d-usa wrote:
So we are done with "ask d-usa what he believes and why he believes it" and have entered the "demand that he prove why I should believe the same thing that he does and why his belief is the truth or make him admit that he is wrong" stage.

My interpretation of the Bible has absolutely zero effect on you, so I'm just confused as to why my belief is so important to you.

Because religion is (often) negative in effect, of course.
You write off the human-scale evils of religion by saying "God commands it therefore it's not evil" / "don't judge God by human standards".
If you're going to say that, you either need to back up your assertion (that superior standards to human standards exist), or rescind your support for God-policies that have obvious negative effects in the world.

You can't just say "God told me to beat my children to death" and expect to be above human judgement.
You can't just say "AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse" and expect to be above human judgement.

If your mystical assertion has real world negative implications, you need to back it up.
.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why?

Well, if you are basing your world view on there being some being in charge of the universe who watches over us/judges us/etc, it would be nice to have some observable evidence to support this. Over the years as science has advanced our knowledge, the goalposts keep on moving to be "just outside what science can currently do", to the extent now that god exists now entirely outside the observable universe.

And I did not mean by my statement that you personally, or indeed anyone, should provide proof of gods existance, I meant more that the fundamental problem facing my, and many other people's acceptance of any religious argument rests upon the inability of anyone to provide any tangible evidence for, let alone proof of, gods existance.

I bring back my unicorn and space dust entity from earlier in this thread... it is not "your" job to disprove its existance, but "mine" to prove it.

I don't know if we will ever have any actual proof that God exists in a scientific way. I don't mean to move goal posts there, and I also don't think that God intentionally hides himself to have some magic faith test that only some will pass. I don't think that it would be Gods intent to trick some people into not believing that he is real and then suffer because of it.

I personally know that He is real based on my own experiences. But I also realize that this is not any kind of concrete evidence that I can share with others and me going "I know it" does nothing to provide any kind of proof to you.

Are we done talking about "tell me what you believe" ?

No - I am still interested in comparing and contrasting what people believe. Again, I did not mean to try and cut that line of conversation off.

That's allright, I did come across as a bit snappy there. Sorry about that.

I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Well, if you are basing your world view on there being some being in charge of the universe who watches over us/judges us/etc, it would be nice to have some observable evidence to support this. Over the years as science has advanced our knowledge, the goalposts keep on moving to be "just outside what science can currently do", to the extent now that god exists now entirely outside the observable universe.

Agreed, the more we learn, the less God stakes his claim over. It's noticeable that the main Gods that survive the ages are those that make the weakest claims - those that make strong claims like "we live on Mount Olympus" disappear the moment the first explorer climbs the mountain.

And I did not mean by my statement that you personally, or indeed anyone, should provide proof of gods existance, I meant more that the fundamental problem facing my, and many other people's acceptance of any religious argument rests upon the inability of anyone to provide any tangible evidence for, let alone proof of, gods existance.

Indeed, if I was presented with reasonable proof that a superior moral entity exists, I wouldn't have such a hard time coming to terms with His acolytes committing net-negative acts here on earth, because it would all be part of some grand plan that I need not understand, only meekly accept.

But there is no proof, and the moral commandments of the supposedly superior moral entities are so parochial ("I'm an eternal being of infinite wisdom and scope, and I really care about who you as an individual choose to go to bed with") and have obvious negative effects here on earth, it's not plausible to me to trust such an alleged moral entity when those are his commands.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we are done with "ask d-usa what he believes and why he believes it" and have entered the "demand that he prove why I should believe the same thing that he does and why his belief is the truth or make him admit that he is wrong" stage.

My interpretation of the Bible has absolutely zero effect on you, so I'm just confused as to why my belief is so important to you.

Because religion is (often) negative in effect, of course.
You write off the human-scale evils of religion by saying "God commands it therefore it's not evil" / "don't judge God by human standards".
If you're going to say that, you either need to back up your assertion (that superior standards to human standards exist), or rescind your support for God-policies that have obvious negative effects in the world.

