Well, here goes:

I was raised Catholic in a very religious family. My dad especially is very serious about religion. I went to mass every Sunday, said prayers before meals and bed, all in all I was a good little Christian. But around the time of Confirmation, this is where a person is officially recognized as a member of the Catholic Church, I started to really think about things. I am a very inquisitive person and I started to question my faith. I read a lot and did lots of research and the more I learned the more skeptical I got about the whole concept of God and an afterlife. I told my parents I was an atheist but my Dad made me go through with confirmation anyway.

I call myself an atheist but what I really am is not really sure. Don't get me wrong, I 100%, absolutely, do not believe in god. What I'm struggling with is whether or not there is an afterlife. I see religion as a way to try and explain things we don't understand. One of these things is what happens when we die? I really cannot think of anything other than that we cease to exist. A quote by Epicurus really explains what I believe- "Death, the most horrible of all evils, is nothing to us; for when we are alive it doesn't exist for us, and when it is present we no longer exist."

Of late though I have been thinking and I have realized that I don't want to not exist! I see that people cling to religion as a sort of comfort knowing that they will live for all eternity in the afterlife. But I just can't believe that. I want to, but I just can't. I have read about some schools of thought that argue that we just pass into another sphere of consciousness or that we are reincarnated, and I have to say that these make more sense than ending up in either heaven or hell after being judged by some all powerful divine being, but I still can't shake the feeling that this is just a comfort and ignoring the cold hard truth.

I recognize that it is human nature to want to have an afterlife, as shown by almost every religion in the history of humanity having one, and I want to believe in an afterlife, but I JUST CAN'T.

rant over.
What are your thoughts on this, but please, keep it civil. That means no blatant insulting of other peoples' beliefs and please don't post the cosmic jewish zombie poster, as that tends to get threads closed pretty fast.

My Thoughts:

I don't care. There might be an afterlife, there might be oblivion (will Martin be there?), it doesn't change anything. Do what you want, damn the torpedoes, and be happy.


Jesus will smile despite himself.

We have 75 years average life span. That is it.

Enjoy it. Go have sex. Go smoke a ciggie. Go get pissed out your skull.

There is no after life. Never has been, never will be.

'Near Death Experiences' prove nothing, considering the people who have had them are dosed up on all sorts of (medical) drugs at the time, thus rendering anything they say suspect at best. Not saying they are lying, don't get me wrong. It's just that the light at the end of the tunnell might just be, well, you know. A lightbulb. Seen through poor vision. Faded by drugs. Like when I have a migraine, and I can only see patches. I know something is in the blank areas, but I just can't see it.

We are mortal. Life begins, life ends. Don't stress, go have fun.

That is all.

I guess you're quite young, yeah? The acceptance that this is all we have is, as you are beginning to realise, one of the most difficult part of existence. Humanity has wrestled with it since we got the hint. Hence the tree of knowledge myth. However, finding that acceptance is the most liberating gift you can give yourself. It also needs to be reaffirmed every day, and can be almost impossibly hard. To do it, to experience it, will give you more strength than anything you face. Try living your life by a different belief system each week, experiment, accept the meaning and the meaninglessness of life. Your existence is the only existence you can ever experience, try it all, love it, love everything. A meaningless life is a beautiful one.

I believe that there is reincarnation, and that how a person lives their life determines what they come back as next time, and that it is possible to get closer to perfect existence with every life. On the other hand, I also believe that I'm currently pretty fething far from the bright center of the universe, so I'm calling this life a mulligan. The only reason that I haven't been more of a bad boy than I have been is that I don't want to spend any time as an even worse person's prom date.

You shouldn't be worrying rubiksnoob. You're not mortal, you're actually an immortal being from another galaxy. Unfortunately, your thetan has been brainwashed into thinking that you're a human by the space lord Xenu, and you need to pay thousands of dollars so you can regain your immortal godhood. Also, you evolved from clams.

Who let the Scientologists in?

You can stick your Dianetics up your arse, L Ron!

Stop this hate speech against my religion!

You better have a good lawyer!

Orkeosaurus wrote:Stop this hate speech against my religion!

You better have a good lawyer!

Nah, everyone knows the jews run the Earth :3

But seriously, my advice is to watch some porn, forget everything you were told in your childhood and enjoy life, because there is nothing waiting for you when you die, so live every day like it is your last, because for all you know it could be.

Old L Ron Hubbard
Went the cupboard
To find his doggy a bone.
But when he got there
The cupboard was bare
So he founded a 'religion' in order to line his pockets with the money of idiots without an ounce of sense who don't feel that a religion 'discovered' by a SCIENCE FICTION WRITER might just, you know, be an even bigger and more provable pile of bollocks than any other religion on the face of the earth

Screw it never mind.
i hate it when people knock my religion so i wont stopp to there level

Nobody who hasn't died yet can say conclusively what happens after death. Maybe something. Maybe nothing. Maybe everything.

Some people say you go to an afterlife when you die. Some people say when you die nothing happens.

Neither of those groups actually know what they're talking about. They have ideas, and they have beliefs, but neither of them know for sure. Neither of them have any way of proving anything.

Your life is what you make of it.

dogma wrote:My Thoughts:

I don't care. There might be an afterlife, there might be oblivion (will Martin be there?), it doesn't change anything. Do what you want, damn the torpedoes, and be happy.

I'm with Dogma on this except I hope Martin won't be there. After Big Momma's House he is dead to me in any life.

I've struggled with the same things rubiksnoob.

But I believe in an afterlife, albeit a bleak one. Our souls/spirits/residual energy remain in a parallel world that overlays the material plane after our death. This self is a latent psychic copy of ourselves that travels with us in life and is imprinted from us that way. When we die this being is left, whether we are this being or not is unknown. This being wanders the overlaid sphere of existence trying to pierce back through to the one it believes it belongs in, our material realm of existence. These incorporeal beings are what we would probably call ghosts. They are mostly confused and afraid wandering aimlessly. As time goes on these beings gain more awareness or they extinguish into nothingness as their energies deplete to nothing. If these beings move on to some kind of 'heaven' or other sphere of existence from that one is also unknown, but if that is possible fear is probably what stops them or a strong connection to the world they may have left behind. Like dieing young or dieing during an extremely stressful time.

It all does sound very crazy and irrational, but most religions do too. I personally feel that this line of thinking may actually be attached to science at some point, when people stop hand waving that ghosts don't exist.

Typeline wrote:It all does sound very crazy and irrational

(Seriously though, I suppose it isn't any stranger than the beliefs of most religions.)

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:My Thoughts:

I don't care. There might be an afterlife, there might be oblivion (will Martin be there?), it doesn't change anything. Do what you want, damn the torpedoes, and be happy.

I'm with Dogma on this except I hope Martin won't be there. After Big Momma's House he is dead to me in any life.

I think he was reffering to Martin Septim, son of Uriel Septim, descendant of Tiber Septim, emperor of cyrodil, from the Eldar Scrolls game Oblivion.

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Stop this hate speech against my religion!

You better have a good lawyer!

Nah, everyone knows the jews run the Earth :3

But seriously, my advice is to watch some porn, forget everything you were told in your childhood and enjoy life, because there is nothing waiting for you when you die, so live every day like it is your last, because for all you know it could be.

Im abit different on this one.

I would say " live your life to be the best of a person you can be. If heaven or gods exist, great , you just earned yourself a spot for a good after life.
If god doesnt exist , oh well , you can be proud of yourself that you have done good , helped others and die in peace"

A person and their action is like a ripple dropped by a pebble in a massive ocean , just because its tiny doesnt mean it doesnt cause a chain effect.
Whether you want the chain effect to be good or bad towards others is completely up to you.

Afterlife in most Religions is a good example of Carrot AND Stick.

Be good, and you get a treat. But if you're naughty, you're going to get spanked like there's no tomorrow. In fact where you're going, there is indeed no tomorrow. Just an endless, eternal day of being spanked by a Gorilla in a Gimp Mask using a peculiarly spikey Gopher, whilst you are forced to listen to Eamonn Holmes waffle on endlessly about how great he is.

See, all just a primitive (if highly effective) method of controlling the masses.

Live instead. Go kick the Pope up the jacksy. That'll be good for a laugh, and show the Worlds most inexplicably popular Dictator who's the Boss! Especially if you do it whilst showing him a picture of Bruce Springsteen.

Falconlance wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:My Thoughts:

I don't care. There might be an afterlife, there might be oblivion (will Martin be there?), it doesn't change anything. Do what you want, damn the torpedoes, and be happy.

I'm with Dogma on this except I hope Martin won't be there. After Big Momma's House he is dead to me in any life.

I think he was reffering to Martin Septim, son of Uriel Septim, descendant of Tiber Septim, emperor of cyrodil, from the Eldar Scrolls game Oblivion.

I was, but the Church of Blue Streak is where I was raised, so maybe not.

Tengo El Gato en los Pantalones!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:We have 75 years average life span. That is it.

Enjoy it. Go have sex. Go smoke a ciggie. Go get pissed out your skull.

There is no after life. Never has been, never will be.

'Near Death Experiences' prove nothing, considering the people who have had them are dosed up on all sorts of (medical) drugs at the time, thus rendering anything they say suspect at best. Not saying they are lying, don't get me wrong. It's just that the light at the end of the tunnell might just be, well, you know. A lightbulb. Seen through poor vision. Faded by drugs. Like when I have a migraine, and I can only see patches. I know something is in the blank areas, but I just can't see it.

We are mortal. Life begins, life ends. Don't stress, go have fun.

That is all.

this

LunaHound wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Stop this hate speech against my religion!

You better have a good lawyer!

Nah, everyone knows the jews run the Earth :3

But seriously, my advice is to watch some porn, forget everything you were told in your childhood and enjoy life, because there is nothing waiting for you when you die, so live every day like it is your last, because for all you know it could be.

Im abit different on this one.

