefs are positive or well considered. Each to their own!

I think you would make an excellent Priest MDG.

See, I don't buy the contextual thing about scriptures. To me, that smacks of an established order desperately flailing for relevance in an increasingly educated world.

Though I do have a book I keep meaning to read. I studied Theology at A Level for a bit (sadly my Teacher left, and was replaced with a rather, erm, convinced Christian. Course took a turn away from what I wanted) and when I worked for the same school, one of the Receptionists I shared an office with was a Christian. So we used to have religious type natters, exploring things in our own way. She gave this book which is about the relevance of the Ten Commandments in the modern day. Now I don't seek or expect revelation from this book, but I am expecting an interesting read, whether I agree with it or not!

But should a scripture, regardless of it's religious attachement, require a third party to interpret it? I say not. To me, that is reminiscent of things like Tea Leaf Reading and 'Psychics'. Read something, anything, and I bet you I can put a different spin on any particular passage. Cynical of me I know, but hey, this is an open, friendy debate, so I guess it's only fair I admit when I'm perhaps not being entirely open minded!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But when you have Millions of devout Catholics looking to the Pope for guidance, thats dangerous. If we don't like the stuff coming out a President or Prime Ministers mouth, it's a matter of scant years until we can get shot of the bugger.

But not the Pope. Or the Dalai Llama (put him in deliberately to try and shift my emphasis off the Catholic Church. I begrudge all Religions equally!). The world is stuck with their thoughts until they pop their clogs.

Well, a lifetime appointment has it's advantages. The US Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and about none of those members are elected by anything close to universal sufferage. I guess I just don't see why that alone is enough to earn your ire.

And having a bunch of Cardinals doesn't make things democratic either. I always felt Britain and America had a cheek calling themsleves democratic before allowing ALL members of society, regardless of class, gender or creed vote.

Well, you're shifting goal posts a bit here then. You're confusing universal sufferage with democracy, much as you've been confusing abusive religion with religion. Maybe democratic is the wrong word, but the Pope is elected by a body, not self appointed.

But at to the Religion thing, I do agree that the exact definition is the important thing, so here goes with my take (feel free to disagree, but do keep it in mind when reading my posts. With any luck they'll appear more considered and less rabid )

Religion. To me, Religion is any faith with Vicars, Fathers, Priests etc. To my mind, anything which relies on a more or less self appointed person to tell others how to the live their lives is not a good thing. It is also a fundamentally outdated model. As I am sure you are aware, Priests etc were for hundreds of years, the few people that could read and write. At this point, you know, fair enough I suppose. But as education has improved so vastly, what role do they have that is genuinely relevant? If I have my copy of the Holy Text, I am more than capable of reading it for myself and making my own mind up.

Hmm, this is a confused paragraph. I think you've got a decent start at a definition, in which you call any faith with dedicated clergy as a religion. I guess that works well enough. You seem to be confused, if you think that only priests were the only people that could read or write. Even at the height of the Western European Dark Ages, there were plenty are areas in the world with rich academic traditions. Even in the court of Charlemagne, I'd imagine there were scribes and heralds that could read. For most people, there was no reason to read and not much to read even if they could.

As for the need to have clergy, I'm studying to become a tax attorney. Now, anybody can buy a copy of the Internal Revenue Code and do their own tax planning for corporate mergers. Yet nearly all businesses consult with an expert on the subject when something comes up.

To use a more clever analogy: we all have copies of the 40k rules, yet there are people who are sought out for their wisdom in interpreting those rules. Is that inherently bad?

My point, as you've no doubt guessed, is that clergy, particularly in Jewish and Protestant traditions, often spend much of their time conveying and relating the lessons of the scriptures to the laity. A good cleric can bring the lessons of the past into the modern era. Add on to this the social and para-psychological duties they often perform, and I don't think that it's a completely redundant position.

But Faith. Faith is good and healthy. That to me is your own personal view point, possibly shared and developed with others, but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me, even if I don't think your beliefs are positive or well considered. Each to their own!

Except I think you keep dwelling on a pretty specific subtype of religion and cleric: that of the fire and brimstone style type that precludes any interpretation or practice outside of their own. I think if you look at the actual practices of most religions, you'll see that they offer advice and help and support, and maybe they have their particular brand of message, but they don't necessarily insult or bash the others. There has been some pretty amazing ecumenical work done in the last 25 years in many areas, in which the Catholic Church has dramatically opened up it's world view and begun accepting and endorsing other creeds, most notably Judaism. The Catholic Church is also having talks with some branches of the American Lutheran movement about reconciling much of the schism there.

And, finally, part of being a cleric is that you are holding yourself out as a man of god. Part of that is to literally act a bit, well, holier than the average guy. Most people want their lawyers to look and act like lawyers, and likewise they want their priests to look and act like priests.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:See, I don't buy the contextual thing about scriptures. To me, that smacks of an established order desperately flailing for relevance in an increasingly educated world.

Though I do have a book I keep meaning to read. I studied Theology at A Level for a bit (sadly my Teacher left, and was replaced with a rather, erm, convinced Christian. Course took a turn away from what I wanted) and when I worked for the same school, one of the Receptionists I shared an office with was a Christian. So we used to have religious type natters, exploring things in our own way. She gave this book which is about the relevance of the Ten Commandments in the modern day. Now I don't seek or expect revelation from this book, but I am expecting an interesting read, whether I agree with it or not!

But should a scripture, regardless of it's religious attachement, require a third party to interpret it? I say not. To me, that is reminiscent of things like Tea Leaf Reading and 'Psychics'. Read something, anything, and I bet you I can put a different spin on any particular passage. Cynical of me I know, but hey, this is an open, friendy debate, so I guess it's only fair I admit when I'm perhaps not being entirely open minded!

I got into this a bit with my other post, but I think you're being very dismissive of context. Context can tell you what words in the original greek meant, and how many people mistranslated them. They can tell you why certain behaviors occurred. They can explain things that appear complex. I mean, there are hundreds of companion readers to things like the Illiad, are they all utterly unnecessary, or can they add to a persons understanding of the text?

Much of the interpretation and context is provided through scholarship and history, not gut instinct and revelation.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I always felt Britain and America had a cheek calling themsleves democratic before allowing ALL members of society, regardless of class, gender or creed vote.

To be fair, the term was invented to describe Greek city-states, who did the same thing.

But you see, this is the thing.

You used the example of Tax Planning. An expert in that has studied cases of precedence etc.

But to me, a Priest isn't that sort of expert. He's just learnt a specific interpretation, be that right or wrong. To me, that is hardly an expert.

And going back to me example of Historical Relevance. I believe it was the King James Bible that was the first English translation (and possibly non-Latin. Not sure about that bit though). So sure, in the court of Charlemagne, scribes etc would have been able to read and write. Goes with the job one might say (buggered if you're an illiterate scribe after all!) but as you say, your average Peasent had no need to read, and thus, the Priest was indeed highly relevant to them, as they could explain their religion to them and guide them (even if it wasn't always in a good direction!).

But in the modern day, do we have need of them? Obviously, I feel not. I don't need a clergyman to go through different interpretations for me, I have the Interwebs for that. Indeed, we're doing it right now, after a fashion. So again, I see the clergy's relevance being further and further eroded, and embrace this as a good thing. I cannot stand blind faith, for that is not faith at all. Well, in my opinion.

You see, I can't respect a persons opinion if they have never bothered to take so much as five minutes to question it. From what I see, many religions (and I see what you mean about good/bad religions, in terms of levels of dogma rather than what they are preaching) aren't terribly keen on people questioning their beliefs. Far better for those in control to just keep telling people they are right.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I always felt Britain and America had a cheek calling themsleves democratic before allowing ALL members of society, regardless of class, gender or creed vote.

To be fair, the term was invented to describe Greek city-states, who did the same thing.

Again, Democracy means "Rule of the People", not "rule of every single one of the people." It stood in opposition to tryanny (the rule of a single man) or Oligarchy (the rule of the most powerful and/or wealthy).

Modern liberal democracies have almost always moved closer to Universal Sufferage, but the two are not bound together. You can have everybody able to vote but only approved party members on the ballot, for example.

Even today, not all adults (and no children) can vote. Non-citizens, felons and the insane are all prohibited from voting.

Yep.

Although it's worth noting, in ancient Greece and early America the majority of the population was unable to vote.

The power did rest in the hands in the people though, relative to everything else at the time.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:See, I don't buy the contextual thing about scriptures. To me, that smacks of an established order desperately flailing for relevance in an increasingly educated world.

I can see that, and I used to feel that way. Then I debated a Priest and lost badly. Flexibility, the kind that comes with contextual truth, is an amazing thing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Though I do have a book I keep meaning to read. I studied Theology at A Level for a bit (sadly my Teacher left, and was replaced with a rather, erm, convinced Christian. Course took a turn away from what I wanted) and when I worked for the same school, one of the Receptionists I shared an office with was a Christian. So we used to have religious type natters, exploring things in our own way. She gave this book which is about the relevance of the Ten Commandments in the modern day. Now I don't seek or expect revelation from this book, but I am expecting an interesting read, whether I agree with it or not!

I recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong. It basically covers the course of religious evolution (primarily the Abrahamic religions, but also some of the Eastern ones) from the beginning of recorded history until now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But should a scripture, regardless of it's religious attachement, require a third party to interpret it? I say not. To me, that is reminiscent of things like Tea Leaf Reading and 'Psychics'. Read something, anything, and I bet you I can put a different spin on any particular passage. Cynical of me I know, but hey, this is an open, friendy debate, so I guess it's only fair I admit when I'm perhaps not being entirely open minded!

Certainly you're correct. In fact, I'd go further and say we could put literally any spin on any text given sufficient time and flexibility. But that's really the point of accepting some specific thing as having relevance. It allows for communal interaction by holding out a given ideal against which decisions can be rendered without violent conflict.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But to me, a Priest isn't that sort of expert. He's just learnt a specific interpretation, be that right or wrong. To me, that is hardly an expert.

And a mathematician is simply a person who has learned a specific interpretation of the world.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But you see, this is the thing.

You used the example of Tax Planning. An expert in that has studied cases of precedence etc.

But to me, a Priest isn't that sort of expert. He's just learnt a specific interpretation, be that right or wrong. To me, that is hardly an expert.

Well, most clerics actually have studied multiple interpretations. You realize that Catholic seminary is five years of education after 4 years of undergraduate work? They learn the history of the regions in the bible, the languages spoken, and millenia of interpretation by other thinkers. How can that not help? I guess I'm not sure if I'm being unclear or if you're simply very entrenched, but I think if I were to read, say, Revelations, it's helpful to know what the symbolism used in that work were commonly known to refer to back then.

And going back to me example of Historical Relevance. I believe it was the King James Bible that was the first English translation (and possibly non-Latin. Not sure about that bit though). So sure, in the court of Charlemagne, scribes etc would have been able to read and write. Goes with the job one might say (buggered if you're an illiterate scribe after all!) but as you say, your average Peasent had no need to read, and thus, the Priest was indeed highly relevant to them, as they could explain their religion to them and guide them (even if it wasn't always in a good direction!).

But in the modern day, do we have need of them? Obviously, I feel not. I don't need a clergyman to go through different interpretations for me, I have the Interwebs for that. Indeed, we're doing it right now, after a fashion. So again, I see the clergy's relevance being further and further eroded, and embrace this as a good thing. I cannot stand blind faith, for that is not faith at all. Well, in my opinion.

Ok, so you don't need a priest. Good for you, although by bringing up the knowledge available online you seem to already be eroding your position that scripture can stand on it's own. If reading a persons thoughts online is helpful, wouldn't reading an expert's thoughts be equally helpful?

Now, I don't get this sudden detour into discussing blind faith. Are you implying that if I were to ask a priest to discuss a passage of the bible, I'm relying on blind faith? I don't understand why you think having trained experts around to discuss a matter that many people find important, and are supported solely by those people, is a bad thing.

You see, I can't respect a persons opinion if they have never bothered to take so much as five minutes to question it. From what I see, many religions (and I see what you mean about good/bad religions, in terms of levels of dogma rather than what they are preaching) aren't terribly keen on people questioning their beliefs. Far better for those in control to just keep telling people they are right.

Well, as long as you keep painting all religious people with the same brush, I think you're just as guilty of having blinders on. I again reference the Catholic Church, specifically the Jesuits, as prizing individual knowledge and understanding of faith as more important than ritual.

I think you assume that every church is as bad as the worst examples of Christianity, and I hate to break it to you, but most aren't. I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many mainstream clerics that encourage blind faith.

dogma wrote:I can see that, and I used to feel that way. Then I debated a Priest and lost badly. Flexibility, the kind that comes with contextual truth, is an amazing thing.

I'm an intelligent and educated man, but the average Jesuit Priest could demolish me in any spiritual debate you put him to. At least in the Catholic Church, priests have knowledge that is both incredibly broad and deep.

Polonius wrote:Again, Democracy means "Rule of the People", not "rule of every single one of the people." It stood in opposition to tryanny (the rule of a single man) or Oligarchy (the rule of the most powerful and/or wealthy).

Actually it meant rule of the mob, and was used as a term of criticism.

Polonius wrote:I'm an intelligent and educated man, but the average Jesuit Priest could demolish me in any spiritual debate you put him to. At least in the Catholic Church, priests have knowledge that is both incredibly broad and deep.

Yeah, in MDG's defence there are blind spots in theological teaching, like there are in all forms of learning. People can be as educated as possible, but there will still be some level of natural bias in there somewhere.

Not that that means any learned religious authority should be dismissed, but that they should be listened to along with many other sources.

Polonius wrote:
I'm an intelligent and educated man, but the average Jesuit Priest could demolish me in any spiritual debate you put him to. At least in the Catholic Church, priests have knowledge that is both incredibly broad and deep.

I like to see myself as both of those things. That's why losing to a Priest was such a significant experience. In fact, it may have been the only real religious experience I've had in my entire life.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, Democracy means "Rule of the People", not "rule of every single one of the people." It stood in opposition to tryanny (the rule of a single man) or Oligarchy (the rule of the most powerful and/or wealthy).

Actually it meant rule of the mob, and was used as a term of criticism.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2324437

According to this, the definition is closer to ideal of citizenry, rather than pure mob.

Well, there are blind spots in all education and learning, but I think that most mainstream clergy are much broader in education than MDG and many others seem to think.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, Democracy means "Rule of the People", not "rule of every single one of the people." It stood in opposition to tryanny (the rule of a single man) or Oligarchy (the rule of the most powerful and/or wealthy).

Actually it meant rule of the mob, and was used as a term of criticism.

Wouldn't that be an Ochlocracy?

::EDIT:: Oops, Ninja'd into irrelevance.

Polonius wrote:
Well, there are blind spots in all education and learning, but I think that most mainstream clergy are much broader in education than MDG and many others seem to think.

Just as an example of this. My father became a minister at age 34. He finished undergrad with a BA in political science and economics. After that he got his MBA, and managed a bank for a few years. Then he married my mom, went to seminary, and started floating from parish to parish. The paths to clergy are many and varied.

Polonius wrote:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2324437

According to this, the definition is closer to ideal of citizenry, rather than pure mob.

Yeah, I remember there was all kinds of discussion about rule of the citizenry vs rule of everyone, with citizenry naturally being assumed to be more responsible. From somewhere in my reading there I remember something about democracy being a derisive term as it would include all those other people, but I can't remember where I read that and am certainly no expert on the matter. I'll drop the point.

Well, there are blind spots in all education and learning, but I think that most mainstream clergy are much broader in education than MDG and many others seem to think.

Absolutely. There is a lot more debate and grey areas in modern religion than most folk outside the system assume. I was just pointing out that even though such debate exists, it doesn't guarantee a system that comes up with the right answer as often as it might. By 'right answer' you can assume I mean either 'the answer that properly considers all relevant factors and discards none' or 'the answer the sebster thinks is correct', whichever takes your fancy

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wouldn't that be an Ochlocracy?

::EDIT:: Oops, Ninja'd into irrelevance.

That's probably the word I was thinking of. And it is a glorious word. Just say it 'ochlocracy'. It's no 'oligopsony' but it's pretty awesome.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But not the Pope. Or the Dalai Llama (put him in deliberately to try and shift my emphasis off the Catholic Church. I begrudge all Religions equally!). The world is stuck with their thoughts until they pop their clogs.

I think it's nice that you pretend to do more than pay lip service to the fact there is more to world than your Christian surroundings but all it is doing here is showing how little you truly understand about (Tibetan) Buddhism, the Dalai Llama, and his role in the socio/religious aspects of the Tibetans. Have you ever heard the Dalai Llama? Have you read any of his writings? You try to hold an apple up to an orange and tell us that they are both oranges by virtue of both being fruit and that you hate oranges so this apple must be an orange and so you must hate it as well.

Here is a good little story. One of my professors was having breakfast with the Dalai Llama and a woman there told the DL that she was having trouble dealing with her 14 year old son and wanted to know what advice he had for her. Well he replied "I'm celibate. I've never had sex let alone children." He let her know that he didn't have some mystical magic fix to make a teenager suddenly not act like a teenager and the best thing to do would be to talk to other parents.

'Well he replied "I'm celibate. I've never had sex let alone children." He let her know that he didn't have some mystical magic fix to make a teenager suddenly not act like a teenager and the best thing to do would be to talk to other parents.'

Wow...super words of wisdom and help...

I liked it when there was only a few religions, you could tell the real one from the fakes. Now you've got all these little sub-religions and groups messing about with people's minds and putting them off the subject.