You can't just say "God told me to beat my children to death" and expect to be above human judgement.
You can't just say "AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse" and expect to be above human judgement.

If your mystical assertion has real world negative implications, you need to back it up.
.

If you want me to explain what I believe and why I do things that I do, then that is what I have done.

I have not given my support for "God-policies" that you mention and I really don't feel any kind of obligatoin to defent this random "God instructed child murderer" because it has nothing to do with me. You have problem with the position of the Catholic Church on Condoms, then take it up with the particular members of the Catholic Church that support that position. If you want me to defend their actions then you are talking to the wrong person.

I don't think that it would be Gods intent to trick some people into not believing that he is real and then suffer because of it.

This is interesting - does this mean you split with the Church's view that the only way to get into Heaven is to believe in Jesus?

Being a good person in life is supposedly irrelevant to God - Belief in Jesus and repentance for sins are the only qualifications according to Catholic lore.

You have problem with the position of the Catholic Church on Condoms, then take it up with the particular members of the Catholic Church that support that position. If you want me to defend their actions then you are talking to the wrong person.

So you call yourself a Catholic, but you don't seem to hold many Catholic dogmatic positions which Catholicism holds are fundamental to the faith, which according to Catholic dogma means you're at least partially apostate?

I have not given my support for "God-policies" that you mention...

You have however said "don't judge god by man's law", or words to that effect.
What did you mean by that, if not to defend (some of) the Church's effects here on earth?
Do you mean that I shouldn't judge God to be evil, if he gives a baby eye cancer?
.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I don't think that it would be Gods intent to trick some people into not believing that he is real and then suffer because of it.

This is interesting - does this mean you split with the Church's view that the only way to get into Heaven is to believe in Jesus? (

Being a good person in life is supposedly irrelevant to God - Belief in Jesus and repentance for sins are the only qualifications according to Catholic lore.

You have problem with the position of the Catholic Church on Condoms, then take it up with the particular members of the Catholic Church that support that position. If you want me to defend their actions then you are talking to the wrong person.

So you call yourself a Catholic, but you don't seem to hold many Catholic dogmatic positions which Catholicism holds are fundamental to the faith, which according to Catholic dogma means you're at least partially apostate?

I've never called myself a Catholic. In fact I tried a couple of times to make it clear that I am not answering for Manchu (aka: The Catholic Answer) and that my answers might easily conflict with what he might say because of theological differences. I'm pretty non-denominational other than "protestant"

I believe in Justification by Faith. God tricking people into not believing in him does nothing to promote people into believing in him.

I have not given my support for "God-policies" that you mention...

You have however said "don't judge god by man's law", or words to that effect.
What did you mean by that, if not to defend (some of) the Church's effects here on earth?
.

I don't judge God my the standards of man. That doesn't mean that I defend everything every done in the name of God.

I've never called myself a Catholic.

Aha, my mistake, sorry. I took your message to Manchu as implying that you were also Catholic, and were offering a slightly differing Catholic view.

I don't judge God my the standards of man.

You may note I edited my post above.
If you claim God is real, and I take your claim seriously, then I'm going to judge your God by what you claim he does.

Well, if your God is real, then he gives eye cancer to babies. He kills 20% of human fetuses before they ever draw a breath (20% of all pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage in western nations, the percentage is higher elsewhere) - I'm going to judge him for doing that kind of thing to innocent babies. I can't consider hurting babies as "cosmically moral".
.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence... was there any particular event that made you a believer, or was it more of a grandual conversion? And how do you tie the two together, or is it more of a case of "just putting up with it"?

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence.

When I was a kid, I believed in God basically because of peer pressure.
I considered my parents and family as the most responsible and sane people in the world. How could I consider my mum and dad to be deluded people who believed in non-existent things, like a crazy person?