I would say " live your life to be the best of a person you can be. If heaven or gods exist, great , you just earned yourself a spot for a good after life.
If god doesnt exist , oh well , you can be proud of yourself that you have done good , helped others and die in peace"

A person and their action is like a ripple dropped by a pebble in a massive ocean , just because its tiny doesnt mean it doesnt cause a chain effect.
Whether you want the chain effect to be good or bad towards others is completely up to you.

I gotta take the middle ground between Luna and Gwar. Live your life how you believe is best. I wouldn't reserve any "immoral activities" simply because their MAY be a God who created everything and is all powerful but for some reason still gives a crap that an insignificant spec like you or I don't believe in him when hes provided nothing to satisfy our inquisitive nature to prove he DOES exist. And at the same time, you don't need religion to be a good moral person, based on what you perceive as moral. If you don't think its moral, dont do it. Because if a rational person believes it isn't moral, its probably f*cking things up for the rest of us.

Yep, Morality isn't the sole purview of religion. In fact, most of the thing that religion claims as sinful are pretty bad. A lack of faith does not constitute license to pillage.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Afterlife in most Religions is a good example of Carrot AND Stick.

Be good, and you get a treat. But if you're naughty, you're going to get spanked like there's no tomorrow. In fact where you're going, there is indeed no tomorrow. Just an endless, eternal day of being spanked by a Gorilla in a Gimp Mask using a peculiarly spikey Gopher, whilst you are forced to listen to Eamonn Holmes waffle on endlessly about how great he is.

See, all just a primitive (if highly effective) method of controlling the masses.

Live instead. Go kick the Pope up the jacksy. That'll be good for a laugh, and show the Worlds most inexplicably popular Dictator who's the Boss! Especially if you do it whilst showing him a picture of Bruce Springsteen.

But at least that dictator has his followers do generally helpful things in the world, right? I know that most Christians have got off track a little. But they generally try to do well.

One should still be charitable, kind and helpful in the world. It makes it a better place and the more one person does it the more there is incentive for all others to follow suite.

dogma wrote:Yep, Morality isn't the sole purview of religion. In fact, most of the thing that religion claims as sinful are pretty bad. A lack of faith does not constitute license to pillage.

Morality is a False Social Construct imposed by Religions to keep control.

Gwar! wrote:

dogma wrote:Yep, Morality isn't the sole purview of religion. In fact, most of the thing that religion claims as sinful are pretty bad. A lack of faith does not constitute license to pillage.

Morality is a False Social Construct imposed by Religions to keep control.

According to dawkins, morality is an evolutionary survival mechanism.

Falconlance wrote:According to dawkins, morality is an evolutionary survival mechanism.

Dawkins is an utter idiot. Morality is not the same as Mutuality. Morality says "Killing is Wrong because we say so", Mutuality says "Killing is wrong because it lowers the number of breeding pairs".

The concept of morality being the invention of religious organizations is ridiculous, unless you define religion in such an overly broad way as to include any moral authority by default.

In B4 Gwar gets it locked...whewww!!

There have been a lot of people posting on this thread with the "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" attitude. Also you get the I believe this is how it is such and so forth. So the thing I take away from those posts is that people really think they can live how they want too as long they keep to their own belief system.

I'm a born again Christian, I know that Jesus lives. Having a relationsip with God is much deeper than the afterlife. It's really about the present life and how you can live spiritually free.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I'm a born again Christian, I know that Jesus lives. Having a relationsip with God is much deeper than the afterlife. It's really about the present life and how you can live spiritually free.

So you believe that you are superior in your belief structure because you have a personal connection during your life with a being that may or may not exist?

I don't think I said I was superior. However I do have a connection through the Supreme Being, God, through Jesus Christ. And as far as I'm concerned there is no may or, may not, about it. Only the truth that he was resurected and that I'm born again.

Until you experience God the way I have, he will only seem like a theory or a myth to you. I was once a staunch Dawkinesque atheist, like many gamers are now, but now I'm a born again believer.

That statement shouldn't offend you, but I know it will offend some.

GG

Back OT.

It's human nature to want to be able to understand and explain everything around us, and death is a big part of this.

Science and philosophy will probably never be able to explain what happens to our consciousnesses when we die.

Religions have rules for entry into the afterlife that seem to be as badly written as a GW rulebook.

The best plan is: Don't worry about it.

If it's there great - Even if you're being used as a bucket by giant chipmonks in hell, you're still conscious right?

If there isn't an afterlife, what you gonna do about it?

generalgrog wrote:I don't think I said I was superior. However I do have a connection through the Supreme Being, God, through Jesus Christ. And as far as I'm concerned there is no may or, may not, about it. Only the truth that he was resurected and that I'm born again.

Until you experience God the way I have, he will only seem like a theory or a myth to you. I was once a staunch Dawkinesque atheist, like many gamers are now, but now I'm a born again believer.

That statement shouldn't offend you, but I know it will offend some.

GG

There was a certain level of implied superiority due to a supposed relationship with Jesus, that I felt. Sorry if it felt like I jumped you, wasn't trying to sound like that.

I'm usually pretty sensitive to this stuff really. Plenty of Christians haven't treated me very well in the past.

Typeline wrote: Plenty of Christians haven't treated me very well in the past.

I'm sorry to hear that typeline. But realize that not evryone that claims to be a Christian is really a Christian. But there are plenty enough people that claim one thing and act another, in the churches, that do a lot of harm.

GG

There a plenty of good people that are religous and they are plenty of good people that aren't.
Same goes for bad people.

Perhaps reincarnation is the answer? I don't think there is NOTHING after death. (For how can you describe oblivion?) The answer is that you must be the best you can in this life, and god-knows what is waiting for you in the next.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Perhaps reincarnation is the answer? I don't think there is NOTHING after death. (For how can you describe oblivion?) The answer is that you must be the best you can in this life, and god-knows what is waiting for you in the next.

That seems a very shallow reason to act as a moral person in life "If I don't be good God will spank my ass". It's a very childish line of thought. Even if God does exist, does anyone honestly think he will be so petty?

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

dogma wrote:Yep, Morality isn't the sole purview of religion. In fact, most of the thing that religion claims as sinful are pretty bad. A lack of faith does not constitute license to pillage.

Morality is a False Social Construct imposed by Religions to keep control.

According to dawkins, morality is an evolutionary survival mechanism.

You are both right imo. Because different times dictates different lvl of morale.

For example , back when people are born as slaves, die as slaves , they dont have the luxury of having a high moral
of not stealing an apple to keep themselves from starving. Thats also how i view religion , it was implemented in time of dire need.
When the world is beyond not fair , and chaotic in the eye of the weak. They would either find some form to hope to believe in , await some promise for salvation .
Or go insane .

Ok, well I'll just get this over with:

In my OPINION, people who believe in "Gods" and similar are mentally deficient.

There I said it. That is my view. Hate me for it, I don't care. I have never understood the Human need to try and make themselves better than animals, with "Morals" and "Religion", when we are not.

Well, I won't worry about it. If there's an afterlife, even a boring one, fine, I'll be happy and my soul will live on.

If not, I won't even know about it. Unconscious oblivion is better than nothing.

Isnt unconscious oblivion the same thing as nothing?

That is the most terrible fate of all, imo. At least in hell, you'd still exist. To be nothing is far scarier to me. Sometimes I wish I could trick myself into believing in an afterlife. It would make coping with losses in this life much easier.

No, because if you aren't conscious of anything around you, you can't possibly suffer.

Gwar! wrote:Ok, well I'll just get this over with:

In my OPINION, people who believe in "Gods" and similar are mentally deficient.

There I said it. That is my view. Hate me for it, I don't care. I have never understood the Human need to try and make themselves better than animals, with "Morals" and "Religion", when we are not.

America needs more people like you, Gwar.

So we can report them.

@Falcon: You say it is hard coping, just remember, you can go out, smoke pot, watch porn and do all these awesome things that they can't do!

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, because if you aren't conscious of anything around you, you can't possibly suffer.

Call me insane but an existance of misery is better than no existance at all, to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:@Falcon: You say it is hard coping, just remember, you can go out, smoke pot, watch porn and do all these awesome things that they can't do!

Yeah dude but at the end of the day your buzz wears off and you remember.

How can you not see the logic here?

You can't be miserable if you're nonexistent.

Falconlance wrote:Yeah dude but at the end of the day your buzz wears off and you remember.

Only if you let the buzz stop :3

Cheese Elemental wrote:How can you not see the logic here?

You can't be miserable if you're nonexistent.

That is the logic. Nonexistance is WORSE than misery.

Only to those who are still existent.

This argument hurts my brain.

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:Yeah dude but at the end of the day your buzz wears off and you remember.

Only if you let the buzz stop :3

Thats no respectable way to live. I dont need god's morals but I do certainly need my own dignity.

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:Yeah dude but at the end of the day your buzz wears off and you remember.

Only if you let the buzz stop :3

Thats no respectable way to live. I dont need god's morals but I do certainly need my own dignity.

The only respectable way to live is to live how you want to live it, not by some rules laid down by some Jewish Carpenter 2000 years ago.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Only to those who are still existent.

This argument hurts my brain.

What keeps you going, CheeseE? Why do you choose to continue living? I'm only curious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:Yeah dude but at the end of the day your buzz wears off and you remember.

Only if you let the buzz stop :3

Thats no respectable way to live. I dont need god's morals but I do certainly need my own dignity.

The only respectable way to live is to live how you want to live it, not by some rules laid down by some Jewish Carpenter 2000 years ago.

Ill give you that one, sir.

Falconlance wrote:What keeps you going, CheeseE? Why do you choose to continue living? I'm only curious.

I can answer that one:
Mate Feed Kill Repeat.

That is what all Animals do, and Humans are no exception.

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:What keeps you going, CheeseE? Why do you choose to continue living? I'm only curious.

I can answer that one:
Mate Feed Kill Repeat.