!? wrote:I liked it when there was only a few religions, you could tell the real one from the fakes. Now you've got all these little sub-religions and groups messing about with people's minds and putting them off the subject.

When exactly were the only a few religions, and the fake ones obvious?

!? wrote:

Ahtman wrote:'Well he replied "I'm celibate. I've never had sex let alone children." He let her know that he didn't have some mystical magic fix to make a teenager suddenly not act like a teenager and the best thing to do would be to talk to other parents.'

Wow...super words of wisdom and help...

You would be happier if he lied and pretended to be an expert on child rearing? He wasn't mean and he didn't tell her to go away or anything of that nature and was empathetic toward the problem but he is not a an expert on child rearing and readily admits so. I don't see why this is a problem for you. You want to talk about the Four Noble Truths or the state of human rights between China and Tibet he'd be a great person to talk to. You want to know if someone has some mystical way of dealing with teenagers, especially one with no experience raising children, you'll need to look for someone else.

!? wrote:I liked it when there was only a few religions, you could tell the real one from the fakes. Now you've got all these little sub-religions and groups messing about with people's minds and putting them off the subject.

Is this sort of like the retcon of the 50's where people pretend it was a simpler time and happier but ignore all the repression of individuality, treatment of women as second class, bigotry, and xenophobia that actually was a part of that time?

To the OP:

Did you know Kevin Smith is a hardcore Christian?
Dogma was about celebrating his faith, but gently poking fun at it.

My personal beliefs are crazy right now.
Like many of you, I have drifted away from Religion, but yet have continued to develop a Spiritual side. That said, I believe in a lot of decent Human Spirituality, like love, compassion, forgiveness and acceptance. These are the things which make our mortal lives worth living.
We do them to exist in a nice environment, and to ensure others are content too.

I like to consider the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, Shinto, Buddha, Vishnu, Anansi and a whole host of different denominations. IMO, it's all the same language, just a different dialect.

Love, Peace, Harmony man.

Humanity is what has contorted and disrupted the message. If there is a God (I reckon there's a good chance there is), I think he's having a very bad time watching us blow the feth out of each other saying "He doesn't get it..... He doesn't get it..."

When I first saw the title of the thread I thought. “Wow how long before this thread gets locked”. But it’s great to see people having a “discussion” rather than an argument. As usually these kinds of threads devolve into that. (And it still may)

Anyway, I am a “born again” Christian. Before I became a Christian I was a die-hard atheist, and much more so than what I have seen posted by some of the people that have posted in this thread so far. I was very similar to Paul of the new testament, in that I used to approach people that “claimed” to be Christians and “test” them by trying to debate them. I used all my knowledge that I had learned from my own experience in attempts to break down their beliefs and to reinforce my “unbelief”.
I endorsed the “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” lifestyle and lived the “sex drugs and rock and roll” lifestyle. And then something miraculous happened. I found God. How can someone that was so totally against the idea of God even existing, let alone expressing faith in Jesus Christ happen?

Grace.

Listen to the song Amazing Grace. “I once was lost, but now I’m found” It is so true.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, in fact I believe it impossible to have “all the answers”. Isn’t it a bit foolish of us to think that we can understand all the aspects of an All Mighty God? I feel perfectly fine with saying that I will never know why God allows certain bad things to happen, because I have a relationship with my Creator and that I know that He is real. I have no problem with the questioning either. It’s perfectly natural as human beings to wonder about the deep mysteries of God and life.

I’m not sure if that makes me religious or not, but I know it makes me a man of faith.
GG

Ahtman wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But not the Pope. Or the Dalai Llama (put him in deliberately to try and shift my emphasis off the Catholic Church. I begrudge all Religions equally!). The world is stuck with their thoughts until they pop their clogs.

I think it's nice that you pretend to do more than pay lip service to the fact there is more to world than your Christian surroundings but all it is doing here is showing how little you truly understand about (Tibetan) Buddhism, the Dalai Llama, and his role in the socio/religious aspects of the Tibetans. Have you ever heard the Dalai Llama? Have you read any of his writings? You try to hold an apple up to an orange and tell us that they are both oranges by virtue of both being fruit and that you hate oranges so this apple must be an orange and so you must hate it as well.

Here is a good little story. One of my professors was having breakfast with the Dalai Llama and a woman there told the DL that she was having trouble dealing with her 14 year old son and wanted to know what advice he had for her. Well he replied "I'm celibate. I've never had sex let alone children." He let her know that he didn't have some mystical magic fix to make a teenager suddenly not act like a teenager and the best thing to do would be to talk to other parents.

Hold on a minute skip. I introduced the Dalai Llama as another explain of the religious equivalent of a dictator for life.

I have tried not to judge individual religions, as I feel my stand point is one where I have to ignore all religions equally, lest I become a steaming great pile of hypocracy.

Wow. First of all, let me say that I'm very glad that this didn't get locked and that som many people can have such a liveley discussion about this topic.

malfred wrote:Or maybe it's like being a parent. You know they're going to mess up, how they're going to
mess up, why they're going to mess up, but you let kids do it anyway and only make yourself
available as a last resort.

That's a very nice way to put it Malf

Polonius wrote:Freewill isn't a gift, by the way. It's the whole reason I believe that god created us: so that there would be those that chose whether or not to seek him out. In my view, God was lonely. Creating beings that could freely chose to leave or accept him offered him the possibility of a certain companionship that he otherwise lacked. that's the whole reason the offer includes eternal life in paradise: it's not a reward for those that believe, but a way to only let in the people that want to go to the party. I mean, if you knew there was a god, why wouldn't you ask him favors?

Likewise, the counter offer isn't eternal damnation, it's simply death. Separation from the divine would result, not in fires and devils, but in a fairly simple lack of existence.

But then he would "damn" a whole lot of people. Just think of the many tribes in Africa who don't know about "him/her". Also, imagine this: You die and you go to heaven. And then you're sitting there on you're cloud, doing whatever you do up there and you look down, and see World War 3 happening. Maybe it just happens a week or so after you die and you see how it affects all the people you've known and loved. And God still doesn't lift a finger. Could you "live" with that? For an eternity?

sebster wrote:You're also ignoring the good that's come out of religion. Religion stored most of our art and knowledge for a very long time. The anti-slavery movement in the US was primarily led by religious groups.

A lot of Religions also did quite a good job in destroying art and knowledge or at least hiding it. The whole Galileo thing for example.

Tek wrote:To the OP:

Did you know Kevin Smith is a hardcore Christian?
Dogma was about celebrating his faith, but gently poking fun at it.

Yes, I'm aware of that and I'm sure he wouldn't be very happy if he knew how his movie changed my vies on my former Religion. I guess it must sound weird to some people, if I say that it was basically an american comedy with a lot of cursing which got me to change my vies on the topics, but that's the way it happened, I already talked about the details.

My personal beliefs are crazy right now.
Like many of you, I have drifted away from Religion, but yet have continued to develop a Spiritual side. That said, I believe in a lot of decent Human Spirituality, like love, compassion, forgiveness and acceptance. These are the things which make our mortal lives worth living.
We do them to exist in a nice environment, and to ensure others are content too.

I like to consider the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, Shinto, Buddha, Vishnu, Anansi and a whole host of different denominations. IMO, it's all the same language, just a different dialect.

Love, Peace, Harmony man.

Humanity is what has contorted and disrupted the message. If there is a God (I reckon there's a good chance there is), I think he's having a very bad time watching us blow the feth out of each other saying "He doesn't get it..... He doesn't get it..."

Good point you god there, but I'm still thinking, if he really is up there saying "he doesn't get it..." he's saying that for a long long time now. And that's the main reason why I can't get my head around the whole concept. I don't even have to talk about the crusades or witch burnings, WW2 and the Holocaust should've been the last straw.

I could reply that omnipotence doesn’t mean the ability t deny basic tenants of logic, God can be God all he wants but 1+1 will always equal two, and a person whose actions cannot cause repercussions will never become a full human being. Then you can reply that if He is all He says he is, then He should be able to create a universe where we can grow into great people without having any of that pain or misfortune. But then I reply that it’s rising above suffering and hardship that makes us, and suddenly we’re in the middle of a theological debate that’s occupied religious thinking for centuries.

My qualm has always been the why. I believe that a omnipotent being could make 1+1 equal refrigerator if it saw fit. Being all powerful means no limitations, being confined to "logic" such as that is a limitation that isn't even totally concrete in the existence that we know, let alone something that could be created by an all powerful being.

What I've always wondered is why. Why even bother creating a world where people can run their little robot lives to become good or bad people (despite having their lives pre determined by their creator). Why not just create good people? I mean in effect that is whats being done, if our actions are pre determined by the all mighty then the course of my life is going to end just as it was designed too. Why even create the concepts of good and evil at all? Why does a god need to be worshipped?

You'll note I also never argued about a just god. Just the existence of one as per our frame of reference. Its also very possible that an all powerful being can simply defy logic via its being all powerful. So really this is all kind of balloons.

I'm an atheist, if you ask me religion has done far more harm than good and I've simply never had a belief in any divine being and even if such a being did exist I still couldn't find it in me to fall to my knees and venerate it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Add in that for an apparently loving deity, the Christian God is clearly some sort of bastard for only letting a few in on the secret, thus condeming all humans who lived and died before having the word spread to them to burn in the firey pits of hell. Or do they get a special Heaven pass because they missed the memo?

Indeed they may well do. This is mentioned in the book of Romans 2 v14-16. To summarise the Gentiles are a 'law unto themselves' (where the common phrase comes from), and if they act according to their good conscience the 'law' defends them even though they had no knowledge of the Mosaic covenant (10 Commandments).

Interestingly this expires on hearing the gospel, but that is fair however because belief in Jesus Christ is a far easier pass criteria than a just life.

The exact mechanics of salvation are a mystery, because it is obvious through promises in the Old Testament that it predates the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and it is also clear that not all those considered righteous were Jews either. This is touched on in the book of Hebrews. I think the easiest way to explain, though not absolutely correct; is that salvation through faith is the only guaranteed way of entering heaven, but God is less doctrinal than he looks and allows exceptions.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Religion. To me, Religion is any faith with Vicars, Fathers, Priests etc. To my mind, anything which relies on a more or less self appointed person to tell others how to the live their lives is not a good thing. It is also a fundamentally outdated model. As I am sure you are aware, Priests etc were for hundreds of years, the few people that could read and write. At this point, you know, fair enough I suppose. But as education has improved so vastly, what role do they have that is genuinely relevant? If I have my copy of the Holy Text, I am more than capable of reading it for myself and making my own mind up.

But Faith. Faith is good and healthy. That to me is your own personal view point, possibly shared and developed with others, but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me, even if I don't think your beliefs are positive or well considered. Each to their own!

We are closer to each other in thinking than I would have reckoned. To many churches being called 'religious' is all but an insult, faith is the real thing. The Bible backs this up wholeheartedly; the best example is in the first book of Corinthians 13, the whole chapter. This includes the iconic 'love is kind' passage and is a favourite at weddings. In a nutshell to have the processes of religion without a gentle heart is futile.
Most people of faith will however answer yes if asked if they are 'religious' as coloquially the differences between religion and faith are not understood and saying that one is not relgious, even if theologically correct sounds a bit like denial.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
At this point, you know, fair enough I suppose. But as education has improved so vastly, what role do they have that is genuinely relevant? If I have my copy of the Holy Text, I am more than capable of reading it for myself and making my own mind up.

A church is not a building, it is a community. It is merely a pick up in the language that we now, and have for many centuries, refered to a religous building as a church.
Churches are needed as it allows people of the faith to network, after all living a faithful life can be hard, there are many pressures.
These communities require some form of leadership, how this is organised determines the type of church community you have. Some groups have elders, some just have a priest, some import priests and in major denominations the preiest selection process becomes political. After all large numbers of worhippers become both a powerbase and a moneypot.

The parts of the church that are really thriving, work on this system. Pentecostals, evangelicals and the charismatic church in particular. This can lead to other problems, some of the indie churches are very good and well lead by well meaning individuals and groups, others are seriously dodgy. A good rule of thumb is look to see how important the offereing is made to be, if its half the service and speaks almost incessantly of the 'double helping, pressed together, shaken and running over', just go. I have noted with some amusement that those churches that dont worry about the financies and dont go preaching the offering never end up having to worry about money, those that do have problems. There is good faith in this, God is a reaasonable bloke, but if your faith is all about reaching a financial target he will make it difficult, you will have to pray for it and finally get it, after all its the only way their faith will grow. Of course assuming the whole leadership is actually honest and not on the take. If you dont worry about money it comes and faith grows. I have seen time and again, in my own life especially, that those who don't worry wont need to, the promise of Jesus in Matthew 6 v25ff 'consider the lillies in the field....' holds true time and again.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me

This is the clincher, anyone from just about any faith thinks that they have an advantage over the rest of humanity. Inviting people to join can lead to misunderstanding, as can trying to live to the standards set down by the faith. Others will just hate you for even trying no matter what you say. This all assumes you follow a faith fairly.
When many dont; the fanatics, paedo priests and TV evangelist conmen are remembered and everyone else is tarnished with the same brush used to tar them.

This post has been deleted by Modquisition as flaming

Never mind me.

Guys, be careful. It's getting warmer...

THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED AS FLAMING

Even on the OT board Dakka rule #1 applies.

Certain previous posts have been edited for flaming. Those posts are now being reviewed to see if disciplinary proceedings including suspension or banning of account or called for.

I am re-opening the thread. If further personal attacks continue the thread will be closed and disciplinary procedures will occur.

Frazzled wrote:Even on the OT board Dakka rule #1 applies.

Certain previous posts have been edited for flaming. Those posts are now being reviewed to see if disciplinary proceedings including suspension or banning of account or called for.

I am re-opening the thread. If further personal attacks continue the thread will be closed and disciplinary procedures will occur.

You can punish me anytime fraz!

Apparently rule #2 is that you can say really ignorant things and not worry that someone will call you on it as it will just get modded.

The gist of what I get from Mad Doc is, in essence, that a black guy mugged him so now he hates all black people regardless of the fact that not all black people are the same in any way, shape or form. All he can see in all of them, despite radical diversity, is the one that he feels mugged him. That just makes good sense and comes from a place of intelligence and reasoning. Why anyone would think otherwise I just don't understand.

EDIT: by Anung's specific request, I am re-opening one last time. It is the responsibility of all posters on Dakka to remain polite, even if they disagree strongly with other posters.

I didn't post earlier in this thread for a specific reason - my internet died. But now I'm here!

In response to the very first post:

Where would we be without suffering? If you look at it the way many more modern Christians do look at it, we don't take many of the Bible's teachings for 100%. For example, it's highly unlikely that God created the Universe in 7 days: that's an allegory. God looks over mankind, and even though we suffer, we could not have our own free will without terrible pain and suffering. What about experience? A loving God does not shield this from us.

Blahh. More later. When I actually read the thread.

sA

Okay, let's get this thread rolling again:
What about Islam? To me it seems, that in eastern europe and parts of asia, Religions seems to have a much bigger impact on everyday life then it has in the "western" countries. Or to be more precise, to most Moslems who live in Germany, it seems to be more important.
In my hometown, I see a lot of women of appearantly middle-eastern origin who wear..what's the word...scarfs over their heads. You know, not bandanas, but the word is the same in German: Kopftuch.
The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"
I heard stories about Immigrants from Turkey, who come to Germany, because they don't like the way their Religion has changed "back home".

Anung Un Rama wrote:Okay, let's get this thread rolling again:
What about Islam? To me it seems, that in eastern europe and parts of asia, Religions seems to have a much bigger impact on everyday life then it has in the "western" countries. Or to be more precise, to most Moslems who live in Germany, it seems to be more important.

Its also a good deal more mystical, at least in a general sense. There are parts of the Qu'ran which specifically state that speculation as to the nature of al'Lah is wasted effort because al'Lah cannot be known. So, while religion is more important to daily life, it is also far less specifically compulsive than something akin to North American fundamentalism.

Anung Un Rama wrote:
In my hometown, I see a lot of women of appearantly middle-eastern origin who wear..what's the word...scarfs over their heads. You know, not bandanas, but the word is the same in German: Kopftuch.
The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"

The head scarf (there is a specific word for this, I just don't know it) , and the burqa are an interpretation of the Qu'ranic call to modest dress (Hijab). Neither is mentioned specifically in the text. How any given Muslim interprets the Hijab is almost entirely cultural. For example, I know an Iranian girl who chooses to adhere to the faith by refusing to wear any shirt with a plunging neckline.

Anung Un Rama wrote:
I heard stories about Immigrants from Turkey, who come to Germany, because they don't like the way their Religion has changed "back home".

Yeah, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the enforced secularism that Turkey maintains. Its an interesting illustration of the way in which something that is considered confining to one person can be liberating to another.

Anung Un Rama wrote:A lot of Religions also did quite a good job in destroying art and knowledge or at least hiding it. The whole Galileo thing for example.

At times Catholic Church protected, encouraged and directly funded art and the sciences. At other times they strongly discouraged and even stopped research and science. Because the Catholic Church is a complicated human organisation, with many contradictory ideas that have changed over long periods of time. Which is what I’m trying to say here, that real life and history is complex, and sweeping statements tend to be very misleading.