Yet that is what shrugging off religion and becoming an existentialist requires. I think that must be a factor for a lot of people (consciously or not) - the single biggest predictor of an adult's religion worldwide, with a 99% accuracy, is the religious affiliation of their parents.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence...

For me it's mostly the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing. I would have a harder time with it if there was any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist, but I can handle a lack of evidence either way though. For me there is evidence, but its pretty much stuff of the of the "emotional and spiritiual evidence" kind and not any kind of "stuff I can measure and show to others".

was there any particular event that made you a believer, or was it more of a grandual conversion? And how do you tie the two together, or is it more of a case of "just putting up with it"?

It was gradual. Grew up in the Lutheran Church but wasn't religious. Drifted away from any kind of religion and was atheist for a while before returning to Christianity and actually exploring things for myself.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

Well, if your God is real, then he gives eye cancer to babies. He kills 20% of human fetuses before they ever draw a breath (20% of all pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage in western nations, the percentage is higher elsewhere) - I'm going to judge him for doing that kind of thing to innocent babies. I can't consider hurting babies as "cosmically moral".
.

By that rationale, He also cures babies of said eye cancer and he saves 80% of human foetuses...

I'm not making claims, I just really don't like that specific line of argument. If god is responsible for everything thats bad in the world, then he is also responsible for all the good in the world.

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

Well, if your God is real, then he gives eye cancer to babies. He kills 20% of human fetuses before they ever draw a breath (20% of all pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage in western nations, the percentage is higher elsewhere) - I'm going to judge him for doing that kind of thing to innocent babies. I can't consider hurting babies as "cosmically moral".
.

By that rationale, He also cures babies of said eye cancer and he saves 80% of human foetuses...

I'm not making claims, I just really don't like that specific line of argument. If god is responsible for everything thats bad in the world, then he is also responsible for all the good in the world.

Being responsible for a lot of good doesn't absolve someone from culpability in murdering babies. If I were a doctor and I murdered 20% of the fetuses I came into contact, I'd be a monster.

Yet God is absolved of this crime. When a tornado strikes, and kills 90% of the village, the 10% pray in thanks to God for sparing them. They don't ask why God decided to kill 90% of the village (including some babies). That makes no sense to me - that's not the act of a loving God, that's the act of a God who inflicts random violence on innocents, and doesn't ever attempt to explain why he's doing it.

So God actively kills everyone who dies and will eventually destroy everything - I'm glad we've resolved that

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence...

I would have a harder time with it if there was any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist

Interesting, I would say that we've seen plenty of evidence in this thread that the God as described by Jesus in particular doesn't exist (his actions on earth are incompatible with Jesus' description of him).
Whist you cannot disprove the existence of a Deistic God, I would say that you can disprove the existence of a Theistic God, by disproving specific testable claims as to his nature.

For example scientific trials have concluded that prayers have no effect on the recovery of ill people - in fact in some cases the prayed-for people suffered greater mortality, because they refused treatment! - that trial disproves a specific element of the Theistic truth claims made by many religion, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So God actively kills everyone who dies and will eventually destroy everything - I'm glad we've resolved that

If your God is omnipotent, like Jesus/God or Allah, then yes everything that happens is according to his Will.
He knows everything and has the power to change every element of reality according to his Will.
If a tornado strikes a village, then that tornado was destined to strike that village from the first moment of the universe's existence, and God knew when and where that tornado would strike for 13.4 billion years and warned no one.
In creating the universe, he created the day the tornado hit the village (he is all-powerful and all-knowing). He is responsible because he created the tornado.

When that tornado finally strikes, and kills some babies, God is responsible. He has been responsible for 13.4 billion years, and he will be responsible for as long as the universe lasts.
That is what you get, if you have a god who knows-all, can pay attention to tiny events (like mind-reading every human at the same time, at all times), and can do anything.

This is an even bigger issue for Islam than Christianity as most Islamic theology says that in addition to God being all-powerful, Human free will doesn't exist either.

 d-usa wrote:
For me it's mostly the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing. I would have a harder time with it if there was any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist, but I can handle a lack of evidence either way though.