That is what all Animals do, and Humans are no exception.

Well I was more trying to get him to put his philosophy out on the table.

Falconlance wrote:
Well I was more trying to get him to put his philosophy out on the table.

Hmm , it would probably be easier this way:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/241475.page

followed by:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/241381.page

and then:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/243326.page

It gets sort of crazy :x

If Einstein believed in an afterlife, so do I.

It all comes down to faith, and that's something you'll have to develop yourself over the years.
My own quandry was why we were even created. I couldn't square an all wise and loving God who would create fallable beings that would end up in a fiery Hell for ages without end because they displeased him in some way. It especially made no sense to me in any way shape or form when, as a child, I was told the reason we were created was so God wouldn't be lonely.
It also made no sense to me that Jesus would proclaim "suffer the children to come unto me", yet unbaptized children were somehow barred from his presence.
Without getting into a lot of other things, I learned that we are literal children of God that lived with him in a pre-existance. We elected to come here to be tested and to return to him after the trials of this life are over. People that never had a chance to learn of him in this life get that chance after thay are dead, and children that die before reaching the age of accountability are immediatly saved. One of the big things I found is that there is no fiery Hell and everyone, except those very few who had perfect knowledge beyond doubt and sinned against it, will recieve a measure of glory.
I learned all this through studying things out and seeking knowledge from clergy, so I guess my point to you is to do the same. You'll find the answers you want if you're sincere in your search. I wish you good luck. It sounds like you're asking the right questions.

MasticatorDeelux wrote:If Einstein believed in an afterlife, so do I.

He also said:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

And I agree

Gwar, you advocate enjoying yourself in this thread, regardless of religious dogma; what material benefit is it to you if they do so?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Gwar, you advocate enjoying yourself in this thread, regardless of religious dogma; what material benefit is it to you if they do so?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking why I care people believe in Rib Women etc etc? (not being snarky, serious Question).

If so, I don't. I really don't care. However, I will not just sit back. I'll let people know what I think. If they don't like it, well tough tits we aint in Iran so i can say pretty much what I want.

You aught to care. That kind of brainwashing is akin to child abuse. Assuming they were brought up on it. If an adult were to come upon that and accept it well... you cant help some people.

Falconlance wrote:You aught to care. That kind of brainwashing is akin to child abuse. Assuming they were brought up on it. If an adult were to come upon that and accept it well... you cant help some people.

Dude, get out of my head!

That is exactly my view too. If you are an adult and willingly get into it, more fool you, but pressing it on children when they do not know better is wrong.

Gwar! wrote:I don't understand the question. Are you asking why I care people believe in Rib Women and Zombie Jews? (not being snarky, serious Question).

If so, I don't. I really don't care. However, I will not just sit back. I'll let people know what I think. If they don't like it, well tough tits we aint in Iran so i can say pretty much what I want.

You don't care, but then you go to great lengths to not only say what you believe in, but to argue why others should believe the same. You've gotten quite a few threads locked before because it. People have expressed dislike for you because of it.

Not meaning to "call you out", or anything it just seems strange to me. Perhaps you're not as amoral as you'd like to think?

::EDIT:: And you say now that you think it's wrong to teach children things you think are harmful lies. Surely that's a form of morality?

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:You aught to care. That kind of brainwashing is akin to child abuse. Assuming they were brought up on it. If an adult were to come upon that and accept it well... you cant help some people.

Dude, get out of my head!

That is exactly my view too. If you are an adult and willingly get into it, more fool you, but pressing it on children when they do not know better is wrong.

Ah yeah well, were you raised christian too? I got sent to christian school up until my parents couldn't afford. I always felt out of place, and uncomfortable really, during the sermons. After I grew up and learned the meaning of indoctrination i was FURIOUS with my parents. Worst part is, theyre doing it to my little sister now. I saw one of her homework assignments a few months ago. She had to do alittle craft project and make suffering sinner out of construction paper and write a sentence about why he was suffering. Her science book? "Do you know why you have five fingers on each hand! Because God knew thats how many you needed! Did you know he knows exactly how many hairs you have on your head? Luke 12:7 "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Isn't God great?"

Made me sick.

Hardly gonna win many friends I know, and TBH I don't care what you believe. But I am not gonna just say "oh I am indifferent", I have a right to state my opinion, and I exercise it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:::EDIT:: And you say now that you think it's wrong to teach children things you think are harmful lies. Surely that's a form of morality?

Not morality. If those children are taught lies, it damages the species. It is a natural evolutionary response to try and protect ones species. Not Morality.

Falconlance wrote:I saw one of her homework assignments a few months ago. She had to do alittle craft project and make suffering sinner out of construction paper and write a sentence about why he was suffering. Her science book? "Do you know why you have five fingers on each hand! Because God knew thats how many you needed! Did you know he knows exactly how many hairs you have on your head? Luke 12:7 "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

Holy gak, that's bad.

I know some very intelligent Christians though. People who have considered theology to an extent that's impressive, while also knowing a respectable amount about the world around them.

Ultimately, I do think their beliefs are incorrect (as I am an atheist myself), but I can respect a great deal of their position.

Gwar! wrote:If so, I don't. I really don't care. However, I will not just sit back. I'll let people know what I think. If they don't like it, well tough tits we aint in Iran so i can say pretty much what I want.

Apparently you don't understand the word 'care', because what you're describing here is caring.

Gwar! wrote:Hardly gonna win many friends I know, and TBH I don't care what you believe. But I am not gonna just say "oh I am indifferent", I have a right to state my opinion, and I exercise it.

Again, this is an example of caring. Its also moralistic thinking.

Gwar! wrote:
Not morality. If those children are taught lies, it damages the species. It is a natural evolutionary response to try and protect ones species. Not Morality.

Uh, yeah, that is morality. Pretty much by definition.

You're essentially criticizing people for romanticizing their lives through belief while doing the exact same thing via atheism/amoralism.

You're a hypocrite, and entirely unreflective. The very worst kind of self-righteous fool.

i give myself equal odds of some sort of after-life, or just going poof, i really don't care much/worry about it either way.

Falconlance wrote: Why do you choose to continue living?

I think this question is fair game to anyone who doesn't have a lot of faith or a belief in some afterlife.

I'd like to hear everyone's answer, if you don't claim a faith or have a belief in an afterlife.

Even with my belief though, it tortures me daily. Why continue to live? It isn't exactly the most important thing. If the afterlife doesn't exist though, I'd be making a dire mistake and if it does exist will it be better than what I have now? I think it's this reason alone I don't own a firearm of any sort.

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:You aught to care. That kind of brainwashing is akin to child abuse. Assuming they were brought up on it. If an adult were to come upon that and accept it well... you cant help some people.

Dude, get out of my head!

That is exactly my view too. If you are an adult and willingly get into it, more fool you, but pressing it on children when they do not know better is wrong.

Ah yeah well, were you raised christian too? I got sent to christian school up until my parents couldn't afford. I always felt out of place, and uncomfortable really, during the sermons. After I grew up and learned the meaning of indoctrination i was FURIOUS with my parents. Worst part is, theyre doing it to my little sister now. I saw one of her homework assignments a few months ago. She had to do alittle craft project and make suffering sinner out of construction paper and write a sentence about why he was suffering. Her science book? "Do you know why you have five fingers on each hand! Because God knew thats how many you needed! Did you know he knows exactly how many hairs you have on your head? Luke 12:7 "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Isn't God great?"

Made me sick.

Falcon... of course the obvious hypocracy of what you and Gwar are spouting is that you believe indoctrinating(as you put it) youth into Christian beliefs is somehow immoral, yet your perfectly fine with being indoctrinated in the "Holy" secular point of view.

You both come across as Nazi Bigots.


GG

generalgrog wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:You aught to care. That kind of brainwashing is akin to child abuse. Assuming they were brought up on it. If an adult were to come upon that and accept it well... you cant help some people.

Dude, get out of my head!

That is exactly my view too. If you are an adult and willingly get into it, more fool you, but pressing it on children when they do not know better is wrong.

Ah yeah well, were you raised christian too? I got sent to christian school up until my parents couldn't afford. I always felt out of place, and uncomfortable really, during the sermons. After I grew up and learned the meaning of indoctrination i was FURIOUS with my parents. Worst part is, theyre doing it to my little sister now. I saw one of her homework assignments a few months ago. She had to do alittle craft project and make suffering sinner out of construction paper and write a sentence about why he was suffering. Her science book? "Do you know why you have five fingers on each hand! Because God knew thats how many you needed! Did you know he knows exactly how many hairs you have on your head? Luke 12:7 "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Isn't God great?"

Made me sick.

Falcon... of course the obvious hypocracy of what you and Gwar are spouting is that you believe indoctrinating(as you put it) youth into Christian beliefs is somehow immoral, yet your perfectly fine with being indoctrinated in the "Holy" secular point of view.

You both come across as Nazi Bigots.


GG

Where to begin? Did you read what they wrote? Indoctrinating children so obviously is something that people should be worried about, especially when it produces things like the Creationism museum with the children and dinosaurs playing together. Either way, throwing around terms like Nazi Bigots is a sure way to "turn the other cheek," isn't it?

If you want to believe that something you can't see, touch, taste, hear or smell exists and controls everything, that's just fine. If you want to tell your kids the same thing, again, no worries. Once you put it into an institutional setting like a school you cross a line. Religion has its place for some people, but you should NOT teach religion side by side with hard facts. Even Christians (if I ever meet a real one) will say that faith is an important deal to them. If so, teach things that require a lot of faith (God) separately from things that require little to none (i.e. Gravity or Evolution).

My personal views are obvious from that statement. I'm an atheist. I believe in the Buddha's teachings and I find a lot of wisdom in Lao Tzu's writings (early Taoism). I'm not going to go as far as Gwar has, but if you fail to recognize religion as a destructive force you are fooling yourself.