Also, the Galileo thing didn’t go down exactly like the popular story tells it. He was never forbidden from writing on the subject, just told to include both sides of the story. When Pope Urban was elected, a friend of Galileo and one of his best supporters, he encouraged Galileo to include his own ideas in the book. Galileo complied, as introduced the character of Simplicio into the book, who parroted Pope Urban’s own views in the most ridiculous fashion and made him appear a fool. While the trial was for his heretical scientific arguments, the real problem was the combative way he went about making his claims and for ridiculing the Pope. There were contemporaries of Galileo that published without censure or controversy.

Not that people should be sent to jail for ridiculing anyone, especially not public figures, but the real story is a lot more complicated than the ‘Church imprisons dude for being right about science’.

ShumaGorath wrote:My qualm has always been the why. I believe that a omnipotent being could make 1+1 equal refrigerator if it saw fit. Being all powerful means no limitations, being confined to "logic" such as that is a limitation that isn't even totally concrete in the existence that we know, let alone something that could be created by an all powerful being.

It all depends on your definition of all powerful. Could God make 1+1 equal 3 and also equal 4 at the same time? Except other times when it only equals 9 and no other number? It’s perfectly reasonable to say that all powerful refers to the ability to change time and matter and all stuff, but still keeps to specific basic logical facts.

But I’ll say it again, it’s an argument that doesn’t need to be made. If you want to question the all powerful, all knowing, all loving thing, then you don’t need to talk about the evil men do because then you just wander into free will and determinism and all that junk and you never get out again. Just ask about the tsunami, which wasn’t the result of anything men did, and yet it caused so much suffering.

What I've always wondered is why. Why even bother creating a world where people can run their little robot lives to become good or bad people (despite having their lives pre determined by their creator). Why not just create good people? I mean in effect that is whats being done, if our actions are pre determined by the all mighty then the course of my life is going to end just as it was designed too. Why even create the concepts of good and evil at all? Why does a god need to be worshipped?

Again, there is a perfectly sound argument that says free will is what makes us what we are. Without the ability to decide our own actions, we are not complete beings.

If he just created people to be automatically good, then we're little more than automatons?

Anung Un Rama wrote:The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"

There’s the head scarf worn with ordinary clothing, called the Hijab. It’s common in more moderate Muslim communities. Then there’s the Niqab, which covers the whole body but leaves the eyes, and the Burqa, which covers the eyes as well (a mesh is all they’ve got to look through).

It’s a cultural thing, as Dogma says the Koran only calls for modest dress.

Again, there is a perfectly sound argument that says free will is what makes us what we are. Without the ability to decide our own actions, we are not complete beings.

If he just created people to be automatically good, then we're little more than automatons?

I'm arguing that free will can't exist coinciding with an all powerful all knowing being. That when your creator knows every action you will ever take and indeed created you as you are with that knowledge then free will is little more than an illusion created by our limited perception. I'm also not arguing the all loving angle, thats more the realm of faith then logic since an all loving god would not create the world as it is.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm arguing that free will can't exist coinciding with an all powerful all knowing being. That when your creator knows every action you will ever take and indeed created you as you are with that knowledge then free will is little more than an illusion created by our limited perception. I'm also not arguing the all loving angle, thats more the realm of faith then logic since an all loving god would not create the world as it is.

And why can't an all-powerful God step aside and watch the individual make his own choices? Wouldn't 'all powerful' include the power to not control an individual?

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm arguing that free will can't exist coinciding with an all powerful all knowing being. That when your creator knows every action you will ever take and indeed created you as you are with that knowledge then free will is little more than an illusion created by our limited perception. I'm also not arguing the all loving angle, thats more the realm of faith then logic since an all loving god would not create the world as it is.

And why can't an all-powerful God step aside and watch the individual make his own choices? Wouldn't 'all powerful' include the power to not control an individual?

No. God made man. God is omniscient. Therefore god had to know exactly what he was creating and all repercussions of that. Thus he created all of human history and action intentionally. Now if gods omnipotence means that he is capable of existing outside of logic and the foundations of existence then sure, since it's by his design that I believe that his existence is at its base logically impossible. In that situation then its entirely possible that he could both create and direct all of everything in existence and yet remain uninvolved with it. However if that's true then god could make 1+1=400 and the entire concept of good and evil and all negative things becomes a false construction created for a purpose that seems contradictory to the concept that god had to create a human existence with strife to give it meaning.

Its a catch 22.

If god is absolutely omnipotent then free will is possible but why did he create evil? He's truly omnipotent so he had other ways of reaching the same goal that didn't involve such obvious confliction. However if god is only "partially" omnipotent and conforms to the logic of existence then free will can't exist since he can not exist outside of the framework of understanding. And in that understanding an all knowing creator can not create free will since he is crafting life from its beginning to its end and all things in between. Leaving no choice or autonomy.

sebster:

You might be thinking of the Greek satirist Aristophanes, who made democracy a part of
his satire. A quick search turns up the titles Knights and Lysistrata, neither of which
I have read. I remember that his stuff was pretty bawdy, though.

ShumaGorath wrote:
No. God made man. God is omniscient. Therefore god had to know exactly what he was creating and all repercussions of that. Thus he created all of human history and action intentionally. Now if gods omnipotence means that he is capable of existing outside of logic and the foundations of existence then sure, since it's by his design that I believe that his existence is at its base logically impossible. In that situation then its entirely possible that he could both create and direct all of everything in existence and yet remain uninvolved with it. However if that's true then god could make 1+1=400 and the entire concept of good and evil and all negative things becomes a false construction created for a purpose that seems contradictory to the concept that god had to create a human existence with strife to give it meaning.

Its a catch 22.

Yes it is. That's also largely the point. If God exists outside of logic, then using logic to describe 'him' is entirely pointless.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If god is absolutely omnipotent then free will is possible but why did he create evil? He's truly omnipotent so he had other ways of reaching the same goal that didn't involve such obvious confliction. However if god is only "partially" omnipotent and conforms to the logic of existence then free will can't exist since he can not exist outside of the framework of understanding. And in that understanding an all knowing creator can not create free will since he is crafting life from its beginning to its end and all things in between. Leaving no choice or autonomy.

Unless you don't conceive of God as being something which is entirely separate from the universe. Man has free will because he is an active part in God's continuing act of creation.

malfred wrote:sebster:

You might be thinking of the Greek satirist Aristophanes, who made democracy a part of
his satire. A quick search turns up the titles Knights and Lysistrata, neither of which
I have read. I remember that his stuff was pretty bawdy, though.

Given the extent of my scholarship on the subject, it’s more likely I was half remembering a comment from someone who’d read Aristophanes .

ShumaGorath wrote:No. God made man. God is omniscient. Therefore god had to know exactly what he was creating and all repercussions of that. Thus he created all of human history and action intentionally. Now if gods omnipotence means that he is capable of existing outside of logic and the foundations of existence then sure, since it's by his design that I believe that his existence is at its base logically impossible. In that situation then its entirely possible that he could both create and direct all of everything in existence and yet remain uninvolved with it. However if that's true then god could make 1+1=400 and the entire concept of good and evil and all negative things becomes a false construction created for a purpose that seems contradictory to the concept that god had to create a human existence with strife to give it meaning.

Its a catch 22.

Omnipotence doesn’t mean the ability to ignore basic constructs of logic. It’s something that’s taken up millions of hours of scholarly debate, which can maybe be summed up with ‘can God create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it?’ Point being even omnipotence has its limits. Or possibly it doesn’t, depending on who’s arguing. But if you accept that there are basic logical limits to God’s power, your argument falls flat because you take a basic statement like ‘one can only grow if he can decide for himself and see the results of his actions’ and realise God can’t simultaneously stop us from doing evil and allow us to develop fully.

And now I’m really wandering what the point of this is? You’ve said elsewhere that you’re just going to assume ‘God is all-loving’ is wrong. Which is a perfectly sensible personal point of view, but then why any of the above?

It’s an old debate that if God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving, then how is there suffering? Remove any of three and there is no problem, because the answer to suffering can either be that God can’t do anything about it (or not all of it), that he doesn’t know about it, or that he doesn’t care. Given you’ve already been happy to remove ‘God is all-loving’ why continue to muse on the issue. Your great conundrum can be solved by the statement ‘God is a jackass’.

Because I like the exploration of the idea of a creator. Whether it is aware of its actions, us, any sort of plan, or even itself. The idea is interesting to me.

I was told once by a physics teacher that our universe was created when it collided with another (hence the big bang followed by the universal expansion). I like to think about far off things.

Sebster: your arguments run into a few problems. God existence is beyond human understanding. This isn't just mystical handwaving, it's an important aspect to any serious debate about a creator god.

God didn't just create the world, or the universe, he created the entire system of matter and energy. The laws of chemistry, physics, mathematics and even logic were all creations of the divine. God's ominipotence is not merely super human, it's beyond super human. He's not a maxed out God level character with straight 18's, he's the guy that created the rules. God can divide by zero, decrease entropy in a closed system, play with magnetic monopoles, etc.

As for god being all loving, let's not mistake our concepts of love for god's. If go erased suffering, we would no longer be human, we would be angels. God has plenty of those: they are extensions of his being. Suffering is what makes us human, without suffering we could not have accomplishment and joy and victory.

In the end, any conception of god that assumes he can be caught up in paradoxes is overly anthropomorphizing the divine. God is beyond space and time, and he's beyond simply logical games.

Polonius wrote:Sebster: your arguments run into a few problems. God existence is beyond human understanding. This isn't just mystical handwaving, it's an important aspect to any serious debate about a creator god.

God didn't just create the world, or the universe, he created the entire system of matter and energy. The laws of chemistry, physics, mathematics and even logic were all creations of the divine. God's ominipotence is not merely super human, it's beyond super human. He's not a maxed out God level character with straight 18's, he's the guy that created the rules. God can divide by zero, decrease entropy in a closed system, play with magnetic monopoles, etc.

As for god being all loving, let's not mistake our concepts of love for god's. If go erased suffering, we would no longer be human, we would be angels. God has plenty of those: they are extensions of his being. Suffering is what makes us human, without suffering we could not have accomplishment and joy and victory.

In the end, any conception of god that assumes he can be caught up in paradoxes is overly anthropomorphizing the divine. God is beyond space and time, and he's beyond simply logical games.

That view, of a God that can create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it until later on he lifts it… or that he even manages to simultaneously lift the rock while also being unable to because it’s all beyond anything as mundane as our basic logic… that is one view of God. It isn’t every view of God.

My problem with Shuma’s argument was that he assumed, as you were, that that God is the only possible form He could take.

ShumaGorath wrote:Because I like the exploration of the idea of a creator. Whether it is aware of its actions, us, any sort of plan, or even itself. The idea is interesting to me.

I was told once by a physics teacher that our universe was created when it collided with another (hence the big bang followed by the universal expansion). I like to think about far off things.

Ever considered the idea that the universe was created, but without us in mind. That is to look at the vast expanses of space and the millions of planets, and consider us, covering a small portion of a small planet that takes up hardly any space in one of millions of solar systems. And then to compare this to mould in one corner of a fishtank looking out at the expanse of that fishtank and assuming the whole thing was put there for them?

It’s an idea I think about a little bit. It seems to reconcile the scale and magnificence of the universe with the fact that it isn’t very kind on many of its human inhabitants.

sebster wrote:
That view, of a God that can create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it until later on he lifts it… or that he even manages to simultaneously lift the rock while also being unable to because it’s all beyond anything as mundane as our basic logic… that is one view of God. It isn’t every view of God.

My problem with Shuma’s argument was that he assumed, as you were, that that God is the only possible form He could take.

If you assume a god is omnipotent, really omnipotent, than I'm not sure what other form he could take. If you want to portray god is simply a very, very powerful being that is still restricted to the basic rules of creation, than that's fine, but that's different from most views of divinity.

I'm a pretty rational guy. I'm not unaware of the arguments against god, in fact I've used them all many times myself. I wouldn't say I was "born again" or any such, but I realized that taking concepts like "eternal", "creator", and "omnipotent" to the extremes resulting in a breaking down of logic itself. That god can exist in the margins, beyond our reasoning. The basic questions that haunt us about god (do we have truly have free will? Why must there be suffering?) continue to exist without god.

I think that any god that isn't omnipotent by my definition isn't really omnipotent, and therefore isn't God. He may be a god, but not the God.

Polonius wrote:If you assume a god is omnipotent, really omnipotent, than I'm not sure what other form he could take. If you want to portray god is simply a very, very powerful being that is still restricted to the basic rules of creation, than that's fine, but that's different from most views of divinity.

It’s not that hard if you consider some things constants of our universe. The strength of gravity. The atomic weight of carbon. Omnipotence would be the ability to change any of that if he wanted. But other things are basic truths that aren’t rules by the nature of creation, but the nature of what they are. 1+1=2 is not a thing to be created, it’s a wholly contained fact. It’s a very different thing to suggest a God that can that, an entirely different form of omnipotence.

It may be that God can’t change the latter. It may be that God can change the latter, or maybe he can’t. I’m not God, and you aren’t either. Well, I’m probably not. And you probably aren’t either.

And yeah, limitations of the power of God are assumed in a lot of different forms of faith. Free will and the argument for evil assume it, for a start, as the underlying logic is that God can’t have created a universe with both free will and an absence of evil.

I think that any god that isn't omnipotent by my definition isn't really omnipotent, and therefore isn't God. He may be a god, but not the God.

I wouldn’t look at a God that created the universe and say ‘if you can’t make 1+1=2 then I just don’t think you’re omnipotent”. If something created the universe then its God, whether or not it needs worship, or deserves, is another question.

Well here it goes i like a good religous debate but here is where I stand.
1: without darkness there can be no light
2: one man's "evil" is another mans good
3: Im Pagan so i belave there are many gods and one all powerful god
4: Muslims, Jews, and Chrstians are all sons of Abraham
5: The golden rules of "most" faiths treat others the way you wanted to be treated
6: "NO" faith is right nor is it wrong
7:Life is one thing that cannot truly be explained as there are far too many questions which go with it.
8:Live each day to its fullest as it could be yours/slash mine last and every second is precious.
9: Death is inevitable for all of us so we "must" try to find a way to coexist as it is fruitless to debate who is right and who is wrong.
10:all faiths of the world suffer from this pointing fingere complex.
There is how i feel in a nut shell so feel free to burn me

sebster wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"

There’s the head scarf worn with ordinary clothing, called the Hijab. It’s common in more moderate Muslim communities. Then there’s the Niqab, which covers the whole body but leaves the eyes, and the Burqa, which covers the eyes as well (a mesh is all they’ve got to look through).

It’s a cultural thing, as Dogma says the Koran only calls for modest dress.

The question remains who's choice it was to do that in the first place. And I don't get why there's so much fuzz about covering the head/hair but that might just be a cultural thing.

The Islamic dress code for women is not in the Koran, but in the Hadith, which is a supplement and technically not scripture. Best described as Mohammeds 'notes'.

The story goes that Mohammed was visiting someone and saw women of the household wearing fairly skimpy clothing. He said to his hosts that once a girl becomes an adult (puberty) all that should be seen are 'these' (pointing to the eyes) and 'these' (pointing to the hands) when she is outside the home.

Thus under strict Islam pre-pubescent girls have no dress restrictions except that required for common modesty. When going out or in public Islamic women should generally cover up. How big 'these' are is another matter. The Burqa goes very far that Niqab is closest to a textual interpretation however the idea that wearing a head covering and long sleeves is enough tends to suffice.

Like in Christianity and Judaism dress codes show a lot about the denomination. If modesty is Mohammeds intent the Hijab is perfectly good, the Naqa takes a more literal stance and the Burqa oversteps in order to safeguard the law, hold this point.

'Safeguarding the law' is a doctrine stemming from Rabbinic law by which a tradition is formed that surrounds the law so that if the tradition is not broken the law is not broken. Both Jesus and Mohammed rewrote the book on these points. I cannot speak for Mohammed in any depth but Jesus casually broke tradition both in the cases of safeguard traditions which are not part of Judaic law at all and those aspects of the law itself it was broken while a exercising an act of mercy or compassion.


If you want to know why these laws and traditions were formed Anung Un Rama.

There are two basic reasons:

1. Sexual conduct. In the middle east women can walk around comfortably wearing very little. I will not need to explain this one any further.

2. Skin health. In the middle east a womans skin deteriorates quickly. Ending up rough is ok for a man, less so for a woman. covering up prevents sun damaged and keeps the skin pale and smooth. Thus a womans beauty lasts much longer. Remember no sunblock cream, so a bikini lifestyle will result in a withered hag by 25-30 on the outside.

This point is not restricted to the ancient religions but life in general. The Greeks are a good example. They had no such thing as a dress code, to go around naked in Greece was often acceptable. In the Olympic games events were competed while naked, possibly to prove no cheating is going on and to even everyone out.

However with regarding women, especially those of class, flowing dresses were recommended and full covering was recommended outdoors so as to preserve skin beauty from sunlight.

In summary, then:

- 5 pages;
- lots of wishes/beliefs;
- zero evidence.

In short, my view is: if god(s) existed, we would know. There wouldn't be room for even a hint of doubt or question. It would be as obvious as the sun in the sky or the wind on our faces. And I'm afraid it just isn't.

kged wrote:In summary, then:

- 5 pages;
- lots of wishes/beliefs;
- zero evidence.

In short, my view is: if god(s) existed, we would know.

Would we?

Perhaps because there is no proof and no disproof, you are most likely dealing with something very smart that manages to stay off camera.