See, for myself I would have to have more

I think the closest I can come to "believing in something without proof" would be believing that life exists outside of our planet. But even then it is based upon looking at the extent of life on our planet and the likely conditions elsewhere in the universe and coming up with the thought that life is pretty hardy and relatively easy to get going (at least as far as we understand it) that it would be staggeringly unlikely for life not to exist elsewhere.

Having done work on cell and tissue engineering, I have personally frozen and revived cells, put them through various changes of environment, changes in genetic makeup, etc... they can be pretty hard to kill

For me there is evidence, but its pretty much stuff of the of the "emotional and spiritiual evidence" kind and not any kind of "stuff I can measure and show to others".

Yeah, that is pretty much what I hear from most people

It was gradual. Grew up in the Lutheran Church but wasn't religious. Drifted away from any kind of religion and was atheist for a while before returning to Christianity and actually exploring things for myself.

I grew up in a pretty non-religious/atheist household (though lived in a couple of islamic countries from birth to about 3-4 years old). Religion and god were just not talked about at all (as far as I can remember) as a child. It was only when I went to primary school (Church of England as most school are) that I encountered god... but only through singing hymms and the lord's prayer in morning assembly - it was just something you did. God didn't really come into anything until later on. Even the three yearly church attendances (Easter, harvest, Christmas) were not particularly explained in terms of religion; again they were just something the school did.

Even by the end of Primary school I had stopped singing and saying the prayer.

It was only when I was older that I remember my parents speaking about anything to do with religion, mostly when it came up in the news, or regards their experiences in the middle and far east, etc. Mostly it was negative, though they never made any move on asking what my views were or attempting to change them to be in line with their own.

Though high school (again nominally Christian) I mostly tuned out during RE lessons and dropped it as soon as I could (year 9... I think that is about 13/14 years old?) because I thought it was kind of pointless. Mostly it seemed to be colouring in

I will say we had an awesome school chaplin - he landed as a chaplin on D-Day and was a really nice and energetic (if very old) guy. He was great and not pushy about anything religious from what I remember and my limited interactions with him.

The only ever after school detention I ever got was for playing noughts and crosses in a Christmas church service though

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't mind to continue sharing what I believe or why I believe it. But I know that I will not be able to provide you with any sort of concrete proof to settle the question of "can you prove that any of this is real". It is real to me, and other than trying to live my life in accordance with it there is nothing I can do to provide any outward evidence of what I find to be true. I am a very scientific person, so I know how frustrating that can be.

I guess what I understand least is how people reconsile the belief in god and the need for proof and evidence...

I would have a harder time with it if there was any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist

Interesting, I would say that we've seen plenty of evidence in this thread that the God as described by Jesus in particular doesn't exist (his actions on earth are incompatible with Jesus' description of him).
Whist you cannot disprove the existence of a Deistic God, I would say that you can disprove the existence of a Theistic God, by disproving specific testable claims as to his nature.

For example scientific trials have concluded that prayers have no effect on the recovery of ill people - in fact in some cases the prayed-for people suffered greater mortality, because they refused treatment! - that trial disproves a specific element of the Theistic truth claims made by many religion, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So God actively kills everyone who dies and will eventually destroy everything - I'm glad we've resolved that

If your God is omnipotent, like Jesus/God or Allah, then yes everything that happens is according to his Will.
He knows everything and has the power to change every element of reality according to his Will.
If a tornado strikes a village, then that tornado was destined to strike that village from the first moment of the universe's existence, and God knew when and where that tornado would strike for 13.4 billion years and warned no one.
In creating the universe, he created the day the tornado hit the village (he is all-powerful and all-knowing). He is responsible because he created the tornado.

When that tornado finally strikes, and kills some babies, God is responsible. He has been responsible for 13.4 billion years, and he will be responsible for as long as the universe lasts.
That is what you get, if you have a god who knows-all, can pay attention to tiny events (like mind-reading every human at the same time, at all times), and can do anything.