When I say I've never met a real Christian, it's because I haven't. No Christians that I've met refuse to harm another. None of them truly devote themselves to the poor, none of them withhold judgment from others (i.e. Nazi Bigot comment). In short, a lot of them are good people, certainly. Some are terrible people. But none really follow the basic teachings of the religion.

I think you're wrong there. What you have is Catholics, my friend.

I can't stand the Christians/Catholics who insist on indoctrinating children and brainwashing people. Humans have choices, dammit! I chose to become Christian because of the wonderful community and values it offered me. I may not be one of the devout (I don't go to church often, and I'm a bit lenient with a few things), but come on, you have to take the Bible with a pinch of salt.

I recall someone (dogma, perhaps) asked the question in a religious argument 'Have you ever seen an atheist soup kitchen?'

That stuck in my head. No, I haven't. The Catholic church in particular has a lot of people with power who abuse it. There are more good Christians than you might care to think.

Religion is not that destructive a force, especially in the modern era. Was Hitler religious? What about Robert Mugabe or Mao Tse Tung?

If you're referring to the Crusades, that was a sick bid for power made by power-hungry cardinals and the Pope, and was manipulation of the faithful masses. Like any good thing in the world, somebody will abuse it.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
I recall someone (dogma, perhaps) asked the question in a religious argument 'Have you ever seen an atheist soup kitchen?'

That stuck in my head. No, I haven't. The Catholic church in particular has a lot of people with power who abuse it. There are more good Christians than you might care to think.

If you're ever in Manchester pm me. I go to work at a soup kitchen twice a month to give the homeless some free food. The sponsor? University of Manchester Biology department. To my knowledge, not a single person of the religious persuasion works there. (Although they may have been stunned into silence by the presence of so many nerds)

I didn't say there were none. I personally haven't seen one. I'm probably taking it out of context to be honest.

But anyway, from what I see, religions in the modern day are more tolerant of each other and are adapting to fit in with the modern world. Sadly, there are still those Mary Whitehouse types who are convinced that we're all a bunch of hedonistic Satanists.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Where to begin? Did you read what they wrote? Indoctrinating children so obviously is something that people should be worried about, especially when it produces things like the Creationism museum with the children and dinosaurs playing together.

First off, all children are indoctrinate in some sense. Its a natural part of socialization. The point you want to make is that what someone is being indoctrinated with is dangerous, or harmful. That's not particularly easy given its innate hostility. Most people end up falling into the 'kill them because they're different' trap, which is generally the reason the 'indoctrination' criticism was levied to begin with.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
If you want to believe that something you can't see, touch, taste, hear or smell exists and controls everything, that's just fine. If you want to tell your kids the same thing, again, no worries. Once you put it into an institutional setting like a school you cross a line. Religion has its place for some people, but you should NOT teach religion side by side with hard facts. Even Christians (if I ever meet a real one) will say that faith is an important deal to them. If so, teach things that require a lot of faith (God) separately from things that require little to none (i.e. Gravity or Evolution).

As much as I detest the schools in question, they are private establishments and can teach whatever they want.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
My personal views are obvious from that statement. I'm an atheist. I believe in the Buddha's teachings and I find a lot of wisdom in Lao Tzu's writings (early Taoism). I'm not going to go as far as Gwar has, but if you fail to recognize religion as a destructive force you are fooling yourself.

Yes, religion is a destructive force. Its undertaken by humans, and all human enterprise is inherently destructive. The issue is whether or not we can accept the destruction being caused.

Also, I hope you aren't making the mistake of assuming that Atheism is tacit to Secularism. Just because you're an Atheist it does not follow that you have no religious beliefs. You could be a Buddhist, for example.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
When I say I've never met a real Christian, it's because I haven't. No Christians that I've met refuse to harm another. None of them truly devote themselves to the poor, none of them withhold judgment from others (i.e. Nazi Bigot comment). In short, a lot of them are good people, certainly. Some are terrible people. But none really follow the basic teachings of the religion.

I'm guessing you aren't a theological scholar, because the majority of what you claim as basic teachings of Christianity are nothing of the sort. Without going into too much detail there is a whole lot more complexity to it than 'do no harm', or 'take care of the poor'.

I will concede that Catholics are big on running schools and such to indoctrinate the young (i.e. Jesuits). Anyway, they tend to do so more than other Christian denominations.

Religion is not a destructive force? So Muslim extremists aren't destructive? Evangelicals shooting abortion doctors isn't destructive.

I will admit that I have never seen an atheist soup kitchen. What I have seen are completely secular charities that perform the same functions as religious ones, so I don't see the point.

The examples you give don't work in your favor.

1. Mugabe is listed on Wikipedia as a Roman Catholic.
2. Here is a quote from Hitler's Wikipedia page:
" In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." "

I don't even need to go back as far as the Crusades to find examples like these.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Sadly, there are still those Mary Whitehouse types who are convinced that we're all a bunch of hedonistic Satanists.

Probably my fault, i keep forwarding them Gwar!'s posts and links to 4chan.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I didn't say there were none. I personally haven't seen one. I'm probably taking it out of context to be honest.

But anyway, from what I see, religions in the modern day are more tolerant of each other and are adapting to fit in with the modern world. Sadly, there are still those Mary Whitehouse types who are convinced that we're all a bunch of hedonistic Satanists.

Modern societies are just repurposing many things in their religions to fit modern society. Stripping away many firmly held indoctrinations, warping the words originally written to fit. Not that it's a bad thing. Some old bearded man wrote some words, said god wrote them and had people eating out of his hand, now some older gent is rewriting the same words to get people to eat out of his hand again. It's the same deal. But if you think religions are becoming more tolerant of one another, you should turn the news on sometime you might be in for a rather rude awakening.

You are winrar. Period.

You know, I think I'm far too stubborn sometimes, especially when it comes to my beliefs. I get angry very easily too. The stubbornness is, I think, an Australian trait. Building a nation in this crazy hellhole will do that to you.

dogma wrote:First off, all children are indoctrinate in some sense. Its a natural part of socialization. The point you want to make is that what someone is being indoctrinated with is dangerous, or harmful. That's not particularly easy given its innate hostility. Most people end up falling into the 'kill them because they're different' trap, which is generally the reason the 'indoctrination' criticism was levied to begin with.

My point is that this indoctrination is harmful. Teaching children to ignore things like science seems rather harmful to me even without the religious aspect.

As much as I detest the schools in question, they are private establishments and can teach whatever they want.

Yes, they can. But should they be able to? That is my point. Not "is it legal?" but "is it right?"

Yes, religion is a destructive force. Its undertaken by humans, and all human enterprise is inherently destructive. The issue is whether or not we can accept the destruction being caused.

More harm than good is caused by it was my point here.

Also, I hope you aren't making the mistake of assuming that Atheism is tacit to Secularism. Just because you're an Atheist it does not follow that you have no religious beliefs. You could be a Buddhist, for example.

Not at all. I also hope that you don't think of Buddhism as a religion. Tibetan Buddhism venerates the Buddha as a god, but other sects do not, and the Dalai Lama calls Buddhism a "science of the mind" rather than a religion. He also says that if reliable science were to disprove any of his Buddhist beliefs that he would be willing to discard them.

That is not a destructive force, in my opinion. But then again, I don't see it as a religion.

I'm guessing you aren't a theological scholar, because the majority of what you claim as basic teachings of Christianity are nothing of the sort. Without going into too much detail there is a whole lot more complexity to it than 'do no harm', or 'take care of the poor'.

How'd you guess that I wasn't a theologian? I don't see how I'm misunderstanding "Love thy neighbor as thyself" "Turn the other cheek" or "Thou shalt not kill." Especially that last one. Either way I'm just going off of what I've read out of the Bible and heard in 15 or so years worth of attending a Presbyterian church.

generalgrog wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:You aught to care. That kind of brainwashing is akin to child abuse. Assuming they were brought up on it. If an adult were to come upon that and accept it well... you cant help some people.

Dude, get out of my head!

That is exactly my view too. If you are an adult and willingly get into it, more fool you, but pressing it on children when they do not know better is wrong.

Ah yeah well, were you raised christian too? I got sent to christian school up until my parents couldn't afford. I always felt out of place, and uncomfortable really, during the sermons. After I grew up and learned the meaning of indoctrination i was FURIOUS with my parents. Worst part is, theyre doing it to my little sister now. I saw one of her homework assignments a few months ago. She had to do alittle craft project and make suffering sinner out of construction paper and write a sentence about why he was suffering. Her science book? "Do you know why you have five fingers on each hand! Because God knew thats how many you needed! Did you know he knows exactly how many hairs you have on your head? Luke 12:7 "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Isn't God great?"

Made me sick.

Falcon... of course the obvious hypocracy of what you and Gwar are spouting is that you believe indoctrinating(as you put it) youth into Christian beliefs is somehow immoral, yet your perfectly fine with being indoctrinated in the "Holy" secular point of view.

You both come across as Nazi Bigots.


GG

I wasnt indoctrinated into atheism, my friend; I have been bombarded by criticism from family and friends for denouncing god and christianity. Here on the internet there appears to be quite a few of us but let me tell you something, in my real life, I am one of three atheists I know personally. I am surrounded by Jesus everywhere I go, during the last election I was disheartened by the overwhelming support proposition 8 had in my area. For every 1 NO on 8 signs there were 35 YES on 8's. Rick Warren and his MEGACHURCH are a ten minute drive from me, and his influence is sickeningly evident. A combined 64 million dollars of support from the three major christian churches, which is lobbying, and they still have their tax exempt status.

Tell me again whos a bigot.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Yes, they can. But should they be able to? That is my point. Not "is it legal?" but "is it right?"

What is right for an individual in regards to their own actions and what is right for a coercive state in regards to the actions of others are often two very different things.

generalgrog wrote:You both come across as Nazi Bigots.

That would be a misrepresentation, as the Third Reich was a staunchly Christian political structure.