If your post hints at anything, neutrally speaking, it is that whatever God is out there is good at covering his media relations, leaving some evidence for people to find, but no proof.

kged wrote:
There wouldn't be room for even a hint of doubt or question. It would be as obvious as the sun in the sky or the wind on our faces. And I'm afraid it just isn't.

Furthermore there is good reason for this. If we knew without doubt there would be no room for faith or a defacto choice, you would just get dictator God.

Besides speaking as a Christian, the fact that there is no proof has been pre-reckoned and a primose made on that account. In the Christian theology this promise is the 'second coming', when everyone will know the truth without any doubt. In fact one of Jesus's warnings is that many can be deceived beleiving a second coming has occured, this cannot be if there is any disagreement. The real second coming is a total inclusion event with 0% room for doubt.
Other religions may have similar views/promises in their Holy Books, IIRC Islam has very similar thinking regarding the end times. Buddhism & Hinduism do not because they are more concerned with a repeated incarnation cycle that ends individually at enlightenment, which can be achieved after any number of lifetimes.

So the no proof angle has been recrtified as a future promise at least, it has not been glibly ignored in the scriptures.

Orlanth wrote:The Islamic dress code for women is not in the Koran, but in the Hadith, which is a supplement and technically not scripture. Best described as Mohammeds 'notes'.

It's a lot more complicated than that, because they were only formally recorded around 200 years after Muhammad, and they are very open to debate between different sects. Hence the considerable variance in dress standards from one muslim group to the next.

The Hadith you cite, about covering all but the hands and eyes, is not recognised universally.

This point is not restricted to the ancient religions but life in general. The Greeks are a good example. They had no such thing as a dress code, to go around naked in Greece was often acceptable. In the Olympic games events were competed while naked, possibly to prove no cheating is going on and to even everyone out.

Got a cite on the walking around nude? It's documented that the Olympics were in the nuddy, but that was a special occasion and was all about seeing the best athletes in the world in all their glory. It's also worth pointing out women were not permitted to watch.

kged wrote:In summary, then:

- 5 pages;
- lots of wishes/beliefs;
- zero evidence.

In short, my view is: if god(s) existed, we would know. There wouldn't be room for even a hint of doubt or question. It would be as obvious as the sun in the sky or the wind on our faces. And I'm afraid it just isn't.

Were you honestly coming into this thread expecting someone to give evidence of God?

And how you can declare that the only possible God is one who'd make himself obvious to us. That He must be interventionist and involved in our daily lives, or He cannot be. Never a thought for a distant God, perhaps one that doesn't know or doesn't care about piles of meat on a small planet in a faraway corner of the galaxy. Never a thought for a God who believes we are best served by serving ourselves. All the countless possibilities and yet here you are rejecting them all. I can't help but think that's a fairly dull way to live your life.

Orlanth wrote:

kged wrote:In summary, then:

- 5 pages;
- lots of wishes/beliefs;
- zero evidence.

In short, my view is: if god(s) existed, we would know.

Would we?

Perhaps because there is no proof and no disproof, you are most likely dealing with something very smart that manages to stay off camera.

If your post hints at anything, neutrally speaking, it is that whatever God is out there is good at covering his media relations, leaving some evidence for people to find, but no proof.

Yeah, but then it would a tactic he only started using "recently". He "spoke" to Noah, he "spoke" to Moses and his Son talked about nothing else. Only after they nailed his son to the cross he decided to "stay off camera".

Anung is dead on - isn't it a just a bit suspicious that God ceasing to talk to His people coincided with the rise of science? As soon as we began to understand that thunder and lightning and floods and plagues are not in fact divine instruments but natural processes, God becomes silent. And be honest, believers - if someone nowadays claims that they are getting messages from God, what is your reaction?

Sebster, I see no reason to believe in anything you posited there.Certainly a disinterested (or disillusioned) God makes more sense than that offered by the tradition in which I grew up, but nothing like as much sense as there being no gods at all.

Orlanth - "Besides speaking as a Christian, the fact that there is no proof has been pre-reckoned and a primose made on that account. In the Christian theology this promise is the 'second coming', when everyone will know the truth without any doubt. In fact one of Jesus's warnings is that many can be deceived beleiving a second coming has occured, this cannot be if there is any disagreement. The real second coming is a total inclusion event with 0% room for doubt...So the no proof angle has been recrtified as a future promise at least, it has not been glibly ignored in the scriptures." Again, there is absolutely no reason to believe one word of this, except that you want to. That's perfectly valid, I don't want to get too Dawkins here, but it's not evidence. And yes, dammit, I DO want evidence!

If someone can give me a valid reason or anything in which i would gain from one then yes, i may think about it.
but i have no interest for religion as a whole.
just seems kind of pointless to me to believe in something that may not exist as there is no proof other than a book.

i rather stay without a religion as i am fine, i dont see why some seem to think everyone needs a religion.

sebster wrote:

Got a cite on the walking around nude?

Sure, look at enough Greek vases and you will find.

I wont link to any, I dont know what forum policy is on them. They are nudes and clearly not pr0n*, but I will let mods decide first.

Let me start with images of hoplites with spear, helmet, shield and sandals and nothing, and I mean nothing else.


*For the most part, some depict sexual acts.

kged wrote:Again, there is absolutely no reason to believe one word of this, except that you want to.

Sure, this is my point. There is no proof against it either, so.... your call, its a faith based on choice either way.

kged wrote:And yes, dammit, I DO want evidence!

I hope it doesn't come to that.

The whole "2nd coming" idea brings me back to a previous statement. If God really plans to come down and end life on earth as we know it, he should've done so years ago.

Exactly. Belief without proof is called Faith.

However, I find the concept of some all powerful overseer of the galaxy a silly concept. I cannot prove there isn't one, thus I am taking it on faith that there isn't. Just as many believers feel they have some kind of proof (The Bible or relevant Holy Text) , I hold up Science as my arguement against. And yet even Science is largely based on prediction, which could be said to be another form of Faith.

Confusing stuff to be sure, which is why I don't like to discuss it too far, because my views tend to cause unintended offence, and then the wrong end of the stick is grabbed!

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Perhaps because there is no proof and no disproof, you are most likely dealing with something very smart that manages to stay off camera.

Yeah, but then it would a tactic he only started using "recently". He "spoke" to Noah, he "spoke" to Moses and his Son talked about nothing else. Only after they nailed his son to the cross he decided to "stay off camera".

Ok, now if we look at this 'burning bush' style events are pretty rare then as now. They are not limited to occurances prior to the incarnation (Jesus) either. Paul on the road to Damascus happened after the death and resurrection.

However if we look at more recent events there are many claims to miraculous conversions, best modern example (the one most likely to have heard of) is the ministry of David Wilkerson. While no 'burning bush' style moments appeared to occur it did involve a very naive priest feeling called to minister to New York gangland, where he did from face value many suicidally stupid things, refusing to take no, and a knife at the face as an answer. yet he won through with several overnight conversions, the most noted of which is Nicky Cruz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_cruz

The nearest story I have heard of a conversion event meeting God was the story of Sundar Singh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu_Sundar_Singh

I have other stories but they are mostly persecution miracles rather than conversion events. I have met some members of the Chinese dissident church that escaped to the west but my favourite story I know of from the last decade concerned a teenage girl who converted in Iran. Her parents disowned her and threw her out of the house naked, in itself an act of mercy as the father was supposed to kill her. She ran naked through the streets seen by many people to the house of the only Christians in the area, contrary to propoganda Christianity and Judasim of themselves are tolerable in Iran, and have a measure of protection in the Koran, but conversion is not. Anyway the residents of the home opened the door in astonishment and let the naked girl in. The next day the story was all around the area, but the story was not about the whos and whys of a distressed naked girl, the question raised was what was she doing out in the street with such a beautiful white wedding dress on.

Orlanth, your a man of faith, so an honest question for you.

With the advent of modern science, do you think that the 'benchmark' for a miracle has gone up? After all, a man might have say, Cancer, or a similar affliction. Now, modern medicine can do quite a lot, but sadly often short of curing. The man in question also has people praying for him.

The man goes on to make a full recovery, even when the Doctors didn't think he would (and this does happen, including the prayers).

Now, couple of hundred years ago, this recovery would have been hailed as a miracle, but nowadays we put it all down to our own brilliance.

So perhaps, is the very existence of medical science etc blinding us to what a couple of hundred years ago would have been an outright miracle? Is it a form of hubris, where because we can, we now automatically believe we have?

Hope this makes sense!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Exactly. Belief without proof is called Faith.

However, I find the concept of some all powerful overseer of the galaxy a silly concept. I cannot prove there isn't one, thus I am taking it on faith that there isn't.

No right thinking person can have problems with that statement, it is your faith based decision. Religious people might disagree with the decided upon 'solution' and offer other evidence that they/we prefer, and may wish that in later yeasrs, or sooner you reevaluate your oposition, but noone can honestly condemn the validity of the choice in thinking behind it.

I remember sitting in the concourse of Euston station, with the copy of the Koran I was given by a Moslem evangelical team in covent Garden, I asked in the general direction of God, 'is this your answer for me?' I never felt it was while reading the book and later became a Christian. I looked at this as evidence of open-mindedness. At uni in the early 90's I remember talking about this with some friends including a ladyfriend was was a moderate Moslem from Bangladesh, lovely girl and decent minded. While it was generally approved that I had thought about my belief systems rather than just accept the one from the culture I was born into, I nevertheless felt a strong twinge of sadness from my friend who thought that by active rejection of the Koran I had made a terrible mistake. She genuinely feared for my soul, maybe she fears still if she ever thinks of me.

well as someone who has never been involved in any religiouse study or a church in any form i have recently started reading the bible. I figure the best selling book of all time deserves a once over. I am only half way through but i have to say The Old testiment "god" had a fantastic fail safe, i forget the correct wording but as soon as i find it i'll let you know. God rains fire and brimstone on the Sodom and Gomorrah peeps, and after the death of everyone except Lot and his kids god says something to the effect of " and i'll never interfere in the lives of man again" and thats that. kind of effective in showing why he dosen't punish the wicked any more. I'm not condeming it i haven't read it all yet and i have No idea what i believe in, If this book dosen't help me out any im going with Voodoo

Either that or he's just fed up of us not paying any attention and twisting his words into justification for continuing to knock seven bells out of each other.

The main reason I don't believe, is that I find the Universe fascinating, and to me, the thought that all that is just....is, is far more intoxicating than believing it was deliberately made.

I do reccomend trying it one night. With a clear sky, set out a sun lounger, lie back, and just look up. Clear your mind (if you can find somewhere away from traffic and streetlights this works even better) and just contemplate.

And when you are considering the universe, consider this. We have now peered inside the Atom. And there are smaller things inside. Yet, inside every atom, there is more nothing, than there is something. Which means the entire Universe is literally filled with nothing.

Both are very humbling, and I fully appreciate that my life is less than insignificant. But this feeling has driven me to reasses my life. I am turning my back on the Ratrace, and looking into a career in social care. My life might by ultimately insignificant, but to me thats all the more reason to do something with it beyond making someone financially richer. I want to leave a distinct and positive mark upon this world. Not for fame, not for glory, just because.

All of this talking, reminds me of a Futurama espisode. The one where Bender gets lost in space and becomes a "god" (tiny little people settle on him). As the espiode goes on the settlers split into two cities, one that can see bender and the other where they can't. Since one can see the "god" and the other can't, they have seperate beliefs. This causes a war and then the destruction of both cities. Anyways, it boils down to where if Bender never helped them all the time and only made them aware of his being there the cities might have never killed each other.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hope this makes sense!

It does, so I will answer in stages.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
With the advent of modern science, do you think that the 'benchmark' for a miracle has gone up? After all, a man might have say, Cancer, or a similar affliction. Now, modern medicine can do quite a lot, but sadly often short of curing. The man in question also has people praying for him.

No changes in the 'benchmark'. I claim (being neutral here) to have seen miracles and most are very minor. Miracle doesnt necessarily have to be anything medical, many of the fun stories aren't.

Let me give you a simple answer to a miracle, it doesnt involve medicine but does involve me, I have on occassion asked for money from God, I dont' think anything more of it and later within a day or two found the money! Sometimes on the street, in one case abandoned in an ATM in Tottenham Court Road on a busy day. I had two witnersses to this, I saw the ATM from at least 50 yards away and noone was at it, how long the money was there I have no idea, but ut was one hundred pounds, exactly the amount asked. This is an example of a provision miracle, which sound as a lot like a cooincidence but such cooincidences can occur a lot and on a far grander scale than this little anecdote.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The man goes on to make a full recovery, even when the Doctors didn't think he would (and this does happen, including the prayers).

Now again the persons recovery might be coincidental, entirely due to science or helped along by God. Prayer for the sick is still valid as is then thanking God for the delivery if the person gets better.
A few religious people will thank only God and refuse to acknowledge the hand of the doctors or take them forgranted, however it is considered both poor humanity and poor theology.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now, couple of hundred years ago, this recovery would have been hailed as a miracle, but nowadays we put it all down to our own brilliance.

The apostle Paul who is reported to have cured the sick and raised the dead took with him a doctor the gospel writer Luke. Luke from accounts initially accompanied Paul as his doctor not as a biographer, and Paul mentioned of his illnesses that Luke helped him with. Including notably the 'thorn in the flesh' an unknown illness or condition that God never removed from him.

Jesus might have said 'physician heal thyself' but that refered to the physicans self importance, not his occupation. If Jesus thought doctors need to repent for what they were he would have asked them to repent as he asked the prostitutes tax collectors and priests. Jesus was very transparent as to which occupations required an overhaul.

Some churches (being neutral here, most Christians dont consider these churches) including the Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons disavow many forms of medicine and pure to rely entirely on the miraculous. Most mainstream churches tend to have problems with eastern mysticism based therapies such as Yoga and accupuncture but otherwise have no problems with medicine, nor consider it a lack of faith to go to a doctor first then pray after when sick.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So perhaps, is the very existence of medical science etc blinding us to what a couple of hundred years ago would have been an outright miracle? Is it a form of hubris, where because we can, we now automatically believe we have?

Man can get rather uppity with increased knowledge. From a Biblical perspective this is pointed out with the Tower of Babel story. On a more practical and far more modern note just look around you, we have absorbed great power, but not practiced the responsibilities that come with this power, part of the churches job - and evidence of its continued use in the modern era - has been to point such uncomfortable truths out. The blatant hypocrasy of all men, including and thus especially priests doesn't help though. The Bible warns us that those who teach are judged with increase stricture over those who do not, thus acceptible standards for priests are in all fairness higher than standards for other persons, so the churches ills mask the world's.

Now in medicine look at the results of miracle drugs, we get the scientific miracle - and abuse it. Penicillin was wasted by overuse in WW2 to give soldiers a quick fix from difficulties in brothels in liberated Europe, which increased brothel visits increased the number of actual cases of STD's and reduced condom use (especially as WW2 condoms were thick heavy and reusable). Had Penicillin been withheld for essential cases it could have been used to blitz some diseases to extinction rather than wasted. This lesson was learned postwar with the successful war on smallpox campaign which globally eradicated the disease in a campaign so swift it gave the virus no time to mutate.

If a full cure for Aids was found tomorrow, the day after would be the worlds biggest orgy.


Still miracles are alleged to occur (being neutral again) but are often very heavily contested. Resurrection stories especially. I have met one man who was raised from the dead, Ian McCormack, we met near the start of his ministry http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/. The world record for resurrections is IIRC 26 from an Argentine mortuary attendent, but I cannot find a citation and many cases are likely to be conventional near death experiences.

John G Lake was known to have cured cancer, oddly by throwing a curse at the cancer as well as by blessing the patient. He demonstrated this with as removed cancerous growth which 'withered in his hands' in a domonstration to a room of journalists. thisd was in South Africa in the 30's.

Of all the evangelist healers of modern times two stand out Smith Wigglesworth, and Reinhart Bonnke. Wigglesworth was a poor and ill educated Victorian plumber who just honestly beleived and it took off from there, he was quite hardcore as to his teachings, but was responsible for many very impressive miracles, and unlike the modern press hostility Wigglesworths miracles did reach the mainstream papers. Reinhart Bonnke is still kicking around, a german preacher who spends most of his life in Africa. Bonnke is responsible for the largest mass gatherings in human history, more than the largest rallies of the Chinese communist party (the largest political/social events). Just as the Bible is kept off the bestseller list statistics Bonnke is kept of social statistics for rallies. He has on a number of occassions preached to congragations of five million people and half a million to two million is commonplace.

Whether this counts as a miracle or not I will leave to you to decide, like many miracles it's is a string or scale of 'coincidence':

You may not have heard of him but Reinhard Bonnke wears one of the most well known faces in southern and central Africa and has a colossal rep, up there with Mandela. Bonnke was unwelcome in Mozambique because Mozambique is a moslem country, however most on southern africa has lax borders and thus has a fairly open border policy, on a practicable 'might as well' basis. Thus just because the government wont invite you doesnt mean you cant wander around quite openly. Bonnke thus entered Mozambique technically illegally, on several occassions, and held rallies. Trying to stop a half a million plus rally is a headache for any government and Bonnke never preaches dissent so they just don't try. After two illegal tours Bonnke was invited back to Mozambique. He wondered why, there had been no ministers converted and the government was still islamic and hostile to his message. The reason was because tax revenue had increased by a very significant percentage in the regions he had toured as many many people declared their true earnings for tax purposes because they wanted to clean up their lives. in Africa it is easy to conceal your true assets, many people decided not to do so anymore.