This is an even bigger issue for Islam than Christianity as most Islamic theology says that in addition to God being all-powerful, Human free will doesn't exist either.

I do think you are confusing somebody who is actively doing things with somebody that doesn't stop things and lets things happen.

Probably not a difference in your mind, but it's there.

Jesus never claimed that bad things wouldn't happen.

I do think you are confusing somebody who is actively doing things with somebody that doesn't stop things and lets things happen.

I think you're ignoring that God created the tornado.

If God is all-knowing, then that means God knows, from the moment he creates the universe, the day the tornado will strike the village and kill some babies.

If he's not all-knowing, then he's not responsible. He just set things in motion and didn't know what would happen to the village 13.4 billion years later.
But we're repeatedly told that (your) God is all-knowing.

So he created the universe, he created the tornado, he created humans knowing that they'd one day build a village just so. And he, in his infinite wisdom, made the tornado that 13.4 billion years after he created it, killed the babies.


And honestly, if the best you can do is that "god doesn't care about babies being killed by a tornado he created, or at least not enough to intervene to send the tornado the other way around the mountain, an act that would be trivially easy for him and require literally zero effort", then we're back to a previous point - your god (as described) is not loving, he's at best indifferent, at worst intentionally sadistic.

I do not understand how such a God, as described, is a loving God. Causing the painful death of babies is a red line for me.
.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I do not understand how such a God, as described, is a loving God. Causing the painful death of babies is a red line for me.

If he isn't real, which you are certain off, then why does it matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I do think you are confusing somebody who is actively doing things with somebody that doesn't stop things and lets things happen.

I think you're ignoring that God created the tornado..

Like I thought.

 d-usa wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I do not understand how such a God, as described, is a loving God. Causing the painful death of babies is a red line for me.

If he isn't real, which you are certain off, then why does it matter?

I'm not certain, I'm 99.999999% certain. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Anyone who says they're 100% certain about something that can't technically be disproved (or proved) is a fool.

And like I said above, I agree that one can't disprove the existence of a Deistic God, but you can disprove the existence of specific Theistic Gods by analyzing truth-claims made about them and looking for contradictions that expose incompatibilities between claims and reality (for example, Zeus lives on top of Mount Olympus - you examine that by climbing Mount Olympus), or mutually incompatible claims (for example, God is loving, but also all-knowing & all-powerful so is therefore responsible for quite a bit of baby-murder which is not a loving action).
.

Like I thought.

Do me the favour of answering my conundrum. Saying "God stands by and watches it and does nothing" and "God is a loving God" are not compatible claims - unless you can explain how they are.

Dude, can we have a post without babies?

If someone kill 100 people or 100 babies - its equally as bad.
Mentioning them in every post makes your points seem needlessly hyperbolic.
Its like reading the guardian...

PredaKhaine wrote:
Dude, can we have a post without babies?

If someone kill 100 people or 100 babies - its equally as bad.
Mentioning them in every post makes your points seem needlessly hyperbolic.
Its like reading the guardian...

Babies are the best examples for Christians because they're supposedly born without sin... one can argue (as a Christian) that adults deserve God's wrath sometimes. But I don't see how you can argue that an infant deserves a painful death (you can perhaps argue that a temporally eternal deity could know that all 100 babies in the village would grow up to be Hitler Mk2-through-101, and decide they all need to die - but why a painful death?).

It's a knowingly emotive example and (as a parent) I don't use the example lightly, but to make a point as to the incompatibility (to my mind) between an all-powerful, all-knowing "God of Love" and what actually happens in the real world.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:
Dude, can we have a post without babies?

If someone kill 100 people or 100 babies - its equally as bad.
Mentioning them in every post makes your points seem needlessly hyperbolic.
Its like reading the guardian...