It certainly didn't stick with that stance for long.

All the way through, actually.

But as I recall, many Christians were thrown in the concentration camps along with the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals.

The Nazis weren't particularly christian or atheist.

They're not that good of an example for either side, really.

No, I think throwing the nazi part in there was just an attempt to sting.

Took a lot of my self control not to fire back. Im not a very forgiving person.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I didn't say there were none. I personally haven't seen one. I'm probably taking it out of context to be honest.

Yeah, I made that point originally. It isn't meant to be completely literal (I asked it and I know it isn't completely true - my Grandfather grew to high status in the Anglican society through his good deeds, but never believed in God for a second). I asked it because people were talking purely about the harm caused in the name of various religions, and I was just pointing out that what religion does is inspire people - what action they choose to take is up to them. On the other hand atheism by itself doesn't spur people into action*. As a result, sure, you get abortion bombings, but you also get countless charities.



Meanwhile, it's a shame this thread has been highjacked. The question of finding meaning in life is good one. The issue of 'religion is bad and I know better because I'm rational and believe in sciense' is bad, and been on this board a lot lately.





*Of course, what really spurs people into action is ideology. If you start looking at ideologies with atheist underpinnings the situation is markedly worse than those with religious underpinnings. But communism skews the comparison quite a bit.

rubiksnoob wrote:Well, here goes:

I was raised Catholic in a very religious family. My dad especially is very serious about religion. I went to mass every Sunday, said prayers before meals and bed, all in all I was a good little Christian. But around the time of Confirmation, this is where a person is officially recognized as a member of the Catholic Church, I started to really think about things. I am a very inquisitive person and I started to question my faith. I read a lot and did lots of research and the more I learned the more skeptical I got about the whole concept of God and an afterlife. I told my parents I was an atheist but my Dad made me go through with confirmation anyway.

I call myself an atheist but what I really am is not really sure. Don't get me wrong, I 100%, absolutely, do not believe in god. What I'm struggling with is whether or not there is an afterlife. I see religion as a way to try and explain things we don't understand. One of these things is what happens when we die? I really cannot think of anything other than that we cease to exist. A quote by Epicurus really explains what I believe- "Death, the most horrible of all evils, is nothing to us; for when we are alive it doesn't exist for us, and when it is present we no longer exist."

Of late though I have been thinking and I have realized that I don't want to not exist! I see that people cling to religion as a sort of comfort knowing that they will live for all eternity in the afterlife. But I just can't believe that. I want to, but I just can't. I have read about some schools of thought that argue that we just pass into another sphere of consciousness or that we are reincarnated, and I have to say that these make more sense than ending up in either heaven or hell after being judged by some all powerful divine being, but I still can't shake the feeling that this is just a comfort and ignoring the cold hard truth.

I recognize that it is human nature to want to have an afterlife, as shown by almost every religion in the history of humanity having one, and I want to believe in an afterlife, but I JUST CAN'T.

rant over.
What are your thoughts on this, but please, keep it civil. That means no blatant insulting of other peoples' beliefs and please don't post the cosmic jewish zombie poster, as that tends to get threads closed pretty fast.

I used to freak out, in the past, every once in a while, about 'not existing' anymore; not so much the dying but the idea of the switch to stimuli being all of a sudden turned to "off." I don't exactly know how it dissipated. It could be the anti-depressants and the mood stabilizers. It could be that I've found other things such as a 9-5, debt, and loneliness to take up the spot of 'fear of death'. It could be my connection to my Catholicism (love/hate). Whatever it is I don't think of it as much anymore... but I feel for you.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The Nazis weren't particularly christian or atheist.

They're not that good of an example for either side, really.

There were a lot of religious beliefs going on inside the nazis. Like everything else to do with the Nazis, it gets crazier and crazier the more you look into it. But religion was a sideshow, rationalised to fit in with the things the nazis really cared about, like conquering Russia and victimising other ethnic groups.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
My point is that this indoctrination is harmful. Teaching children to ignore things like science seems rather harmful to me even without the religious aspect.

You're extending your criticism of a particularly bad example to religion, and religious education, as a whole. Which is just Godwin's Law in a different wrapper.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Yes, they can. But should they be able to? That is my point. Not "is it legal?" but "is it right?"

Yes, they should be able to. Preventing them from doing so is every bit as bad as the dogmatic thinking you're railing against.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
More harm than good is caused by it was my point here.

That's an impossible point to prove. It also tends to be one of those things spouted off at random by people that do little but prove fanaticism is not limited to the religious.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Not at all. I also hope that you don't think of Buddhism as a religion. Tibetan Buddhism venerates the Buddha as a god, but other sects do not, and the Dalai Lama calls Buddhism a "science of the mind" rather than a religion. He also says that if reliable science were to disprove any of his Buddhist beliefs that he would be willing to discard them.

That is not a destructive force, in my opinion. But then again, I don't see it as a religion.

Buddhism is a religion because it is a set of beliefs about the metaphysical. That's all that is necessary for something to be considered a religion.

As far as destruction goes, see the various riots in Tibet last year.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
How'd you guess that I wasn't a theologian? I don't see how I'm misunderstanding "Love thy neighbor as thyself" "Turn the other cheek" or "Thou shalt not kill." Especially that last one. Either way I'm just going off of what I've read out of the Bible and heard in 15 or so years worth of attending a Presbyterian church.

First of all, it isn't "Though shall not kill", its "Though shall not murder". In the context of the Bible this commandment essentially forbids the killing of fellows, while allowing for the removal of others in the event of conflict.

In the same vein, "Love they neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" apply only to members of the community.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Religion is not a destructive force? So Muslim extremists aren't destructive? Evangelicals shooting abortion doctors isn't destructive.

I find it interesting that you can pare away all the other factors which compel people to violence and conclude that religion must have been the primary motivation. Not politics, economics, culture, or personal vendetta...just religion.

sebster wrote:*Of course, what really spurs people into action is ideology. If you start looking at ideologies with atheist underpinnings the situation is markedly worse than those with religious underpinnings. But communism skews the comparison quite a bit.

Communism is not atheist by nature. The Soviet system was anti-religious because it wanted no competition with the State. Thus, the Church had to go.

I disagree entirely with your statement. Atheist ideologies like Humanism are just as "good" as religion, and with the bonus that Humanism doesn't see anyone as "non-believers."
Your statement is far too sweeping and general in my opinion.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Communism is not atheist by nature. The Soviet system was anti-religious because it wanted no competition with the State. Thus, the Church had to go.

I disagree entirely with your statement. Atheist ideologies like Humanism are just as "good" as religion, and with the bonus that Humanism doesn't see anyone as "non-believers."
Your statement is far too sweeping and general in my opinion.

Have you read any Marx? It is explicitly materialist and rejects religion entirely. And I say this as an atheist and a Marxian*.

Humanism is great, but it is also very small. Atheist movements on the whole are very small, which is why I noted communism as a huge outlier skewing the comparison.




*Different to Marxist, as Marxist agree with the conclusions of Marx in forming an international proletariat of the blah blah... Marxians agree with the process Marx identified, of seeing different economic models leading to various societies, and the imbalances in each model leading to the overthrow of the previous model with the next. We just think the next series of economic systems and models will be quite different to those Marx predicted.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
I disagree entirely with your statement. Atheist ideologies like Humanism are just as "good" as religion, and with the bonus that Humanism doesn't see anyone as "non-believers."

Many Christian sects operate in a similar fashion, which isn't surprising given that Humanism has its roots in the church.

Islam has parallel schools of thought, but never fully avoids the notion that the Qu'ran is God's finest revelation.

Getting back on topic:

Personally, I'm agnostic. I notice alot of people claim to be Atheists, which in my opinion is claiming to be as "knowing" as a follower of any religion. Atheism means you believe there are no gods whatsoever, whereas Agnostic is like " well, I dunno. " This opens up some interesting doors. If there is a god, you havn't denounced him/her/it completely, but shown that you're no sheep, and like to make your own descisions. Any good (by our standards) god would recognise that as a good trait, and if it's their thing (Like most religions seem to claim), they'll reward you for it. If not, You diddn't live your life the way you don't want to, without knowing it was the right thing to do. Either way, I try to live my life as a good person. I've read parts of the bible, and after all the "God is awesome. worship him, you fools!" stuff is out of the way it has some good lessons. As to the idea of an afterlife: Again, as an agnostic, I just don't know. The idea of not existing is terrifying to me as well, but I figure if i don't exist, i won't experience not existing, so the only effect it will ever have on my is the fear of it. So I choose not to believe either way. There *might* be an afterlife, and that possibility is really enough for me to not be afraid of death. It might not be enough for everyone, but it lets me sleep at night. It's kind of peculiar that I'm satisfied with that uncertainty; i'm one who hates not knowing. The bottom line is thus: You KNOW you have this one life. Live it well, live it how YOU choose to. If god truely exists and is good, he shouldn't have a problem with that. If there is an afterlife, you'll ahve a good one. if not, you won't exist to miss it. There is still the possibility. Take comfort in that I say.

I think you should inquire more closely into why your dad (and a billion other people) take their Catholicism so seriously. There are a lot of different viewpoints even within Catholicism. Rather than reading a book, I would recommend listening to some music: the Kyrie from Mozart's Great Mass or Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, for example. You could also listen to Spem in Alium by Thomas Tallis. Or you could look to visual art: the paintings of Fra Aneglico, Carravagio, da Vinci, and countless others. Perhaps the sculpture of Bernini might teach you a thing or two. Try meditating upon the great cathedrals. The point is that Catholicism is not the result of fanaticism or mindlessness. It has inspired and, in turn, been shaped by billions of lives--many, many thousands of whom are the great artists of our culture. The amateur intellectual approach will not help you ask questions about faith, I'm afraid. If you're serious (not just going through a "phase"), it would be wise to SLOWLY learn about Western mysticism.

spartanghost wrote:Getting back on topic:

Personally, I'm agnostic. I notice alot of people claim to be Atheists, which in my opinion is claiming to be as "knowing" as a follower of any religion. Atheism means you believe there are no gods whatsoever, whereas Agnostic is like " well, I dunno. "

I don't think you have to claim to be 'knowing' when it can just be a statement of personal belief. Much as a Christian can say 'my personal belief is that Jesus is the son of God', and atheist can say 'my personal belief is that there is no afterlife'. Both people can make their own statements without denigrating anyone else.