Fair enoughmatey, and I do appreciate your clear marking of your own intrepretation as to what you considered miracles. Sadly quite a rarity when discussing Religion!

Also duly noted and appreciated is that due to the increased secularism (or possibly scepticism) in the media, let alone the wider world, people are all too ready to ignore miracles altogether, or of course just try to explain them away. At this point, quite appropriately really, that miracles become a matter of faith, and thus opinion.

Now for another question. When I was studying Religious Philosophy, I wrote a (bad) paper about the Inspiration of Christ.

In it, I was asking the question as to whether or not the miracles in the Bible inspired the expansion of modern medicine, in an attempt to emulate said Miracles. Now it wasn't suggesting Scientists have a messiah complex, so much as had we not heard tales of such things being done, would we have ever questioned if there was something we could do to prevent or cure any given ill. I referenced Science Fiction and Technology. A lot of stuff we take for granted these days were first postulated in Fiction (though interestingly, the advent of the Personal Computer never was!) so there is a sort of precedence of humanity taking inspiration and commitment from literature (Sorry if this seems demeaning to the Bible, I am trying to be as impartial as possible!).

My main religious arguement for it, was that early hospitals were often church funded, and seeing as Monks and Priests were a fair part of the few literate people, we began properly recording things. This recording later turned into repositories of knowledge, which enabled better and better research. For example, Druids, Witches etc, knew that if you had a rash, mixing this with that in a certain way made a paste which when applied, relieved the itching, and the rash would go away. Until things were written down (Druids had no written language folks!) this was all faith and superstition. But when anyone can read an account of the mix etc, more people gain the knowledge, and the people asking 'but why does it work' increase. Each of these persons would document their discoveries, meaning whoever followed could read their notes, and pick up where they left off.

As understanding increased, the miracle of the healing properties was explained, and thus arguably ceased to be a miracle (my understanding is that a miracle needs to have an inexplicable content!).

So, yeah. What do you reckon?

Anung Un Rama wrote:Okay, let's get this thread rolling again:
What about Islam? To me it seems, that in eastern europe and parts of asia, Religions seems to have a much bigger impact on everyday life then it has in the "western" countries. Or to be more precise, to most Moslems who live in Germany, it seems to be more important.
In my hometown, I see a lot of women of appearantly middle-eastern origin who wear..what's the word...scarfs over their heads. You know, not bandanas, but the word is the same in German: Kopftuch.
The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"
I heard stories about Immigrants from Turkey, who come to Germany, because they don't like the way their Religion has changed "back home".

The Koran says that women should dress modestly. The extreme forms of covering like the Burka are culturally determined, not religiously.

kged wrote:Sebster, I see no reason to believe in anything you posited there.Certainly a disinterested (or disillusioned) God makes more sense than that offered by the tradition in which I grew up, but nothing like as much sense as there being no gods at all.

There's no reason beyond an open mind that accepts all possibilities. It's better in life to be open to all things, and interested in things beyond those proven by science.

And I'm not saying that you need to accept something, just that it's probably better if we remained open to all things. I'd say the same to someone who believed nothing but the literal word of the KJ Bible, and rejected any other ideas automatically.

Orlanth wrote:Sure, look at enough Greek vases and you will find.

I wont link to any, I dont know what forum policy is on them. They are nudes and clearly not pr0n*, but I will let mods decide first.

Let me start with images of hoplites with spear, helmet, shield and sandals and nothing, and I mean nothing else.

*For the most part, some depict sexual acts.

Oh. It's a mistake to look at artwork literally, from any period. If you look at art literally then you have to assume that every girl in the French Revolution was topless. You'd have to assume David wasn't just man enough to take on Goliath, but that he did it starkers.

So if that's where you got the idea, then I think it's safe to say that no, they didn't walk around naked.

double post

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Fair enoughmatey, and I do appreciate your clear marking of your own intrepretation as to what you considered miracles. Sadly quite a rarity when discussing Religion!

Also duly noted and appreciated is that due to the increased secularism (or possibly scepticism) in the media, let alone the wider world, people are all too ready to ignore miracles altogether, or of course just try to explain them away. At this point, quite appropriately really, that miracles become a matter of faith, and thus opinion.

This heavily depends on where you go. In Africa for instance everyone believes in the supernatural and the faith level is higher. Faith based Christianity carries with it an awesome trump, I specify 'faith based' as many forms of Chrisdtianity are not Christian at all. After all a very large denomination will often have a politician in charge, not a holy man. Best example of this being the medieval church. Anyway a faith based Christian carries with him or her an powerful ally - the holy spirit. This means little in western society except to those who believe. In Africa things are different, if you are sick you go to the doctor or you go to the witch doctor and still do. Curses are considered very real, as are the juju spirits, voodoo started there etc. The spiritism of Africa is varied, but one feature remains remarkably similar, no juju man wants to confront someone protected by the Holy Spirit. Being gamers I can explain easily to you: its like a 1+ save vs spells, and those who try end up after a while facing a backlash of really bad luck despite what wards they use or spirit they ally with.
Now the witch doctors are believed, and demonstrate real power in their own way anyway, but Jesus is considered the most powered spirit of all, a factor not shared by any other groups. So the reaction to a faith healer/evangelist in Africa is widely different to the reaction in the sceptical west, because even many enemies of the church express 'belief' openly.

There is more to it than that. Scepticism acts as 'magic resistance' against faith of all sorts, including juju. One passage in the Bible often overlooked refers to Jesus returning to his hometown of Nazareth, where he is the local boy and therefore not beleived because many there knew him from childhood. Mark 6 v5 records : He (Jesus) could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. Matthew 13 v 58 has a similar account, some translations say 'Jesus was unable to perform many miracles due to their lack of faith' others 'did not do many miracles'.

It is comforting to me at least that Jesus could still perform some miracles despite a wall of unfaith, it is also interesting to note that scepticism can effect the application of powers even from Jesus himself.*

It is thus unsuprising that personages and events that have a mass effect in Africa have far less impact in the west. I have seen Reinhard Bonnke in London, in front of a fairly large crowd by our standards, two thousands people, I was a marshal at the meeting. The numbers are just not the same, neither are the effects, but this is not entirely down to Bonnke or us, there are other factors than pure scepticism. Simply you cant just hold massed 'revivals' even if you got the popular support. It does happen, last time 'revival' occured in the UK was in 1904 and led to 250,000 fresh converts in six months, but the government does not take kindly to being blindsided by a sudden religious upsurge, many sourced of just one revivalist who appears from nowhere. This is worrying no matter how peaceable the movement.
The church that hosted Reinhard Bonnke was closed down, at a time when al-Mouhaijiroun held rallies calling for jihad (this organisation was banned post 9/11) and hate preachers were still allowed to preach on the streets. Militant islam might kill a few people, an unchecked revival can change a nation, and there is little chance of it being predicted due to its often meagre source and is thus considered a much higher threat even if the leaders have no political aims or hate agenda.
Furthermore there is a history of revivalist rallies being hijacked due to their unpolitical, and often politically naive nature. One signiture incidence from South America was when 30,000 poeple from the churches joined a March for Jesus. This was 'hijacked' by a handful of demonstrators who rioted in an adjacent street. Even though the churches manage to keep the rally seperate from the riot the press counted the rally as a 30k strong 'demonstration against the government' filmed the rioters and ignored the actual purpose of why the majority was there.

Thus for many reasons, cultural and political sceptisim is alive and licking here in the Uk and the west in general and is likely to stay that way.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now for another question. When I was studying Religious Philosophy, I wrote a (bad) paper about the Inspiration of Christ.

In it, I was asking the question as to whether or not the miracles in the Bible inspired the expansion of modern medicine, in an attempt to emulate said Miracles. Now it wasn't suggesting Scientists have a messiah complex, so much as had we not heard tales of such things being done, would we have ever questioned if there was something we could do to prevent or cure any given ill. I referenced Science Fiction and Technology. A lot of stuff we take for granted these days were first postulated in Fiction (though interestingly, the advent of the Personal Computer never was!) so there is a sort of precedence of humanity taking inspiration and commitment from literature (Sorry if this seems demeaning to the Bible, I am trying to be as impartial as possible!).

In a nutshell I dont buy this.

The term scientific miracle and medicle miracle is used frequently to cover a new advance which occurs, something that cannot have been done by science before. However this only crosses a theological line if science attempts to 'play God'. Healing at any level is not considered playing God, in fasct it is 'doing good' and thusd theologically something to be supported rarther than opposed. attempts to create life or modify a beings physical nature is often seen as 'playing God'. Thus there is debate on the ethics of stem cell research cloing and other genetic technolgoy. Some of these worries are due to the remenant of our cultural taboos, some are hard scientific morals played out for the first time but forseen in our culture. For example: embryo reaserch requires disection of a living being, stem cells reasearch requires a fertilised embryo and thus a proto-person, depending on your point of view as to when an unborn baby becomes a person you could well argue that any stem cell donor is a child killed and a 'vampiric' cure at best.

Some forms of genetic research are under ban, and the terms of the ban are not widely highlighted, it is quite possible that genetic science can do things that would upset peoples social mores, or worse.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My main religious arguement for it, was that early hospitals were often church funded, and seeing as Monks and Priests were a fair part of the few literate people, we began properly recording things. This recording later turned into repositories of knowledge, which enabled better and better research. For example, Druids, Witches etc, knew that if you had a rash, mixing this with that in a certain way made a paste which when applied, relieved the itching, and the rash would go away. Until things were written down (Druids had no written language folks!) this was all faith and superstition. But when anyone can read an account of the mix etc, more people gain the knowledge, and the people asking 'but why does it work' increase. Each of these persons would document their discoveries, meaning whoever followed could read their notes, and pick up where they left off.

Well some points. What you ascertain to Druids could be properly credited to the populace in general. Herbal remedies etc need not have a relgious bent to them of any type, some medieval recipes work, others were just BS. Some may well have been sourced from Druids, otheers very likely werent, especailly those outside of the Uk where Druidism was strongest. The problem was not religious but a non-standardisation of medicine which did not come into Europe until the late Renaissance. The ancients had advanced surgical techniques and a medical body of knowledge, in particular the Greeks and Egyptians, howerver their techniques and skills and recipes were lost in the Dark Ages.

Monks did not help, as to the early church a non religious solution to anything was bad doctrine, and those sciences that were understood took a mythical Christian bent. Also as church dogma extended into general life challenging assumptions of the past become more difficult. Copernicus and the teachings of St Augustine were at loggerheads, even though the teachings of St Augustine were not actually scripture and nothing in Copernicus's discoveries challenged scripture this was heresy, Copernicus was a scintific martyr more for disagreeing with the church heirarchy dogma than for any lack of faith.

Next when science did return to Europe it did as part of the plunder from the Crusades and the Reconquista. The Egyptian and Greek secrets of the universe were forgotten in Europe, but had been absorbed by the Moors and Arabs. Islam had seen no challenge in science and the Moselmn world has preserved the knowledge, and in parts added to it. Thus while the universities accepted the revelations the monasteries were somewhat slower. Now such advances as the Windmill first were utilised by the monasteries as the device is obviously not heretical, has decent purpose and requires a powerbase to build or want to build. Such imports are the orrery to study the heavens was a long time coming to the church but quickly adopted by the universities, it was small enough to fit in a library and powerful enough to predict the passage of the planets, sun, moon and major stars.

The major shift that occured occured through an unlikely source, in 13th century Florence painters discovered perspective and started to draw life as it actually was rather than the child like iconography as seen in all prior art. This revolution in thinking was of use to the church, the people in power (often also the church) the merchants, the intellectuals, everyone really who could afford art and anyone else whom could see it. It opened up doors not seen before as perspective art, and thus conflicted with no prior beleif systems. This formed the first bedrock of modern scientific thinking. For example the lines of perspective allow graphs to be made, they also allow ballistics to be understood. Let me elaborate on this last one:
Rather than Artistotles idea that an object will want to settle as close to the earth as possible unless acted on by an external force. Thus in Aristotles ballistics a ball thrown carries on in a straight line until it loses all momentum then falls stright down. A clean greek triangle. Persepctive allowed ballistics and the curve ball of hard reality to enter - without stepping on any heresy toes.

These are just examples, perspective went much further from that. After all if someone falls to ignorace what do we say: 'they have lost perspective.'

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As understanding increased, the miracle of the healing properties was explained, and thus arguably ceased to be a miracle (my understanding is that a miracle needs to have an inexplicable content!).

So, yeah. What do you reckon?

Arthur C Clarkes quote that 'any sufficiently advancesd science is indistinguishable from magic' is valid here. The main difference between miracles and magic is the source of a miracle is ascertained to a religious source, otherwise it is very similar, though again sometime magic is refered to dedcribe powers of the antagonist powers in religion, Satan et al. So the seperation of magic and miracle requires further caveats.


Well perspective is the initial key, but I hope I have described the lock clearly enough for you to see how it fits. This is a difficult theology I am trying to cram into a few words.



* This can have no effect whatsoever on the Second Coming as the process includes a God induced doubtbuster, so mass scepticism cannot prevent it even if it was prevelant only moments before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7947460.stm

Pope Benedict XVI has said that handing out condoms is not the answer in the fight against HIV/Aids, as he makes his first visit to Africa as pontiff.

This really sums up my gripes with organized religion, or any unchallengable authority. Telling people in AIDs ridden countries not to use condoms is disgusting, immoral, totally irresponsible and causes thousands of deaths. Hundreds of thousands.

(Not intended as a flame, just a pertinent depiction of evil caused by monolithic power and a refusal of science)

I have never firmly understood the Catholic churches opposition to contraception.

Recreative sex is not considered immoral (of itself) in the Bible.

Part of the Popes message is correct, to avoid the dangers avoid casual sex and keep to your proper partner. This is in step with the Biblical doctrine of true monogamy. Howeever the Catholic church seems unable to expand on that point. I can see why, because a reduction of standards can escalate. After all before the inclusion of sex education few pre-pubecent teens young teen pregnancies occured. By handing out condoms to 12 year olds and having sex education classes at that age the age of sexual awareness comes down and thus youth pregnancy increases and also involves younger and younger people.

Thus handing out condoms to kids deosnt work and only exasperate the suituation, similar to the Popes position on aids and condoms however young kids are not adults. It is realistic and creditable however difficult to form a policy about innocence of youth, but telling adult Africans not to have sex, or any other adult group for that matter - well, its rather futile.

What makes it worse is that in order to discourage condoms false expectations of how to stop Aids are proliferated, often by the church. Though religion is not solely to blame. The current South African government under Thabo Mbeke is in denial about the causes of Aids too, and they are not alone in this.

edit: deleted until I can clearly articulate my point.

The cake is a lie.

Orlanth, you serious? Few teen pregnancies before sex education in schools? Ever read Dickens? Do you have any data to back your claim that giving kids condoms increases pregnancies, it seems rather counter intuitive to me.

I understand most of everyones point of view, but my take on it is this. Who am I to question or judge the will of GOD. I am but a grain of sand on a 5 mile beach. I have know understanding of why GOD allows terriable things to happen. But know this it might be some peoples point of view and choice to live with out him but for me, I can't live with out him.

let me also say this. I feel it would be better to belive than to not belive. If I die and there is NO GOD then what do I loose, nothing! But if I die and there is, then I am faced with the full wraith of his judgement. So I rather belive than not. This makes total since to me.

Sounds like a rather shakey basis for your faith. You essentially believe in God because you are terrfied of what might happen if you don't?

Sorry if this seems rude, but that is no reason to have faith. Thats like a woman sticking with an abusive husband out of fear of what he'd do if he left her*

*Okay, bad analogy. Not comparing God to the Husband, but Greenlight to the Woman in mind set.

So are you an atheist or an agnostic doc? You seem to contradict yourself in your explanations.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sounds like a rather shakey basis for your faith. You essentially believe in God because you are terrfied of what might happen if you don't?

Sorry if this seems rude, but that is no reason to have faith. Thats like a woman sticking with an abusive husband out of fear of what he'd do if he left her*

*Okay, bad analogy. Not comparing God to the Husband, but Greenlight to the Woman in mind set.

It's pascal's wager, and you're actually looking at it the wrong way.

Let's say I tell you that if you wear a blue shirt and black pants tomorrow, I'll give you $1000. Now, you have no real reason to believe me, in fact, maybe you didn't hear about my offer from me, but from somebody that heard about the offer from a friend of a friend. Now, regardless of the odds of me actually delivering, wearing the clothes won't really be a huge problem, and a grand is a grand!

Basically, the argument goes: what does it cost to believe in god? What might I gain? It's not a really popular reason for faith among clergy, but it's a cost benefit analysis that I think works out for me.

The cost for me would be to abstain from my multitudinous vices that I enjoy a great deal. No sex before marriage is a deal breaker for me!

Greebynog wrote:The cost for me would be to abstain from my multitudinous vices that I enjoy a great deal. No sex before marriage is a deal breaker for me!

that's a cost for dogma, my friend, not for belief. I believe in god and I still do plenty of stuff that would make a preacher's face red.

Mad Doc Grotsnik: To fear GOD is part of the faith yes I Love everything that he has done for me and yes I fear GOD. I do GODs will because I fear and love him. My point is can you say for sure 100% that their is no GOD. I don't think so. Faith, Fear and Love all goes hand and hand. For the unbeliever, the fear of God is to fear the judgment of God and eternal death, which is eternal separation from God (Luke 12:5; You may not fear GOD because you are already seperated from him.