Babies are the best examples for Christians because they're supposedly born without sin... one can argue (as a Christian) that adults deserve God's wrath sometimes. But I don't see how you can argue that an infant deserves a painful death (you can perhaps argue that a temporally eternal deity could know that all 100 babies in the village would grow up to be Hitler Mk2-through-101, and decide they all need to die - but why a painful death?).

It's a knowingly emotive example and (as a parent) I don't use the example lightly, but to make a point as to the incompatibility (to my mind) between an all-powerful, all-knowing "God of Love" and what actually happens in the real world.

So let me try to summarize what you are arguing here.

You seem to be upset because I believe in a God that You believe kills babies because he is not loving IF he were real, which you believe he isn't.

Did I get the summary right?

You seem to be upset

I'm not upset. I'm intellectually curious how these two things (all knowing, all powerful god of love VS infants dying in pain) can be reconciled without cognitive dissonance.

I believe in a God that You believe kills babies because he is not loving IF he were real

I am applying God's basic attributes:

- He Loves
- He knows everything
- He can do anything

And comparing that against what we find in the real world:

- Sometimes, an orphanage gets destroyed by a tsunami, and all the infants there die. Except for one who grows up to be a murderer, perhaps. I'm sure I can find some specific examples if you don't want a theoretical situation.

, which you believe he isn't.

Irrelevant, I'm asking what you believe. I'm interested. What I (don't) believe is irrelevant to the question... if you want to question my beliefs, feel free, I'll answer.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

- He Loves
- He knows everything
- He can do anything

So beyond all your baby dying talk and walls of text it comes down to you making the argument that a loving God would not allow any suffering.

Did I get that correct?

 d-usa wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

- He Loves
- He knows everything
- He can do anything

So beyond all your baby dying talk and walls of text it comes down to you making the argument that a loving God would not allow any suffering.

Did I get that correct?

You did not.

Some types of inflicted suffering can be justified - imprisoning a criminal, or chastising a naughty child, for example. I'm asking about a very specific situation.

So:

Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen to good people?

In the meantime you seem to admit that loving people can let bad things happen. Or does chastising a naughty child (a bad thing) mean that their parents are not loving the child?

 d-usa wrote:
So:

Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen to good people?

No.
Once again, my question is how can you reconcile the following:

- He Loves
- He knows everything
- He can do anything

- He creates natural phenomena that painfully kill infants (indeed he knew he created every single specific mortal phenomena, ever, at the moment of the creation of the universe, because he knows *everything*).


A less specific "bad things happening to good people" I can conceptually understand - there can be educational lessons there for "good people" if those "good people" are adults, and survive the "bad things".

In the meantime you seem to admit that loving people can let bad things happen. Or does chastising a naughty child (a bad thing) mean that their parents are not loving the child?

Chastising a naughty child is an educational lesson. There can be no education if you stab an innocent infant and watch it bleed to death.
.

I can reconcile it by understanding that letting something happen is not the same as making something happen.

I can also reconcile it by understanding that he has a greater plan, born out of love, that include things happening that we don't think should happen.

I can reconcile it by understanding that the Bible never said "I love you and nothing horrible will ever happen to anybody".

I anticipate that no answer I give will be good enough for you.

 d-usa wrote:
I can reconcile it by understanding that letting something happen is not the same as making something happen.

Let's try this with a simple Q&A format. Yes/No answers, please. You can explain your Yes or No more fully afterwards, but I want a Yes or No first, please.

Did God create the universe?
Does he know everything?

I can also reconcile it by understanding that he has a greater plan, born out of love, that include things happening that we don't think should happen.

Can murdering infants painfully ever be justified?

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I can reconcile it by understanding that letting something happen is not the same as making something happen.

Let's try this with a simple Q&A format.

Did God create the universe?
Does he know everything?

You believe that if God is real the way I believe he is, then in May of this year a tornado leveled a grade school in Oklahoma and killed multiple children because God decided that on this day these children will die. I get that.

I believe that God created a planet on which tornadoes are a possibility and he lets them happen. I don't believe that it means that God decided to kill these children on that day.