I mean, I'm an atheist. I don't claim to 'know', but it is what I believe and it underpins my thoughts.

Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm agnostic because I believe that God's existence is a possibility, but I'm also an atheist because I don't think there's enough evidence for his existence to justify believing it to be the case. (This is in contrast to "strong atheism," where it is believed to be knowable fact that god does not exist.)

Yep. When you claim to be an agnostic you are making a statement of knowledge. When you claim to be an atheist you are making a statement of belief.

Personally, I think that once you identify as an agnostic the divide between atheism and theism is purely semantic, but that doesn't stop a lot of quasi-intellectuals from disagreeing with me. Especially that bastard Sam Harris.

Agnostic means don't know if there is a god (and you aren't going to assume so).
Atheist means you know there in no god.
Right?

You would also have to ask yourself, what is God?
Is he a person. With morals and such, and a personality. Or is he more of a "it". A being, a thing. A force so powerful and yet benignly sentinent?
Is god influenced by our actions? Our deeds?

Also, to the point of right and wrong. If you believe there is no right and wrong, then look at the following situation.
A young girl (8) is taken from her family in an unkown country. She and her sisters are forced by guerillas to speed across a grest distance barefoot. When one the the little girls begs to stop and rest she is taken to a tree and shot. Another girl tries to run away and is chased down. The other children are then forced to kill thier own sister at the order of the soldiers at gunpoint.

When they get to the hidden camp. The boys are made into Child Soldiers and the girls are given as gifts. Sex-slaves to the older soldiers.

Is this wrong? Do you really think that such things are anything but evil?

Emperors Faithful wrote:A young girl (8) is taken from her family in an unkown country. She and her sisters are forced by guerillas to speed across a grest distance barefoot. When one the the little girls begs to stop and rest she is taken to a tree and shot. Another girl tries to run away and is chased down. The other children are then forced to kill thier own sister at the order of the soldiers at gunpoint.

When they get to the hidden camp. The boys are made into Child Soldiers and the girls are given as gifts. Sex-slaves to the older soldiers.

Is this wrong? Do you really think that such things are anything but evil?

Nope. It is no more "Evil" than anything else in the world.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Agnostic means don't know if there is a god (and you aren't going to assume so).

Agnostic is that there is a "god" or some sort of spiritual/higher energy, but that it is impossible to understand what these "god(s)"/ higher energy(ies) are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

As a member of what could be considered a fairly 'hard core' Christian denomination, the United Church of God (http://www.ucg.org), I'm finding this a fascinating discussion, but I'm going to stay out of it for the most part as I know my churches overall beliefs are far too polarizing. I don't agree with all of them (Notably the Creationist viewpoint, I'm more in the theistic evolution camp myself), but most of them make sense to me (Keeping the Leviticus Holy Days and such)

I've found that many, if not most, people who describe themselves as Atheist tend to be of a more Agnostic bent (believing in some form of higher power but not describing it as 'God' or 'a god'

lord_sutekh wrote:

generalgrog wrote:You both come across as Nazi Bigots.

That would be a misrepresentation, as the Third Reich was a staunchly Christian political structure.

I'm not an expert on NAZI's so you could be correct. But what I have seen in documentaries shows that the NAZIs, were Occultic and anti Christian. So much so that the SS groups would destroy Churches in Poland and France when they entered. They would replace the Crosses with swastickas. I don't think they did it every where but there were examples of this behaviour.

My mian point was to try and make Falcon and Gwar realize the comments they were making were very closeminded and bigoted, much like Nazis. The idea of calling a religious school indoctrination, as though that indoctrination was somehow immorral, was particular offensive to me.
Like dogma said all schools indoctrinate, whether it be Abrham Lincoln High, Fist Baptist School, or Mary Magdelene Catholic School.

To single out the religious schools indoctrination as immoral was a bigoted comment.

GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Rabbit wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:You aught to care. That kind of brainwashing is akin to child abuse. Assuming they were brought up on it. If an adult were to come upon that and accept it well... you cant help some people.

Dude, get out of my head!

That is exactly my view too. If you are an adult and willingly get into it, more fool you, but pressing it on children when they do not know better is wrong.

Ah yeah well, were you raised christian too? I got sent to christian school up until my parents couldn't afford. I always felt out of place, and uncomfortable really, during the sermons. After I grew up and learned the meaning of indoctrination i was FURIOUS with my parents. Worst part is, theyre doing it to my little sister now. I saw one of her homework assignments a few months ago. She had to do alittle craft project and make suffering sinner out of construction paper and write a sentence about why he was suffering. Her science book? "Do you know why you have five fingers on each hand! Because God knew thats how many you needed! Did you know he knows exactly how many hairs you have on your head? Luke 12:7 "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Isn't God great?"

Made me sick.

Falcon... of course the obvious hypocracy of what you and Gwar are spouting is that you believe indoctrinating(as you put it) youth into Christian beliefs is somehow immoral, yet your perfectly fine with being indoctrinated in the "Holy" secular point of view.

You both come across as Nazi Bigots.


GG

Where to begin? Did you read what they wrote? Indoctrinating children so obviously is something that people should be worried about, especially when it produces things like the Creationism museum with the children and dinosaurs playing together. Either way, throwing around terms like Nazi Bigots is a sure way to "turn the other cheek," isn't it?

If you want to believe that something you can't see, touch, taste, hear or smell exists and controls everything, that's just fine. If you want to tell your kids the same thing, again, no worries. Once you put it into an institutional setting like a school you cross a line. Religion has its place for some people, but you should NOT teach religion side by side with hard facts. Even Christians (if I ever meet a real one) will say that faith is an important deal to them. If so, teach things that require a lot of faith (God) separately from things that require little to none (i.e. Gravity or Evolution).

My personal views are obvious from that statement. I'm an atheist. I believe in the Buddha's teachings and I find a lot of wisdom in Lao Tzu's writings (early Taoism). I'm not going to go as far as Gwar has, but if you fail to recognize religion as a destructive force you are fooling yourself.

When I say I've never met a real Christian, it's because I haven't. No Christians that I've met refuse to harm another. None of them truly devote themselves to the poor, none of them withhold judgment from others (i.e. Nazi Bigot comment). In short, a lot of them are good people, certainly. Some are terrible people. But none really follow the basic teachings of the religion.

The creationist museum is put in place by people that have a different world view than you do when it comes to Science. It doesn't mean that you hold the truth, it means that you have a point of view, and they have a point of view. We have had this debate allready many times on the off topic forum so I'm not going to go into great detail unless someone starts trying to "prove" macro evolution. You can scroll a few pages back to see the massive religion thread and evolution vs creation threads if your interested.

As far as the Nazi bigot comment. There is nothing about that comment that invalidates my Christianity. There is such a thing as righteuos indignation. Falcon and Gwar where making offfensive statements and I am within my right to call them on it. Also when you say you have never met a Christian, it sounds to me what you are really saying is that you have never met a "perfect" Christian. I'm here to to tell you that you will never find a "perfect" Christian, and that if your definition of a Christian is a "perfect" person than you are mistaken as well. This is a common mistake unbelievers make, in thinking that when someone becomes a Christian they are somehow supposed to be "perfect". Yes they should grow spiritually and become a better person, and certainly strive for perfection, but perfection was only attained by one man, Jesus Christ.

GG

. I'm here to to tell you that you will never find a "perfect" Christian, and that if your definition of a Christian is a "perfect" person than you are mistaken as well. This is a common mistake unbelievers make, in thinking that when someone becomes a Christian they are somehow supposed to be "perfect". Yes they should grow spiritually and become a better person, and certainly strive for perfection, but perfection was only attained by one man, Jesus Christ.

By the very nature of the faith there are no Christians, just those trying to follow the path. But of course you'd have to say the same about every faith.

I always enjoy watching these conversations devolve from the OT into a attack/defense of christianity. Its interesting to me that there are some nonreligious members here that proselytize more than the religious ones.

And thats why they typically get locked. This one probably should too but I've not read all the posts for that reason.

It's just pretty off-topic. But this is the OT forum. Oh well.

Frazzled wrote:

. I'm here to to tell you that you will never find a "perfect" Christian, and that if your definition of a Christian is a "perfect" person than you are mistaken as well. This is a common mistake unbelievers make, in thinking that when someone becomes a Christian they are somehow supposed to be "perfect". Yes they should grow spiritually and become a better person, and certainly strive for perfection, but perfection was only attained by one man, Jesus Christ.

By the very nature of the faith there are no Christians, just those trying to follow the path. But of course you'd have to say the same about every faith.

Frazz could you explain what you mean here. I'm not sure where you're coming from.

GG

One of the problems I have with the existence of a god is that gods are typically omniscient.
If there truly was an omniscient god he must be truly sadistic. Why would he created people if he knew they were going to be mass murderers or terrorists? Why would he create diseases and famine? Why would he create people that he knew would invent the atomic bomb and so forth and so on? This is one of the major reasons I have trouble believing in a god.

Only Christ and a select few were utter perfect in the path sufficiently to be Christlike. The rest of us are just sinners trying to follow the way. Its like AA, there are no non-drinkers, just alcoholics who are trying not to drink.

Frazzled wrote:Only Christ and a select few were utter perfect in the path sufficiently to be Christlike. The rest of us are just sinners trying to follow the way. Its like AA, there are no non-drinkers, just alcoholics who are trying not to drink.