For the believer, the fear of God is something much different. The believer's fear is reverence of God. Hebrews 12:28-29 is a good description of this,

I'm agnostic I suppose.

True atheism requires a lot of dedication if you ask me. I think the central tenets of Christianity make good sense if read as a general list of how not to be an arse to your neighbour.

But the rest, I feel to be attempts at control best ignored. I don't believe in an afterlife. I don't believe in an all powerful deity. But I do believe in largely keeping oneself to oneself, and letting others get on with what they want to. Crowley kind of had a point with 'Do what thou will'. Though perhaps not in the way he meant it.

Greenlight, I do not fear god because frankly, I don't believe he exists, therefore there is nothing to fear. Instead, I try to live what I consider a good life (based as it is on the 10 Commandments, as they make good sense) and try to have fun whilst doing. I will not live my life in fear. I will not have my options restricted by a book which may or may not be entirely made up, especially when every time it has been translated, it has been done so under the arm of someone in a position of power. Vested interest much?

So the important thing here, is each to their own. I don't like being preached to, and I try not to do so in return (though not always successfully I'll admit)

I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

TRouble is, The Bible covers very few of mans latests advances and discoveries.

Dinosaurs were patently NOT put their by Satan to test our faith. The world is ever so slightly older than the Judaic faith claims.

MY problem with Religion stems from it's over influence in my world. Take Stem Cell research. Sure, where the cells come from is...less than ideal (Though Edinburgh Uni seem to have a way past that). Yet that is merely one objection, and the only one I see as being valid. The rest is just people using Religion to cover and justify their own idiot objections to the advancement of science.

It's not playing God. We are not trying to create an entire universe. We are trying to make peoples lives better. What could be more Christian in virtue?

I see most atheists in the same way as 'screaming queens'. Rather than a genuine belief, it's something they do to be noticed. It's extremely childish behaviour really, and absolutely no different to the Mormons who continue to accost me in the street. Now I am polite enough to just say 'sorry guys. I'm a confirmed agnostic, better luck next time' and continue to go about my business. I respect their beliefs, and as long as they respect my own, there is no problem at all. But too many atheists feel they have something to prove.

Mad Doc Grotsnik:

We may both disagree but I still love you man one Gamer to another. Game On


"Death to Thraka, You carry the Emperor's will as your torch. With it destroys the shadows." High Marshal Helbrecht ,108 Crusader Squad (999.M41- Third War for Armageddon)

I myself do don't belive in god, but also i am not bothered by people that do because i think it their decisionand lifes let them live it.

People say religion is a bad thing because it is causes wars but its more widley difference in views that causes wars

Greenlight1107 wrote:I understand most of everyones point of view, but my take on it is this. Who am I to question or judge the will of GOD. I am but a grain of sand on a 5 mile beach. I have know understanding of why GOD allows terriable things to happen. But know this it might be some peoples point of view and choice to live with out him but for me, I can't live with out him.

let me also say this. I feel it would be better to belive than to not belive. If I die and there is NO GOD then what do I loose, nothing! But if I die and there is, then I am faced with the full wraith of his judgement. So I rather belive than not. This makes total since to me.

Well, IF there is a god, and when I die I go up to meet him or if he comes down for that rapture thing, HE's the one who's going to face MY wrath. I may not be a very intimidating person, but if that guy ever shoes up on my door (or I on his) he'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:TRouble is, The Bible covers very few of mans latests advances and discoveries.

Dinosaurs were patently NOT put their by Satan to test our faith. The world is ever so slightly older than the Judaic faith claims.

MY problem with Religion stems from it's over influence in my world. Take Stem Cell research. Sure, where the cells come from is...less than ideal (Though Edinburgh Uni seem to have a way past that). Yet that is merely one objection, and the only one I see as being valid. The rest is just people using Religion to cover and justify their own idiot objections to the advancement of science.

It's not playing God. We are not trying to create an entire universe. We are trying to make peoples lives better. What could be more Christian in virtue?

Interesting point MDG, I can see why some people might be bothered with stem cell research but there's so much to be gained from it.
This is going a bit off-topic, but I've always wondered, can't we combine two evils to make one good? What I mean is, only use stem cells from women who want to abort.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Greenlight, I do not fear god because frankly, I don't believe he exists, therefore there is nothing to fear. Instead, I try to live what I consider a good life (based as it is on the 10 Commandments, as they make good sense) and try to have fun whilst doing. I will not live my life in fear. I will not have my options restricted by a book which may or may not be entirely made up, especially when every time it has been translated, it has been done so under the arm of someone in a position of power. Vested interest much?

So the important thing here, is each to their own. I don't like being preached to, and I try not to do so in return (though not always successfully I'll admit)

So you have basically become a god unto yourself, living by your own set of values and rules. I.E. values and rules that you think you can live by.

Good luck with that. :-)

GG

Polonius wrote:

Greebynog wrote:The cost for me would be to abstain from my multitudinous vices that I enjoy a great deal. No sex before marriage is a deal breaker for me!

that's a cost for dogma, my friend, not for belief. I believe in god and I still do plenty of stuff that would make a preacher's face red.

Too true, the two don;t go hand in hand necessarily. I have a very close mate who's a catholic and much worse than me! My main problem with Pascal's wager is that if you'r only believing on the off chance, you're not believing. Bit of a cop-out, and surely God would see right through it?

generalgrog wrote:So you have basically become a god unto yourself, living by your own set of values and rules. I.E. values and rules that you think you can live by.

Good luck with that. :-)

GG

Is it not better to think about and assess your own values rather than accept what other people tell you your values should be? Regardless of religious belief, you should challenge your own morality.

Edit for formatting and spelling.

Greebynog wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Greebynog wrote:The cost for me would be to abstain from my multitudinous vices that I enjoy a great deal. No sex before marriage is a deal breaker for me!

that's a cost for dogma, my friend, not for belief. I believe in god and I still do plenty of stuff that would make a preacher's face red.

Too true, the two don;t go hand in hand necessarily. I have a very close mate who's a catholic and much worse than me! My main problem with Pascal's wager is that if you'r only believing on the off chance, you're not believing. Bit of a cop-out, and surely God would see right through it?

Well, that's the downside to Pascal's wager: you actually need to have the faith. But there's an old saying "act as if ye have faith and faith will be given to you." There's a reason one of the big parts of charismatic christian salvations isn't the question "do you firmly and utterly believe in god", but rather, "do you accept jesus as your savior."

Accepting that god could exist, and working in your own way to seek him out, through prayer, study, meditation, whatever is a journy. And maybe you'll find faith there, and maybe not. I did, but YMMV.

All Pascal's wager does is basically state the following: all else being equal, there are more reasons to try god out than to reject him wholesale.

Belief in god is a bit like a relationship. At first, you might whine about the loss of freedom, but you realize you have more freedom, but also more support. I can't speak for everybody, but I've found that since I've become more spiritual (I try to pray most days), I've been generally happier and calmer. Even if it's just psychology and not divinity, it works for me.

As for fear, well, I don't fear god. I have faith that will judge me on my merits, and treat me all right.

Greebynog wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Greebynog wrote:The cost for me would be to abstain from my multitudinous vices that I enjoy a great deal. No sex before marriage is a deal breaker for me!

that's a cost for dogma, my friend, not for belief. I believe in god and I still do plenty of stuff that would make a preacher's face red.

Too true, the two don;t go hand in hand necessarily. I have a very close mate who's a catholic and much worse than me! My main problem with Pascal's wager is that if you'r only believing on the off chance, you're not believing. Bit of a cop-out, and surely God would see right through it?

generalgrog wrote:So you have basically become a god unto yourself, living by your own set of values and rules. I.E. values and rules that you think you can live by.

Good luck with that. :-)

GG

Is it not better to think about and assess your own values rather than accept what other people tell you your values should be? Regardless of religious belief, you should challenge your own morality.

Edit for formatting and spelling.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am no way as eloquent as some others are (namely sebster). But I think you are missing a fundamental point.

What you call "accepting what other people tell you your values should be" is not what is happening. I am accepting what God told me what my values should be. So no.. I don't believe that it is better to asses your own "flawed" values when comparing them to Gods.

GG

Believe what you want to believe, just don't try and make me believe it. I don't give a toss if you think God doesn't exist, or wears a skinned hamster skull for a condom - I don't care. Let me make my own judgements about life.

For the above statement, this is the exact reason I didn't want to get involved in this thread.

Just get on with it.

sA

generalgrog:

That's a nice point. God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known.

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

Now all non belivers you want to tell me that this is all by CHANCE!!! and not through Devine intervention. I think NOT!

generalgrog wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Greenlight, I do not fear god because frankly, I don't believe he exists, therefore there is nothing to fear. Instead, I try to live what I consider a good life (based as it is on the 10 Commandments, as they make good sense) and try to have fun whilst doing. I will not live my life in fear. I will not have my options restricted by a book which may or may not be entirely made up, especially when every time it has been translated, it has been done so under the arm of someone in a position of power. Vested interest much?

So the important thing here, is each to their own. I don't like being preached to, and I try not to do so in return (though not always successfully I'll admit)

So you have basically become a god unto yourself, living by your own set of values and rules. I.E. values and rules that you think you can live by.

Good luck with that. :-)

GG

Hardly. I have never claimed to have created anything in life. It's just I don't feel the need to justify my actions through a faith or religion. If I see someone with illgotten gains (drug dealing, pimping etc) then I would have no qualms about pinching some of that money off them. But if someone has gone out and worked hard, pinching off them is wrong.

I know where I go wrong in life. I drink too much (had 9 cans round Zoe's last night and wasn't even in the least bit mortal. This is not good) I smoke too much, I'm far too promiscuous (well, when given the chance). But these do not make me a bad person. My drinking is my responsibility. I often challenge myself to go without for a couple of weeks, and as long as I can do that without temptation to just nip up the pub, or to have a sneaky pint during a dry fortnight, I have nothing to worry about. I accept the potential consequences of my smoking, and I don't smoke around non-smokers. And as for my promiscuity, I'm strictly no glove no love, male or female partner. I take my own responsibility in my own hands, and leave as little to chance or faith as possible.

generalgrog wrote:

I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am no way as eloquent as some others are (namely sebster). But I think you are missing a fundamental point.

What you call "accepting what other people tell you your values should be" is not what is happening. I am accepting what God told me what my values should be. So no.. I don't believe that it is better to asses your own "flawed" values when comparing them to Gods.

GG

And therin lies the crux. Did God tell you these values personally? Or did you read them in the Bible and hear them from a preacher? Religion requires a great deal of trust in authority which I simply lack. I have a naturally skeptical personality and tend to question everything. Around the age of 9 or 10, whilst I was captain of my Boys Brigade Bible studies team and a regular church attendee, I spent a lot of time in hospital, and had a lot of time to think. I questioned my faith, and found no adequate answers. Since then I've found no need for a God in my life, or the desire to find one, perhaps one day I will, but I doubt it. If I'm wrong, and there is a God, I'd like to take this moment to officialy apologise to the big cheese, but would a shred of evidence have killed you?!

Well I hope you somday regain your faith.

Also, I Like your Sig.....



"Death to Thraka, You carry the Emperor's will as your torch. With it destroys the shadows." High Marshal Helbrecht ,108 Crusader Squad (999.M41- Third War for Armageddon)

Polonius wrote:It's pascal's wager, and you're actually looking at it the wrong way.

Let's say I tell you that if you wear a blue shirt and black pants tomorrow, I'll give you $1000. Now, you have no real reason to believe me, in fact, maybe you didn't hear about my offer from me, but from somebody that heard about the offer from a friend of a friend. Now, regardless of the odds of me actually delivering, wearing the clothes won't really be a huge problem, and a grand is a grand!

Basically, the argument goes: what does it cost to believe in god? What might I gain? It's not a really popular reason for faith among clergy, but it's a cost benefit analysis that I think works out for me.

Yeah, it’s Pascal’s wager and it’s been around a long time. Well, as long as Pascal anyway.

There are lots of things wrong with the idea though. It’s a dubious idea, that one can play the odds and declare belief in God, and that such a play holds any water with God. You reach the Gates of Heaven and St Peter asks you the moment you found true faith and you say ‘it seemed like the smart play, by the numbers’… it seems unlikely to me God would be happy to accept that kind of rules lawyering.

The other problem is that it relies entirely on the Christian view of God, and the importance of accepting God as part of salvation and entrance into heaven. Which is fine, if that’s part of your personal faith. However, once you’re running on the assumption that it’s unknowable so you might as well play the numbers, you have to be honest about everything that’s unknown and realise that God’s will is essentially unknowable. For every chance that God wants us to believe, there’s an equal chance that God wants nothing of the sort, that he’ll punish people for blindly following, we don’t and can’t know.

Pascal’s wager is a fun idea to spring on mates at the pub. As a basis of personal religious belief it has a lot of problems.

Greenlight1107 wrote:generalgrog:

That's a nice point. God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known.

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

Now all non belivers you want to tell me that this is all by CHANCE!!! and not through Devine intervention. I think NOT!

Problem here is that you’re putting the cart before the horse. Assuming a random universe, the Earth was formed and then life adapted to the conditions there. Just looking at Earth we’ve found life capable of existing next to lava flows and on the arctic shelf – life is extremely adaptable. There’s no reason life couldn’t adapt to countless other forms.

I think it was Douglass Adams who said that it’s the same thing as a puddle of water looking at the hole it was in and wondering how amazing it was that the hole was the exact proportions to fit it perfectly. The puddle was missing the idea that it had formed to fit the hole, not the other way around.

generalgrog wrote:I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am no way as eloquent as some others are (namely sebster).

Thanks man.

Greenlight1107 wrote:
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

As far as we know.

Greenlight1107 wrote:
Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water isn't actually chemically neutral, it simply has a very small affect on most chemical compounds due to a weak negative charge.

Greenlight1107 wrote:
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

It bears mentioning that even 67'000 mph isn't particularly fast in comparison to the universe, or even the galaxy, as a whole.

Greenlight1107 wrote:
Now all non belivers you want to tell me that this is all by CHANCE!!! and not through Devine intervention. I think NOT!

What makes you certain that they aren't the same thing?

Light can be slowed down with a Prism. Thats what causes it to refract into a Rainbow.

And yes, it is chance. The universe is an exceedingly, mind bogglingly huge place. Look up at the night sky. Too many Stars to count, and thats just the ones visible to the naked eye. There could be newer ones whose light is yet to reach us. We have identified a number of other Galaxies, with more being recorded as technology advances.

So sure, life on Earth might be a One in a Trillion chance, but given the size of the universe? We're in good company, trust me.

Now the best bit I've heard against 'The Big Bang Theory' is so ludicrious it's barely worth mentioning 'What caused it? It had to come from something'

Oddly, nobody said there was nothing and then BOOM!. Simple fact of the matter is, there must have been something, but what, nobody knows. Thats the problem. Whatever was there before was so utterly annihilated at the birth of Universe, there is nothing to see of it now.

So yes it is all entirely chance. Every. Single. Last. Bit. Embrace Chaos! It's fun!

sebster wrote:
Yeah, it’s Pascal’s wager and it’s been around a long time. Well, as long as Pascal anyway.

There are lots of things wrong with the idea though. It’s a dubious idea, that one can play the odds and declare belief in God, and that such a play holds any water with God. You reach the Gates of Heaven and St Peter asks you the moment you found true faith and you say ‘it seemed like the smart play, by the numbers’… it seems unlikely to me God would be happy to accept that kind of rules lawyering.

The other problem is that it relies entirely on the Christian view of God, and the importance of accepting God as part of salvation and entrance into heaven. Which is fine, if that’s part of your personal faith. However, once you’re running on the assumption that it’s unknowable so you might as well play the numbers, you have to be honest about everything that’s unknown and realise that God’s will is essentially unknowable. For every chance that God wants us to believe, there’s an equal chance that God wants nothing of the sort, that he’ll punish people for blindly following, we don’t and can’t know.

Pascal’s wager is a fun idea to spring on mates at the pub. As a basis of personal religious belief it has a lot of problems.

As a basis for belief, of course it's awful. As a spring board to faith, I think it's compelling. I guess I would say that Pascal's wager makes taking a try at faith at least a worth while experiment. It might not work for you, but I think it makes for a good reason to do some serious soul searching and maybe figure out exactly how you feel.

According to Pascal, it's imperative that you do forward that email to three other people.

After all, you might learn the name of your crush! Certainly better than having bad luck for 10 years.

I'll tell you what will be interesting.

What if we are visited at some point, or at least contacted, by another extra terrestrial civlisation.

What if they have no concept of God? What then?

Kill the xenos.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Light can be slowed down with a Prism. Thats what causes it to refract into a Rainbow.

It doesn't actually slow down, at least not in anyway we can currently perceive. What the prism actually does is refract varying wavelengths of light at different angles. The light itself never slows down different photons simply react with different elements of the prism.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oddly, nobody said there was nothing and then BOOM!. Simple fact of the matter is, there must have been something, but what, nobody knows. Thats the problem. Whatever was there before was so utterly annihilated at the birth of Universe, there is nothing to see of it now.

That depends on what version of the big bang theory you subscribe to. There are definitely people that believe 'nothing' gave rise to 'something'.

One would assume that should they be the ones to make Contact, their civilisation would be more advanced than ours.

And is seems likely that initial contact will be pure dialogue (easier to transmit a signal than go and visit after all) we would have a fair while to discuss things.

Anyways guys, I'm going to take a wee break from this thread now, as I fear I am meandering into inadvertantly insulting posts.