I can also reconcile it by understanding that he has a greater plan, born out of love, that include things happening that we don't think should happen.

Can murdering infants painfully ever be justified?

If you believe that God murders people, then that is a question that you have to workout.

I believe ... in May of this year a tornado leveled a grade school in Oklahoma and killed multiple children because God decided that on this day these children will die.

How is deciding the day on which an innocent child will die, and causing the death to happen, not an act of murder?

If you believe that God murders people, then that is a question that you have to workout.

I don't believe God murders people, because I don't believe any gods exist. I believe they're implausible because there's no quantifiable evidence in their favour.

I do believe that if God(s) exist, and they were all-powerful and all-knowing, then they would be responsible for any and all deaths of innocents by "acts of god" (such as tsunamis, tornados, etc).

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I believe ... in May of this year a tornado leveled a grade school in Oklahoma and killed multiple children because God decided that on this day these children will die.

How is deciding the day on which an innocent child will die, and causing the death to happen, not an act of murder?

Because I don't believe that God decidec that on this day a tornado will hit that school.

He knew it would happen. He didn't decide that it should happen.

I don't know how often I have tried to explain that difference to you, but this will be the last time.

He knew it would happen. He didn't decide that it should happen.

Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

So tell me about existentialism - what does that mean?

There is really no point in you continuing to ask me to justify your interpretations of what things mean.

PredaKhaine wrote:
So tell me about existentialism - what does that mean?

It's an order of philosophy that deals with the world in a manner that concentrates on cause and effect, with an emphasis on the individual.

This gives a good quick overview: http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/whatis.html

Existentialism doesn't always lead to atheism, but it certainly does lead to extreme skepticism of unfounded truth claims, and demands logical analysis thereof.

I also have a strong belief that the "solipsism paradox" is a great influence on humankind's behavior vis-a-vis the treatment of and empathy for other humans - moreso than is typically believed by most philosophers. This is, inline with existentialism itself, a rather negative view of the human condition. Despite this, I'm actually a rather happy fellow, taking solace in elements of Buddhist philosophy (as opposed to theology) as regards practical (rather than mystical) karma - I believe that solipsism-influenced traits in humankind can be overcome by a karmic approach to life, as well as judicious application of The Golden Rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
There is really no point in you continuing to ask me to justify your interpretations of what things mean.

I didn't ask you to justify your belief. I asked to to answer yes or or no to one question:

Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

We are now on the second page of you trying to convince me that your interpretation of "if God created the world and God knows everything, then God is directly responsible for the murder of children" is correct and that I should defend that interpretation to you.

We have had 12 pages of people sharing what they believe, we have had people asking others about their faith and we have had people share more about them.

So far you are the only person in this thread that is really going "well, if you believe that then it must also mean this. So defend this!"

 d-usa wrote:
We are now on the second page of you trying to convince me...

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm asking a question, and you're not answering it.

Just give me a yes or no answer: Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

I won't ask you to justify that answer- I know it's going to be based on faith, one way or the other.

Just answer it, yes, or no.

EDIT: Or you stop responding and say "I'm not interested in discussing my faith with you anymore, goodbye". You're always free to not chat.

But I'd really love it if you'd answer my question, because chatting is fun, and sharing information broadens all our minds - I'm asking because I'm interested to see how this stuff hangs together, not because I want to laugh at whatever you say next (which is what you seem to be assuming is my intention).

EDIT2: And once again, please feel free to ask me questions about my worldview. It doesn't have to be all about you.
.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I believe ... in May of this year a tornado leveled a grade school in Oklahoma and killed multiple children because God decided that on this day these children will die.

How is deciding the day on which an innocent child will die, and causing the death to happen, not an act of murder?

Because there is a difference between Murder and Killing. On this point I must say I disagree with D-USA that not only did God know of this, but he planned for this tornado to kill people. The difference between murder and killing, is that murder in a biblical context is generally seen as killing based off of sinful motivation. By the definition of sin in the Bible, God has no sinful motivations.