That's what I thought you meant, and it looks like you missed the whole "This is a common mistake unbelievers make, in thinking that when someone becomes a Christian they are somehow supposed to be "perfect". " sentence. (and I'm not accusing you of being an unbeliever)

Christianity and perfection are not mutually exclusive. The Bible teaches that the blood of Christ covers a believers sins, in Gods eyes we are perfect because he sees the Blood of Christ, just like the blood of the passover lamb during the Exodus from Egypt. Listen to the old hymm "Theres Power in the Blood".

Sorry for going off on a tangent there Frazz.

GG

No I didn't miss it. I don't agree with your statement.

Its a true semantic so as not to be relevant though.

rubiksnoob wrote:One of the problems I have with the existence of a god is that gods are typically omniscient.
If there truly was an omniscient god he must be truly sadistic. Why would he created people if he knew they were going to be mass murderers or terrorists? Why would he create diseases and famine? Why would he create people that he knew would invent the atomic bomb and so forth and so on? This is one of the major reasons I have trouble believing in a god.

Because God didn't want a bunch of robots? He gave us free will to choose to accept or reject Him. The things you mention are questions as old as time. Why does God allow bad things to happen. To be honest, I don't know. All I can say is that God's ways are not mans ways, and it's like an ant questioning a human why he does what he does. The ant may be able to get some understanding but will never be able to comprehend fully the ways of man.

GG

@ Mad Rabbit:

You mentioned something about it being wrong to put "Faith" teachings in schools, I agree if it's public school where the parents have no choice, but private school is quite another matter. It would be my preference that origins of the universe not be taught at all. Origins of the universe are theories built on theories at best, I grew up being taught these are hard facts and that to question them was absurd. Then I do some of my own research and Bam! realize that there was lots of science that went into the theories, but in the end they were based on assumptions that had no hope of being proved. Either teach it as "this might be true, but we don't know" or don't teach it at all.

youngblood wrote:@ Mad Rabbit:

You mentioned something about it being wrong to put "Faith" teachings in schools, I agree if it's public school where the parents have no choice, but private school is quite another matter. It would be my preference that origins of the universe not be taught at all. Origins of the universe are theories built on theories at best, I grew up being taught these are hard facts and that to question them was absurd. Then I do some of my own research and Bam! realize that there was lots of science that went into the theories, but in the end they were based on assumptions that had no hope of being proved. Either teach it as "this might be true, but we don't know" or don't teach it at all.

Youngblood wins the thread!!!


GG

generalgrog wrote:

Youngblood wins the thread!!!


GG

Don't say that, I'd rather stay a spectator.

youngblood wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Agnostic means don't know if there is a god (and you aren't going to assume so).

Agnostic is that there is a "god" or some sort of spiritual/higher energy, but that it is impossible to understand what these "god(s)"/ higher energy(ies) are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Those are both agnostic positions. The first is a form of strong, atheistic agnosticism, and the second is a form of weak, theistic agnosticism (though you could also call it atheistic; depending on whether or not you used the word God, or energy).

generalgrog wrote:

youngblood wrote:@ Mad Rabbit:

You mentioned something about it being wrong to put "Faith" teachings in schools, I agree if it's public school where the parents have no choice, but private school is quite another matter. It would be my preference that origins of the universe not be taught at all. Origins of the universe are theories built on theories at best, I grew up being taught these are hard facts and that to question them was absurd. Then I do some of my own research and Bam! realize that there was lots of science that went into the theories, but in the end they were based on assumptions that had no hope of being proved. Either teach it as "this might be true, but we don't know" or don't teach it at all.

Youngblood wins the thread!!!


GG

Hardly.

Compare the Christian (and one assumes Judaic and thus Islamic) version of creation, and the now generally accepted Scientific answer.

One is based on something written in a book which we are asked to believe is the infallible word of God. The other however, has some evidence and theory behind, which is the best Science can manage.

The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything. A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Now don't get me wrong, I do have utmost respect for the views of others, but when it comes to Religion, I feel people really need to be challenged heavily, as their views are based on things unprovable, unknowable, and are often embraced without question. Thankfully though, we as a people seem to be moving away from the dangers of blind faith, toward a more enlightened world where people explore their Religion properly, rather than just accept the Dogma passed down over the years.

Agreed dogma. I've met very polarized versions of agnosticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never said that creationism should be taught. I just said that they shouldn't teach theories as hard facts. It's bs. It's indoctrination.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hardly.

Compare the Christian (and one assumes Judaic and thus Islamic) version of creation, and the now generally accepted Scientific answer.

One is based on something written in a book which we are asked to believe is the infallible word of God. The other however, has some evidence and theory behind, which is the best Science can manage.

The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything. A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

QFT. Religion is screaming till you are blue in the face that you are right. Science is about trying to prove what you know wrong so you come up with the right answer.

youngblood wrote:Agreed dogma. I've met very polarized versions of agnosticism.

It amuses me to no end how aggressive agnostics can be when defending their definition of the word. Its as if they missed the point of stating the nonsensical nature of spiritual knowledge.

Gwar! wrote:Religion is screaming till you are blue in the face that you are right.

Coming from a religious person, I generally agree with this statement. I feel like I'm constantly telling myself to chill out and examine myself before I get in someone else's face.

In the words of Sam Beauregarde: Violet! You're turning violet, Violet!

Gwar! wrote:
The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything. A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The problem is that science is rarely taught that way in school. Most institutions simply relate facts, without getting into the process that is actually the backbone of the discipline.

Incidentally, most religions don't operate in the way your describing. There's usually a small set of core assumptions which define a religion, and then a long list of variant theologies based on those assumptions. These theologies will fall in and out of popularity over time, while going through their own form of progressive evolution.

Science in British Schools is ultimately about hard facts. The Heart exists to pump blood about the body. Blood carries oxygen around the body. Stuff we are 100% sure of. The theoretical stuff is more about using Physics and Chemistry to promote theories, and about Scientific Method.

Can't really say for the States as I wasn't educated there!

And I think they do operate as above (was me that said it. Gwar! quoted it). After all, we are told that the Bible is the Word of God. Because the Bible says it's the Word of God. This is an exceptionally wonky logic which prevents me from taking any Judaic based Religion seriously. You cannot justify the holiness of a text on something written in that text. It's just a ludicrious, illogical stand point.

However, that is not to say that some bits of the Bible aren't valid. The stuff about not being a spanker to other people is worth reading and taking note of in particular. But to suggest that this is proof of a higher being is utterly nonsensical*


*Before anyone mentions, I am aware my view on this is of course a product of centuries of indoctrination. Had the Bible said 'If you don't like someone, chop his face off' it's entirely possible that I would agree. A little bit of Hypocricy, however unavoidable is always present in most Religious discussions

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And I think they do operate as above (was me that said it. Gwar! quoted it). After all, we are told that the Bible is the Word of God. Because the Bible says it's the Word of God. This is an exceptionally wonky logic which prevents me from taking any Judaic based Religion seriously. You cannot justify the holiness of a text on something written in that text. It's just a ludicrious, illogical stand point.

Yes it is, and it isn't a fundamental tenet of the Christian religion. You're making the same mistake Dawkins does in using some particularly odd examples of religion to characterize the entire body of it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
However, that is not to say that some bits of the Bible aren't valid. The stuff about not being a spanker to other people is worth reading and taking note of in particular. But to suggest that this is proof of a higher being is utterly nonsensical*

*Before anyone mentions, I am aware my view on this is of course a product of centuries of indoctrination. Had the Bible said 'If you don't like someone, chop his face off' it's entirely possible that I would agree. A little bit of Hypocricy, however unavoidable is always present in most Religious discussions

It isn't necessarily the product of indoctrination. The Big 5 are surprisingly similar when it comes to basic morality.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything.

Except they teach science in school as though it were indisputable fact, when it is, in fact, based on disputable assumptions.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Again your overwhelming evidence is based on underwhelming assumptions.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now don't get me wrong, I do have utmost respect for the views of others, but when it comes to Religion, I feel people really need to be challenged heavily, as their views are based on things unprovable, unknowable, and are often embraced without question. Thankfully though, we as a people seem to be moving away from the dangers of blind faith, toward a more enlightened world where people explore their Religion properly, rather than just accept the Dogma passed down over the years.

Now on the last point (except for the unprovable, unknowable parts) I agree with you MDG.

I also want to say that I have utmost respect for people that don't believe in God, are athiests, agnostic etc. and am all for open dialog, being challenged heavily, as long it is done with respect and with a sincere desire for mutual enlightenment.

Sadly the internet is rife with people on both sides of the debate who don't "get it".

GG

Hope Ive not fallen into that category GG!

generalgrog wrote:
Again your overwhelming evidence is based on underwhelming assumptions.

That the world now is comparable to the world 2000 years ago, and will be comparable to the world in another 2000 years? That's hardly an earth shattering assumption. In fact, its the basic assumption involved in waking up every day.

generalgrog wrote:Except they teach science in school as though it were indisputable fact, when it is, in fact, based on disputable assumptions.

The problem is, all facts require some assumptions. Even mathematical facts require postulates.

It's not so much a question of "is an assumption being made?" as it is "what assumptions are being made and how reasonable is it to assume these things?".

So, the probability of a scientific theory being true is more important than absolute, 100.0000000000000% truth (which is going to be nearly impossible to attain).

Complex Ideas require a longer period of study, trial and error to prove.

For example, the theory of Gravity. Thus far, in the written and recorded experience of mankind, if I drop an object, it will fall to the ground. Now it could well happen that tomorrow I go throw my cigarette butt out the window, and rather than follow the trajectory of the drop, it just floats in mid air. At that point, Science will asses and explain it as best it can. This might take some time.

And as Dogma said, we can measure various things on Earth and use their status and changes as markers to make predictions.