Apologies if anyone has found my stuff objectionable thus far. Wasn't intended that way, I assure you.

I shall be back though! Probably tomorrow. Give people a chance to get things rolling along.

Oddly, nobody said there was nothing and then BOOM!. Simple fact of the matter is, there must have been something, but what, nobody knows. Thats the problem. Whatever was there before was so utterly annihilated at the birth of Universe, there is nothing to see of it now.

So yes it is all entirely chance. Every. Single. Last. Bit. Embrace Chaos! It's fun!

Actually to my current knowledge the running popular theory of the big bang was nothing then boom, then universal expansion.

Sorry as the number of pirates does down... global warming goes up.


I believe in a flying spaghetti monster

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage yet?

You enter a 151 post thread with that? Weaksauce.

You know you love it

For anyone not familiar with my church... this was our first major address to the world

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Polonius wrote:As a basis for belief, of course it's awful. As a spring board to faith, I think it's compelling. I guess I would say that Pascal's wager makes taking a try at faith at least a worth while experiment. It might not work for you, but I think it makes for a good reason to do some serious soul searching and maybe figure out exactly how you feel.

Interesting distinction, basis compared to spring board. I'm not convinced, but if it helped you reach a place where you're happier and more content than you'd otherwise be, it's hard to say there's anything wrong with it.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:As a basis for belief, of course it's awful. As a spring board to faith, I think it's compelling. I guess I would say that Pascal's wager makes taking a try at faith at least a worth while experiment. It might not work for you, but I think it makes for a good reason to do some serious soul searching and maybe figure out exactly how you feel.

Interesting distinction, basis compared to spring board. I'm not convinced, but if it helped you reach a place where you're happier and more content than you'd otherwise be, it's hard to say there's anything wrong with it.

I'm not sure springboard was the best word, but I think it's pretty close. You can't fake or feign faith, but the point of Pascal's wager is that there's no reason not to try out a belief in god. I'm actually not horribly worried about the afterlife, I figure that'll take care of itself, but I find prayer to be calming.

Believing in something costs nothing. Even feigned and attempted belief. Pascals wager is based off of the fact that you stand to gain much if correct and lose nothing if incorrect. Though that sort of depends on which religion you choose to fair weather fan.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure springboard was the best word, but I think it's pretty close. You can't fake or feign faith, but the point of Pascal's wager is that there's no reason not to try out a belief in god. I'm actually not horribly worried about the afterlife, I figure that'll take care of itself, but I find prayer to be calming.

ShumaGorath wrote:Believing in something costs nothing. Even feigned and attempted belief. Pascals wager is based off of the fact that you stand to gain much if correct and lose nothing if incorrect. Though that sort of depends on which religion you choose to fair weather fan.

Yeah, but it's built around the ideas that we don't know if there's a God or not, but also the idea that if there is a God then he will care if we worship him. The problem is that if we accept God is unknowable, then we have no idea if worshipping him or not will pay off at all in the afterlife. For all we know God could be quite opposed to the idea of worship, and doesn't want sycophants in his heaven. There's just as much chance that choosing to believe in God decreases your chance of being admitted into the heaven of this unknowable God.

sebster wrote:
Yeah, but it's built around the ideas that we don't know if there's a God or not, but also the idea that if there is a God then he will care if we worship him. The problem is that if we accept God is unknowable, then we have no idea if worshipping him or not will pay off at all in the afterlife. For all we know God could be quite opposed to the idea of worship, and doesn't want sycophants in his heaven. There's just as much chance that choosing to believe in God decreases your chance of being admitted into the heaven of this unknowable God.

True enough, but in the absence of knowledge one has no choice but to go on feeling. Pascal was talking about a literal admission to heaven, but I think a better interpretation of his wager is to consider it in terms of the potential for inner calm. By choosing to participate in the worship of God the worshiper is effectively betting on the notion that inner peace is possible, and that the time spent at worship is a small price to pay for the potential of such a great reward. Assuming inner peace is something to be valued.

Another way to think of it is in terms of testing a hypothesis. Belief is not a choice, but an organic process. However, one cannot know what one believes without both learning and experience. I can learn about various religions, but I do not know if I believe them until I experience their teachings first hand. By choosing to worship the worshiper is gaining that experience, and thus testing the hypothesis that any given ceremony might produce peace in his being.

dogma wrote:True enough, but in the absence of knowledge one has no choice but to go on feeling. Pascal was talking about a literal admission to heaven, but I think a better interpretation of his wager is to consider it in terms of the potential for inner calm. By choosing to participate in the worship of God the worshiper is effectively betting on the notion that inner peace is possible, and that the time spent at worship is a small price to pay for the potential of such a great reward. Assuming inner peace is something to be valued.

Assuming inner peace is more likely by following religion. There’s plenty of angry, messed up religious folk out there. Religion does give calm and direction to millions, in this thread we’ve had plenty of testimonials to that very effect. I don’t want to diminish their experience, but whether or not it works is an individual thing.

In the first sentence you say that one has no choice but to go on feeling. I think that Pascal’s wager and similar arguments are getting in the way of something more fundamental, that feeling. If you have that feeling, then Pascal’s wager isn’t needed because that feeling is justification enough, but if you don’t have that feeling then no logical argument is going to make any difference.

Another way to think of it is in terms of testing a hypothesis. Belief is not a choice, but an organic process. However, one cannot know what one believes without both learning and experience. I can learn about various religions, but I do not know if I believe them until I experience their teachings first hand. By choosing to worship the worshiper is gaining that experience, and thus testing the hypothesis that any given ceremony might produce peace in his being.

Yeah, that’s a really valid point. It is moving away from Pascal’s wager though, and into terms of ‘you should give this a try, it might feel right for you’. It also works for all kinds of belief. People should explore everything.

To me, following a Religion, or putting a lot of stock into faith is the ultimate placebo.

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not your faith is making a difference to your mental strength, but you do tend to interpret things that way.

It's similar to those people who claim to be psychics and predict the future. If I buy into their claims (and many do) then when I am told I'm going to have a lucky day, I'll be looking out for proof. And when you look for something the chances of finding it are increased. That, and you tend to ignore badluck.

Charlatan or not, these psychics give many people strength and reassurance when they feel they need it most. Although the practice is different, the result is the same, and generally it is positive.

If you're having a hard time in life, and you find something, anything which helps you have a more positive outlook, then more power to you, regardless of it's source. This is why I say Faith is a good thing for the world. It helps us to face up to adversity and overcome it, generally with little more than positive thinking.

However, the attempted exploitation of such thinking for personal gain is inexcusable. As I said before, I feel we have pretty much outgrown the need for a clergy to lead us in worship. And why do we need Temples? I believe even Jesus said you can worship the Lord absolutely anywhere, as it is the thought and not the location that matters most.

Now, I would like to ask an honest, open question. Before I do, I must warn you it might seem insulting to some, but please do your best to answer it in the same spirit that I ask in.....

It is my understanding that the Mormons, and other more modern sects of Christianity, aren't taken particularly seriously by the more 'old school' Christians, and indeed, few Christians put any real stock into the claims of a third testament. The question here is, have you ever stopped to consider whether your scepticism of The Book of Mormon, or the beliefs of another sect, should be applied to your own?

I honestly like to think that most Christians, and indeed people of any faith, occasionally feel the need to stop and take account of their beliefs, as I find blind faith extremely disturbing. (and as an aside, would you ever consider Blind Faith to be Faith at all? Is it more akin to Fear of God than Faith in him? Do you genuinely need to question your beliefs to believe in them?)

Right, hope that wasn't too loaded a question (of course it's loaded to some degree, but with any luck not to the point that people feel I'm trying to trap them in a theological minefield!)

I have often toyed with the notion of Deism but can't bring myself to believe in a universal creator similarly with Christianity I like the idea of Jesus the man (as opposed to Jesus the god) but find Christians a little odd.

My favourite character from the Bible is the sidelined civil servant stuck in some backwater of the empire surrounded by religious zealots - Pontius Pilate.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To me, following a Religion, or putting a lot of stock into faith is the ultimate placebo.

You know, you keep making the assumption that absent proof either way, religion is clearly false. Religion might be a placebo, or it might actually work.

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not your faith is making a difference to your mental strength, but you do tend to interpret things that way.

Well, correlation does not imply causation, but when I need mental or moral strength, I care more about what works, not about why it works. See above comment.

It's similar to those people who claim to be psychics and predict the future. If I buy into their claims (and many do) then when I am told I'm going to have a lucky day, I'll be looking out for proof. And when you look for something the chances of finding it are increased. That, and you tend to ignore badluck.

Charlatan or not, these psychics give many people strength and reassurance when they feel they need it most. Although the practice is different, the result is the same, and generally it is positive.

Observer bias is well recorded.

If you're having a hard time in life, and you find something, anything which helps you have a more positive outlook, then more power to you, regardless of it's source. This is why I say Faith is a good thing for the world. It helps us to face up to adversity and overcome it, generally with little more than positive thinking.

However, the attempted exploitation of such thinking for personal gain is inexcusable. As I said before, I feel we have pretty much outgrown the need for a clergy to lead us in worship. And why do we need Temples? I believe even Jesus said you can worship the Lord absolutely anywhere, as it is the thought and not the location that matters most.

MDG, with all due respect, you're crossing a line between merely sharing your views and advocating your views, and frankly I'm finding your entrenched refusal to admit any possible reason to have clergy or houses of worship bizarre. People like to gather to discuss their views, worship is often as much social as spiritual, and clergy perform many para-psychological and social tasks in a congregation. Bear in mind that you're more or less one of the only people that thinks that a translated book written over a period of hundreds of years with dozens of authors and set principally four to two thousand years ago can be read with no difficulty by the common man.

Yes, we get it already. Some churches and organized religions are bad. Surprise, humans are fallible. In other news, power corrupts!

I think that anybody that abused their children are awful. That doesn't mean all parents are bad. As I've commented before, you're insistence on making these claim, no matter how polite you make them, is becoming insulting, if only because you are judging all clergy and all churches by a combination of your own standards and the worst sins of the lot.

Now, I would like to ask an honest, open question. Before I do, I must warn you it might seem insulting to some, but please do your best to answer it in the same spirit that I ask in.....

It is my understanding that the Mormons, and other more modern sects of Christianity, aren't taken particularly seriously by the more 'old school' Christians, and indeed, few Christians put any real stock into the claims of a third testament. The question here is, have you ever stopped to consider whether your skepticism of The Book of Mormon, or the beliefs of another sect, should be applied to your own?

I think nearly all people do. Even the bible itself includes examples of doubt that turned to faith.

As for the Book of Mormon... well, that's a tough wicket. I don't want to say too much without offending any Mormons, but there are essentially three reasons most Christians have ignored the book of mormon: tradition, credibility, and internal consistency. The bible as we know it is about 1700 years old, and has been in use roughly as long as there has been an established catholic church. It was edited and chosen by a blue ribbon commission of the Emperor of Rome, while the book of Mormon was written by a single man under peculiar circumstances. Finally, the OT and NT aren't exactly air tight, but there hasn't been much that has been historically or archeologically utterly disproven. The book of Mormon speaks of large pre columbian civilizations in the Americas, that would be very difficult to miss.

It's important to judge a group by it's actions, and not just by it's scriptures. I don't agree with all the policies and tenets of the LDS churches, but they're in general good people.

I honestly like to think that most Christians, and indeed people of any faith, occasionally feel the need to stop and take account of their beliefs, as I find blind faith extremely disturbing. (and as an aside, would you ever consider Blind Faith to be Faith at all? Is it more akin to Fear of God than Faith in him? Do you genuinely need to question your beliefs to believe in them?)

Not to get too cheeky with you, but does this sort of questioning of blind faith apply to you as well? I mean, from what I've seen, you are one of the most inflexible and entrenched in his beliefs of all the people in this thread.

Faith needs to be examined, and it needs to be pondered, and questioned. My beliefs and faith have grown and changed and altered over the years.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To me, following a Religion, or putting a lot of stock into faith is the ultimate placebo.

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not your faith is making a difference to your mental strength, but you do tend to interpret things that way.

Respectfully..That is an opinion that is not based on fact and it is based purely on what you think is going on in a believers life. I can most assuredley confirm to you, that I am completely aware of the difference between my pre faith "mental strength" (as you put it) to my now faith "mental strength".

Mad doc, and I'm saying this as an attempt to help you, you really must be carefull with absolute statements like that. :-)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now, I would like to ask an honest, open question. Before I do, I must warn you it might seem insulting to some, but please do your best to answer it in the same spirit that I ask in.....

It is my understanding that the Mormons, and other more modern sects of Christianity, aren't taken particularly seriously by the more 'old school' Christians, and indeed, few Christians put any real stock into the claims of a third testament. The question here is, have you ever stopped to consider whether your scepticism of The Book of Mormon, or the beliefs of another sect, should be applied to your own?

As an "old school" Christian I have no problem with people being skeptical. In fact I encourage exploration and testing. The very act of being skeptical and testing is what has led to many skeptics,agnostics, and athiests to find God. I'm living proof of that fact. Jesus said him self, "if you seek you will find".

I recomend a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh Mcdowell. He started out on a mission to prove that the bible and Christianity were myths and legends and lies and bunk, and in the process found Jesus Christ and accepted Him as his Lord and Saviour.

As far as Mormons go. I will try to stay as respectfull as I can by explaining what the majority "orthodox Christian" view on Mormonism. Mormonism is viewed as a cult and not as a "modern sect" of Christianity. If you get a chance to actually study what they really believe and not just the "Christian face" that you see portrayed, it becomes apparant that they have a totally different god that they worship and one that is not the Christian God of the Bible.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I honestly like to think that most Christians, and indeed people of any faith, occasionally feel the need to stop and take account of their beliefs, as I find blind faith extremely disturbing. (and as an aside, would you ever consider Blind Faith to be Faith at all? Is it more akin to Fear of God than Faith in him? Do you genuinely need to question your beliefs to believe in them?)

Right, hope that wasn't too loaded a question (of course it's loaded to some degree, but with any luck not to the point that people feel I'm trying to trap them in a theological minefield!)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "blind faith". I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself in that I have a "real faith". I have a tangible relationship with God. He is not an imaginary friend that some skeptics would call it. But a real relationship that is impossible to explain to an unbeliever in a face to face conversation, let alone over an internet forum. It's that lack of relationship with God that makes unbelievers skeptical, because they have no idea why Christians believe what they do when they have never experienced God for themselves. Explaining a relationship with God to someone that has never experianced God, is like trying to explain what it feels like to experiennce 0 gravity to someone that has never experienced space flight and 0 gravity.

GG

generalgrog wrote:If you get a chance to actually study what they really believe and not just the "Christian face" that you see portrayed, it becomes apparant that they have a totally different god that they worship and one that is not the Christian God of the Bible.

Why is there an obsession with certain groups of Christians in trying to separate the ‘one god’ followed by other branches of the same root religion from their ‘one god’. This usually crops up with Christians and Muslims but it’s the same thing here.

On a similar vein attributing belief or tradition x to coming from a pagan source and therefore proves that the other sect or religion is false while not applying the same logic to themselves e.g. Islamic crescent is pre- Islamic but skip over the significance of pagan Roman religion culture and its shaping of Christian festivals.

generalgrog wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "blind faith". I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself in that I have a "real faith". I have a tangible relationship with God. He is not an imaginary friend that some skeptics would call it. But a real relationship that is impossible to explain to an unbeliever in a face to face conversation, let alone over an internet forum. It's that lack of relationship with God that makes unbelievers skeptical, because they have no idea why Christians believe what they do when they have never experienced God for themselves. Explaining a relationship with God to someone that has never experianced God, is like trying to explain what it feels like to experiennce 0 gravity to someone that has never experienced space flight and 0 gravity.

GG

While not to take away from your point, you can never experience 0 gravity. Well to be more precise, you need to decide on a reference frame in which to base this on. In an accelerating reference frame, noninertial, you can exerience 0g's, but you will still experience gravity if your reference frame changes to an interial one. You need to define your reference frame before saying this.

Again though, you're point was still valid.

Again without reading any other posts, I think it's very important to seperate "religion" and "beliefs." We can use politics as an example. Typically an American will vote either Democrat or Republican more often than the other. Does that mean you agree with everything those parties do 100%? I can say that I believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. but that doesn't mean I support the church as an organization. As a bunch of people who believe simialr things to me, sure; as people who are also passionate towards others, sure; as a group of people (elders, pastors, etc.) who command authority over your direct beliefs, no. I'm fine with church leadership as long as it's 1) by example and 2) non-tyrannical. I believe that no two people's relationship with God will be the same, and I also believe that no two people will EVER see things exactly the same way. I refuse to point at anyone and tell them they're going to hell. I'm supposed to do two things: love God and love others. Should whatever I'm doing cause me to fail at either of those, please slap me. We hear about the holocaust and Saddam and Castro, but how much do we hear about the Inquisition, who killed at least 1.5 times the numbers the holocaust did that we have confirmed (there are tons more documents sealed in the Vatican we'll never get to see). If you can't tell that "religion" as a movement controlled by a few people is a bad idea from that, I pray for you not because I'm judging you, but because you'll never be free yourself and never get to experience God in the way you were meant to (just how some person says you should). I believe scripture but I also believe that other of the dead sea scrolls are valid scripture too, because man, who is fallible, picked which scriptures to include. My 2 cents: if anyone is ever judging you or telling you you're not good enough based on some higher authority without also showing love, ignore them.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable: You made some nice valid strong points. But as a fellow beliver sometimes you must take a stand and voice what is right or wrong.

Lots of Christians today will use a "don't judge" stance when erroneous teachings and ministries in the church are examined. In fact, many false prophets are using Scripture references like "touch not my anointed" and "do my prophets no harm" in order to protect their doctrines and actions from exposure.
The word judge has been so perverted that to judge anything is now considered by many to be anti-Christian behavior, and anyone who does so is likely to be labeled as an "accuser of the brethren."

Well, lets see what God has to say on this subject? Is it true that Christians are told not to judge? The simple answer is NO! In fact, according to Scripture those who do not judge are more likely to be led astray by false doctrines and are less effective witnesses for Christ.
The problem arises because judging can be subjective. In other words, your judgements are based on your perceptions, motives, and understandings. So lots of christians stay quiet when comes to rebuking or righting a wrong.

"For The Emperor!!!"

George Spiggott wrote:

generalgrog wrote:If you get a chance to actually study what they really believe and not just the "Christian face" that you see portrayed, it becomes apparant that they have a totally different god that they worship and one that is not the Christian God of the Bible.

Why is there an obsession with certain groups of Christians in trying to separate the ‘one god’ followed by other branches of the same root religion from their ‘one god’. This usually crops up with Christians and Muslims but it’s the same thing here.

On a similar vein attributing belief or tradition x to coming from a pagan source and therefore proves that the other sect or religion is false while not applying the same logic to themselves e.g. Islamic crescent is pre- Islamic but skip over the significance of pagan Roman religion culture and its shaping of Christian festivals.

I agree with your premise that you need to be real carefull when your dealing with people/denominations/sects that make a claim to be Christian. You have to be so carefull in fact that you must use scripture to "weed" out the false doctrine. I'm not very good at explaining this on the internet but what I am basically saying is that just because a sect or denomination puts up a banner and claims they are for Christ doesn't mean that it is true. The Waco TX, incident with the Branch Davidians and David Koresh is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The teachings of David Koresh where not "orthodox" and he ended up creating a cult and we saw the results of that.

Just a short rundown of what I mean by "orthodox". These are doctrines that are essential teachings of the Christian faith such as the belief in the trinity, the resurection of Christ, orignal sin.

I may be forgettting some things. But basically a "cult" or "unorthodox" sect will usually leave out some or all of the above "essential" tenents of Christianity. Thus making them essentially have a different belief system and therefore worship a different god than the one described in the Bible.

A good book that explains cults and unorthox religions way better than I can is "Kingdom of the Cults" by Doctor Walter Martin. Excellent book by the way. :-)

http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html

GG

Generalgrog: Very good points made.
I know that most people join cults when their real intention is to gain spiritual perspectives with a group of like minded people. As suggested in your post. The search for "quick answers" can sometimes be unwise. True spiritual growth in my opinion involves a lot of thinking, questioning, praying and time. I would suggest to read the bible for yourself, and let it speak to you. Remember that all scripture in the Holy Bible is God's breath.

Gach this is a long thread. We doing ok here? anyone need banning yet? No Dakka thread has gone over 40 posts without someone needed a good old fashioned banning...

I'm not trying to indicate that someone is wrong for standing up for what they believe in or that they shouldn't. I just know that I've been wrong too many times to feel like I know everything. I can tell my friend who smokes that he is going to possibly get lung cancer, but I can't tell my friend who claims to be gay that he's going to hell. I don't know that he is. Who am I to cast the first stone? I can say whether or not I agree that he's really gay, but if I step into any sort of bounds that prevent me from loving God or loving others I'm automatically wrong.

Eh, religion is a fun topic. It seems that no matter what,everyone gets burned.

I'm religious but it doesn't guide the majority of my actions. I don't care about abortion and gay marriage so whatever happens I'm cool with it.

However, I don't believe in murder or adultery.


An interesting concept on religion is pascal's wager. In essence= faith is a gamble.

If you believe and are correct-you go to heaven forever, if there is no god then you led a "moral" life and didn't "sin" as much as you may have.

if you don't believe and are correct-you live life to the fullest and forget "sin" and if your wrong you go to hell forever.

Dogma is confusing.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable: I understand completly.

It does take faith and a measure of knowing a persons true character, but the Holy Spirit is faithful to show us how to do this with out being totally judgemental. With the help from God, speaking to someone about strong issues becomes less difficult,and less judgemental. Because no one wants us to be honest more than God Himself.

Being honest with God is not a matter of justifying our sins and failures. No. We must never do that. When we confess to others about God, and what we think and feel he has done for us, it must be in an attitude of surrender. That kind of honesty speaks of true humility. And it is what God wants. He desires Truth in the inward parts.

You can't really argue that everyone who is religious does it for the sake of the afterlife though. Some people just believe in God and would like Him to be their friend. It's not about what you do or don't do, though that certainly is affected one way or another, it's about having a celestial pal.

Halonachos: I see your point, so how or where would you place or gamble your chips?






"Stay in the Light of the Emperor,and he will guide you through the Shadows" 108th Crusaders 999.M-41

generalgrog wrote:I agree with your premise that you need to be real carefull when your dealing with people/denominations/sects that make a claim to be Christian. You have to be so carefull in fact that you must use scripture to "weed" out the false doctrine. I'm not very good at explaining this on the internet but what I am basically saying is that just because a sect or denomination puts up a banner and claims they are for Christ doesn't mean that it is true. The Waco TX, incident with the Branch Davidians and David Koresh is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The teachings of David Koresh where not "orthodox" and he ended up creating a cult and we saw the results of that.

Just a short rundown of what I mean by "orthodox". These are doctrines that are essential teachings of the Christian faith such as the belief in the trinity, the resurection of Christ, orignal sin.

I may be forgettting some things. But basically a "cult" or "unorthodox" sect will usually leave out some or all of the above "essential" tenents of Christianity. Thus making them essentially have a different belief system and therefore worship a different god than the one described in the Bible.

A good book that explains cults and unorthox religions way better than I can is "Kingdom of the Cults" by Doctor Walter Martin. Excellent book by the way. :-)

http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html

GG

Sure, Mormonism has enough variation from basic Christian doctrine that it could legitimately be called heretical. But you didn’t that, you called it a cult. A cult is a far more sinister thing, and is generally used to describe a group built around worship of a central figure, with all the brainwashing and control that requires.

It’s controversial enough to call Mormonism heretical (I’d agree with you but plenty wouldn’t). But calling it a cult is over the top.

halonachos wrote:An interesting concept on religion is pascal's wager. In essence= faith is a gamble.

If you believe and are correct-you go to heaven forever, if there is no god then you led a "moral" life and didn't "sin" as much as you may have.

if you don't believe and are correct-you live life to the fullest and forget "sin" and if your wrong you go to hell forever.

Dogma is confusing.

Dude, we just spent like two pages talking about Pascal’s wager. It wasn’t even buried back at the start, it was about page ago. It’s cool that you want contribute to the discussion but at least skim the recent pages so you have a frame of reference for what’s been discussed.

I'm addressing the original post.

I belong to a religious (spiritual) community. It is conciliarly organized and could be catagorized an "organized religion". However, it is in actuality more a mystical praxis than a religion (depending on how you define religion).

Suffering is viewed in several ways. There are many great books in our tradition that cover it better than I could here.

I once dragged my four-year-old son out of our home to a place where strangers restrained him, pricked him with sharp objects, bled him, inserted things in his orifices and drugged him. The whole time his screaming broke my heart. He didn't understand why this was being done to him or why I would let them. You see, they were medical professionals

He was very sick and I had brought him to the hospital for treatment. He will understand one day why this was all necessary and how in the long run it was better that he suffered these things at the time rather than suffer worse things later.

@ Greenlight, I believe there's a place in New Jersey that takes bets, but it might of closed down because it wasn't really a lucrative business.

Okay sorry about that, but I LOVE the wager.

I know one thing though that I do not think was mentioned. There is an argument out there that has yet to be disputed and is perhaps the greatest argument in the history of theism vs atheism. That argument is pro theism, so we win. lol.

But seriously, like I said no one really wins this. The truth lies with yourself, if you want to believe then do so. If not then don't. Either way I don't care as long as you try to convert me, all sides have a valid point and each point can be argued, its just a matter of finding them.

Example:
Theist- Well, how did the matter that created the big bang come to be, obviously it was god.
Atheist- Well if that's so, then who created god? Then if god was created who created that creator? So the big bang is the most logical theory.
Theist- Well according to logic and science matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, it can only be converted. So how do you explain, with science, that all of a sudden a ball of dense mass just suddenly appeared?
Atheist-Well how can you assume that god just was there.
Theist- Go to hell!
Atheist- Hah, jokes on you. I don't believe in hell.

I believe in god and give reason to many things that are bad.

Sure god may know how we die and what will happen to us, but scientists know how experiments should end. Still they carry out experiments to see if they are correct, god goes the same way.

Also, I've never seen anything in the bible that would determine god as "all-good", he's good but willing to get vengeance. Ask the egyptians.

Halonachos: I think you have your bets and all of your chips in order. Stay with God and let it "Ride" How can you loose.

Wow, is this done already?

I'm suprised that this thread is/was less angry and flamestorm cannon-resembling than the Deffrolla rules "discussions."

When I started this thread, I said that I can't really believe in god with so much bad things happening in the world, like starvation, wars, all that stuff. Some of these things probably could be prevented if enough people got together and worked on a real solution.
But then stuff like the whole "Fritzl case" in Austria happens and all I can think of is: "Okay, if there is a god, he either can't see in other people's basement or he's a real donkey-cave."

But it's all part of his unknowable will. I believe thats the stock religious answer to an act of unutterable evil.

Well, though I am a latecomer to this discussion and have not read through the last 9 pages of this discussion, I would like to, if I may, respond to the OP. I hope I am not diverting the flow of a particularly pointed argument.

As one who is currently unconvinced by the dogma(s) religion, or the absoluteness of science, I have been perched comfortably on the fence for the last 11 some odd years. So here is what I have concluded based on my observations.

I believe that God exists. And I believe that God is one of the the supreme powers in the world right now, surpassed only by money. That being said, I do not think that God exists as an entity. The "God" that I refer to is the idea that motivates people to do things. Because of "God", millions have died, and because of "God", Billions have found comfort, and the strength to continue where they might not have if they didn't have their faith.

As an organization, religion is again a great benefit, and detriment to society. It creates communities where they would not have existed before, and at the same time, can create discriminating and bigoted ideas that swamp vast swathes of the populace.

I have a question for those that are religious: What is the point of prayer?

Prayer in it's most basic level, I believe, should just be a communication with God. That's it.

And to say that bad stuff is happening and it's somehow God's fault just doesn't make sense to me. I believe supernatural things occur more than we know, but I also believe they happen a lot less than we'd like to think. People are plenty jacked up and will mess things up for themselves just fine. People suck, not God, I guess is my point.

People suck, not God, I guess is my point.

If you read back a bit there was a 40 something post discussion on the concept of "free will" and what it entails in relation to god and whether it is even possible. Just to reference, there's some pretty neat stuff in there.

Not sure if 9 pages and no interweebs crusade means maturity of conversation or lack of any real faith on any side.

Oh, yeah, this is the internet. Sorry, I must have forgotten that for a moment.

One thing that is a little interesting is that some people seem to think it's impossible that God really gives humanity free will, while simultaneously finding it reprehensible that god would allow evil to exist.

For humanity to have actual free will, God has to allow humanity to do what it will.

But shouldn't he at somne point just pull the plug? Because a lot of this stuf down here just doesn't work. At all.

What about the First World War. Britain lost an entire generation in that conflict, which was largely over nothing in particular.

That eroded the countries faith in a benevolent creator. Millions died for the ego of a few. Why would God not intervene in that? Young boys sent of to die in conditions you would not believe, whilst those sending them sat up in the proverbial Ivory Tower not getting their hands dirty?

I do not believe in God. At all. And I feel no hole in my being for doing so. As I said before, to my mind Religion and Faith is little more than the ultimate Placebo, a way by which people focus on the positive that stops them going entirely insane in the face of the worlds rampant idiocy and cruelty.

My strength comes from accepting the simple maxim of 'poop happens'. There is no plan, there is no goal. We simply have 70ish years or so (maybe a bit longer) on this planet, so we might as well enjoy it. Why put off to tomorrow what I can enjoy today? It's not easy accepting that things simply are, but if you really think about it from a philosophical point of view, you'll soon get used to it.

I would like to think that there is at least some kind of god, but it sur ain't the one the bible talks about.

Religion is a debate which decides between two evils...
the evil of indoctrination and the evil of indifference.

One could argue for the rest of their lives about the existance of GOD (who ever or whatever that entity is) from a positive OR negative viewpoint.

However, the good or bad belief of God, and others, is not the point... the business of Religion and it's use or abuse is.

Everyone has a right to HOPE in it's many forms... peace, comfort, unity, coexistance, support, and many more... however, when it is decreed or enforced that "it's my religion / God or else", then it becomes fundamentally evil and anti social.

People in power for more than 2000 years have used the church (in it's many forms) and religion (also in it's many forms) to persuade, coherce, and force their will upon the masses "in the name of GOD" (again in it's many forms).

Faith has nothing to do with religion, belief has nothing to do with religion... understanding humanity for the sake of the human race is all that is required.

Obviously in a perfect world, one persons hope and belief in their fellow man to do the right thing in a reciprocal manner is all that is needed... the very wealthy big business of religion is not needed.

If all our talk and actions were directed towards my last sentence then we wouldn't need my first sentence.

Mik

Anung Un Rama wrote:But shouldn't he at somne point just pull the plug? Because a lot of this stuf down here just doesn't work. At all.

Are we really all bad?

Nope, not all, but more than enough.
Adolf Hitler, Josef Fritzl, Uwe Boll. The list goes on.

What's wrong with Uwe Boll?

He's a talented director.

Orkeosaurus wrote:What's wrong with Uwe Boll?

He's a talented director.

Well now you're just trolling

Anung Un Rama wrote:Nope, not all, but more than enough.
Adolf Hitler, Josef Fritzl, Uwe Boll. The list goes on.

We've been Godwined! Finally, I can't believe it's taken this long in this thread!

What's Godwined

Evil... well it seems that whenever someone discusses religion they mention evil, but they never mention satan. Thats like asking why WW2 happened and never mentioning Hitler.

I see it like this, god and satan are at war. Earth and the mortal realm is the battlefield. God has said "I trust mankind so much that I will not intervene in their activities and will give them the ability to freely choose what they want to do." Satan said "Alright, I'll do the same."

However, satan lies and of course is influencing evil events. God on the other hand is the goody two shoes who is tied by his past promise to not influence our actions, if god DID influence human behavior directly, then he would've gone down to satan's level. Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and company are all those who have been influenced by satan. What can god do without being a lying hypocrite, relatively nothing. He can however make the Russian winter harsh and cause the thaw to bog down german tanks.

Because I believe that satan can exist(and there's good proof) I believe that god also exists. I believe though that god has less influence on mankind.


Then there's the argument that god could've made people so that they wouldn't want to commit evil, free will argument aside, there's ways to argue this. I believe that god did make such people. They're called children and mentally handicapped persons. Most children and mentally handicapped act with intentions of goodwill. Children have come up with solutions to the sadness of death and have found ways to comfort older persons. They also talk to strangers as if they were family, how many times has a child been around and told you it was their birthday? This is then shunned by the parent by saying "don't talk to strangers.". All of the mentally handicapped I've met were incredibly nice and are not faking this socially positive attitude.

Its only when children learn of the evils of the world that they lose this natural good attitude. We teach them that strangers are evil and can kill them, we teach them about slavery, war, genocide, and other nice things. This is when they see that evil is a natural part of the world and that good is unnatural. That's when they become like us, evil and corrupt.

Ah the old IRS is proof of the existence of Satan therefore God exists trick heh? Excellent...

What are you talking about, the IRS is amazingly good willed.

Oh my god I'm talking TOO Satan now!

RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!!

You know, most non-americans wouldn't get the IRS jokes, at least I think so.

We should have a short, elongated history of the IRS to help explain what it is to anybody who doesn't know.

Point made. The IRS is the tax enforcement arm fo the US government. As has been discussed it is illegal for the US government to torture people. The IRS is exempted from this.

Maxwell Smart: "Where did you get all this interrogation equipment? the CIA?"

Control:
"No, the IRS."

To be fair, the IRS takes the heat but it's really congress that makes people pay taxes. The IRS (and the tax court) are generally really fair minded, and while paying taxes sucks, they go out of their way to make it easier. I'd say that 70% of the complexity of the tax code is to allow exemptions and deductions. It's even higher for corporate taxes.

It could be worse: we could be like many other countries, in which they track every dollar earned, and then simply send you a bill at the end of the year. I prefer our system of self reporting, thank you very much.

At least the IRS rounds to the nearest dollar.

I'm thinking neither of you have ever been audited by an exuberant agent...

Frazzled wrote:I'm thinking neither of you have ever been audited by an exuberant agent...

I don't' think I've ever actually paid taxes. I mean, I've had them withheld, but I always get them back, so no.

Tax in the UK, for employees, is a piece of piss.

I've always had my Tax deducted from each and every pay packet.

Thus no need to fanny about with bits of paper and that.

Ah, then you have not been "dealt with" in the past young padiwon...

Nothing like being threatened by an agent with fines, interest, and jail time, when its an error on the IRS's part.