I think it was yourself who stated you believe in the literal creation, that the Earth is 6,000(ish) years old, and if things appear older, it is because God intended them to. I hate to say it, but this is a pretty weak standpoint, with it's only strength being that inorder to disprove it, I have to disprove God.

And this is what irks me about some Religions (taking on board what peeps have said to me about the Tar Brush!) is that rather than take the evidence offered up by Science, and incorporate it into the framework of their own Religion, they just stick their fingers in the ears and do their best ignore it, or worse, debunk it with ludicrous counter theories.

For example, the Theory of Evolution. This can still work in the framework of Creationism, in so far as God did indeed create all life on Earth, but he did so by creating an extremely simplistic, but adaptive organism, and has been observing ever since.

generalgrog wrote:Except they teach science in school as though it were indisputable fact, when it is, in fact, based on disputable assumptions.

Science itself, and those who postulate and test and experiment to find the rules and nature of our existence, acknowledges that whatever they come up with is a highly-tested guess. Thus, the word "theory", instead of "fact" or "truth". Now, you may have had poor teachers who went the easy, sloppy route and just slapped the determinations of science down like facts, but that has as much to do with the actual science as those whackjobs who protest military funerals have to do with other churches.

Another point: religion, specificly Christianity, has been particularly bad about making the exact mistake you claim that the teachers have made, but on an institutional level - claiming to have a lock on the "truth" based on a very disputable set of data and assertions. Science can adapt to new data and new methods of acquiring information, and has on a number of theories. Can its detractors say the same?

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hardly.

Compare the Christian (and one assumes Judaic and thus Islamic) version of creation, and the now generally accepted Scientific answer.

One is based on something written in a book which we are asked to believe is the infallible word of God. The other however, has some evidence and theory behind, which is the best Science can manage.

The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything. A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

QFT. Religion is screaming till you are blue in the face that you are right. Science is about trying to prove what you know wrong so you come up with the right answer.

A good point of why science is more believable than religion.

*sigh* Gwar, AND MAD DOC GROTSNIK, are right.

rubiksnoob wrote:A good point of why science is more believable than religion.

*sigh* Gwar, AND MAD DOC GROTSNIK, are right.

Nah, science has a method for reviewing the observable world. It relies on building models with predictive power and then testing those models. Religion is a search for truth in the supernatural world. It relies on non-observable, personal beliefs that cannot be empirically tested.

Now, when religion starts stepping on the toes of science (such as with creationism) then the limits of religion are greatly exposed. But its also true that when science starts stepping on the toes of religion (such as with Dawkins & co) then the limits of science are greatly exposed.

Both are at their best when they stick to what they're supposed to do. It is not an either/or thing.

I've read the assumption argument against science a number of times now, and it's starting to get a bit stale. Scientists KNOW they make assumptiosmn left right and center. If they diddn't then they couldn't test anything. The fact is that the assumptions they make are one of 2 things: An assumption that is very safe to make (Let go of a rock in the air, it's probably going to collide with the earth, or whatever is between it and the earth), or an assumption that is being tested (this chemical added to that chemical will go boom!). The flaw with that argument in that religion makes just as many assumptions (that to a science-oriented person often seems to be a very unlikely assumption). In taking the words from the bible of the word of god you have assumed at least 3 major things. 1: There is a god (Of which there appears to be little proof when examined). 2: God wrote the bible. 3: The bible has been 100% faithfully transcripted with no changes whatsoever. My problem with this is that I've yet to see any evidence supporting any of these assumptions (save for the third one... sorta. There does seem to be some evidence that the "current edition" is close enough to the original to be called a faithful copy).

But this is all moot when you look at the big picture. If god is as loving and awesome as all the religions claim he/she/it is, why would they care if you followed a set of guidelines that, really, *could* just be made up by other humans. As long as you live your life as a good person, god probably will be good you to after you die.

@spartanghost:

Your second point was that God wrote the Bible, but I don't think anyone thinks that that is the case.

In Christianity and Judaism the religious texts are not thought to be written by God, but by people who were inspired by him. And it is not clear who was or wasn't inspired, apparently. At one point a Christian group sat down and picked out pieces of scripture to turn into cannon. There are pieces of scripture called the apocrypha that some Christian groups believed were to be included in the bible that were ommitted by other groups.

In Islam it is largely accepted that the Qu'ran is the perfect unchanging word of God, told to Mohammed. Having a perfect memory, Mohammad spread his message, which was recorded on scraps of paper and compiled years later. Interestingly, very early versions of the Qu'ran and accompanying islamic texts were discovered to be written in Arabic with some of the little dots missing. Placement of these dots can greatly alter the meaning of a sentance. That bit you've heard about 72 virgins in the afterlife becomes being fed grapes by angels in the afterlife; which doesn't contradict the other statements in the Qu'ran of an eternity of contentment with one's spouse.


So no, I don't think anyone believes that God wrote the Bible, but many seem to believe that he dictated some religious texts

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but that is my humble understanding of it.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:A young girl (8) is taken from her family in an unkown country. She and her sisters are forced by guerillas to speed across a grest distance barefoot. When one the the little girls begs to stop and rest she is taken to a tree and shot. Another girl tries to run away and is chased down. The other children are then forced to kill thier own sister at the order of the soldiers at gunpoint.

When they get to the hidden camp. The boys are made into Child Soldiers and the girls are given as gifts. Sex-slaves to the older soldiers.

Is this wrong? Do you really think that such things are anything but evil?

Nope. It is no more "Evil" than anything else in the world.

Gwar, that comment sickened me. That was a true story you $£%&er. Tell that to the girl. Hell if someone raped you up the ass then I think you might define it as evil. Or at the very LEAST, wrong.

This kind of stuff is happening right now in Uganda. I heard about this particular situation from a missionary who was working with the orphans. The girl got pregnant at 11, had the baby and managed to escape. He also told me several other horror stories. I won't "bore" you with them all, Gwar, but one involved a 7 year old boy being forced at gunpoint to shoot his parents as a test, and to dehumanise him.

If you don't call this stuff evil, or injust, or at least WRONG, Then you can rot you sick bastard!

Good and Evil are just concepts, the same as morality, created by humans. Animals constantly do things which would be considered evil if a human did it without any guilt or sense that it is wrong. These things are only evil because someone thinks they are. Whilst I am not defending the actions you described, I have to say Gwar!'s opinion is perfectly valid, and one I happen to share.

OT, (Had to remind myself what it was) I want to live to at least 108 so I've been in 3 centuries. After death, I'll take what I can get. Concsioussness, in any circumstance, is preferable to oblivion.

How about UNNATURAL then?
Surely stuff like that can be SUPPOSED to happen.

I don't see a problem with good and evil being "just concepts".

They are helpful for guiding people to live together happily.

"Just concepts" as in they are Just?
Or they are simply just "concepts?

Things being supposed to happen implies intelligent design. If it's not "supposed to happen" then they are simply acting with the free will God gave them, so you can't stop them but God will turn them into charcoal. However, if there is no intelligent design nothing is "supposed" to happen and everything is a freak coincidence, the guerillas need soldiers to survive, and to get them resort to conscription. Survival of the least inhibited. They do what they feel is necessary to survive. Either way it's perfectly natural. (perfect may not be the best word)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not just as in righteous, just as in only.

I cannot, and will not accept anyone who says that what those bastards did to that child as NATURAL. For gods sake, Shinigami, if you had seen the pictures. She told the guy how they had gang raped her, begging and crying, at 8! She was beaten and cut, and forever scarred by what happened, both physically and mentallty.

I felt such rage at the girls (now 12) pain, it scared me. If you had left me alone in a room with a knife and just ONE of those guys, then God help me for what I would do.

It truly saddens me that people accept these horrible, horrible things as a natural part of the world. These people, and wrongdoings must be confronted and stopped at every opportuninty.

Natural =//= right, ok, acceptable. I don't condone any of it, and I would happily join your knife party. Such deeds should indeed be punished, I didn't mean this stuff is right, only that "evil" is just a point of view. In this case it is undoubtably everyone's point of view. I think you misunderstood me. I was questioning the nature of good and evil not whether or not childrape is ok.

So if something is not okay, then is it evil?
Is evil just a way of saying something is REALLY not okay? What is the big difference?

Personally, If forced to put a value on evil, (which it seems I am) I would say that "Evil" is doing something which is generally accepted as being not ok unprovoked and with no worthwhile benefit to anyone. Under this definition, the above rapes are "evil", press ganging is "not ok".

So there is a difference? (serious)

If there IS right and wrong. (which I believe there is):
Are there degrees of right and wrong?
Or is it just one line you cross an you've done it?

Yes, I think there is a difference. The word evil is thrown around too much. Holocaust = evil, Stealing = not ok. I know you didn't mention either but whatever, they're just examples.
Society creates Right and Wrong, and as such there are degrees as Paedophiles are considered worse than most other criminals, murder is worse than assault etc.
It is the circumstances and intent which decree whether or not it is evil.

k, I get it.
I know there may not be a "pure evil force" (aka satan) but surely there are acts in the world that can only be considered evil?

I wouldn't say only, as it depends on your point of view, but some acts are committed in such a way that general consensus is that it is evil, but as always there will be some holocaust denier types to get in the way of your perfect world. And no matter who says these things are evil they will keep on happening, unfortunately.

What would you say is a "noble" cause?

You mean a reason which would make something acceptable?
Saving more lives than you end/damage, by a large margin.

Like what?
I also mean a lifes calling, like Ghandi or Mother Teresa, just not so far up mabye.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Like what?
I also mean a lifes calling, like Ghandi or Mother Teresa, just not so far up mabye.

Ghandi was a Criminal and Mother Teresa was a Hypocrite.

History always has 2 sides, only the victors gets recognition.

When Mother Teresa is cited as a hypocrite (which is pretty much slander against a a saintly woman)
then this thread is closed due to trolling and flaming.

I'm all for closing further topics on religion at this point.