The further question you might ask is why does God let bad things happen to humankind? And in general that is a complete mystery to us. The story of Job, if you are familiar with it, a wealthy man lost everything, his family was killed and all his wealth - his livestock, his home, his land - was lost in a day, all because Satan challenged God to see if Job was still faithful to God after God let all those things happen to him.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We are now on the second page of you trying to convince me...

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm asking a question, and you're not answering it.

Just give me a yes or no answer: Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

I won't ask you to justify that answer- I know it's going to be based on faith, one way or the other.

Just answer it, yes, or no.

EDIT: Or you stop responding and say "I'm not interested in discussing my faith with you anymore, goodbye". You're always free to not chat.

But I'd really love it if you'd answer my question, because chatting is fun, and sharing information broadens all our minds - I'm asking because I'm interested to see how this stuff hangs together, not because I want to laugh at whatever you say next (which is what you seem to be assuming is my intention).

EDIT2: And once again, please feel free to ask me questions about my worldview. It doesn't have to be all about you.
.

If he'd answered that question - where would you go with it?

Technically god killing people can't be murder, since murder is defined as one human being killing another.

Because there is a difference between Murder and Killing. On this point I must say I disagree with D-USA that not only did God know of this, but he planned for this tornado to kill people. The difference between murder and killing, is that murder in a biblical context is generally seen as killing based off of sinful motivation. By the definition of sin in the Bible, God has no sinful motivations.

I'd make a few notes there:
- I'm explicitly not using biblical definitions such as sin. When I said murder, I meant it in the common parlance - I'm aware that there's a biblical difference between murder and killing. For example, the first thing Moses does after receiving the Ten Commandments is kill 3000 of his own followers for worshiping an idol- as far as God was concerned that was not a murder. Then a few pages later God tells Moses to exterminate a nation of people known as the Amalekites, including their old women and their babies (the only Amalekites to be spared are the women of breeding age, who may be kept as "slaves"). Quite clearly, God makes a distinction between murder, and killing, at least in the Old Testament.

The further question you might ask is why does God let bad things happen to humankind? And in general that is a complete mystery to us. The story of Job, if you are familiar with it, a wealthy man lost everything, his family was killed and all his wealth - his livestock, his home, his land - was lost in a day, all because Satan challenged God to see if Job was still faithful to God after God let all those things happen to him.

As someone of Jewish heritage, I probably know the Job story better than most. I'd note that Job doesn't "lose" everything - God intentionally takes it from him by ordering The Satan to torture Job. God already knows what's going to be "taken" before he orders Satan to torture Job because he knows everything, of course, and he knew that Job would be tortured, and in what manner from the moment he created the universe (if he's real, that is).

Satan's God-ordered "taking" of Job's property includes killing Job's ten children and his wife, IIRC.

Jews don't have Heaven or Hell, or the Devil as Christians know him, incidentally; It was Jesus that brought the good news of Hell's existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We are now on the second page of you trying to convince me...

Just give me a yes or no answer: Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?
.

If he'd answered that question - where would you go with it?

That'd depend on his answer.

Yes - So everything that ever happens, only happens because that was what God willed would happen, and everything has been set in stone since the moment of creation, right?
No - Doesn't it break a fundamental tenet of Christianity that God can be surprised by unexpected events?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Technically god killing people can't be murder, since murder is defined as one human being killing another.

I could go with intentional Homicide (as opposed to Deicide) rather than "murder", as a description of what God does every time there's a large natural disaster, if that's more theologically correct.

 Cheesecat wrote:
But science can't be a religion as it has no attachment to the supernatural or a doctrine that talks about theses supernatural events.

Let us start with a dictionary meaning of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
I have "faith" that the scientific method will lead us to greater understanding of the universe.
Anything that a person feels strongly about, emotionally and has "belief/faith" in IS a kind of religion, it also has the added bonus of being formalized and a core set of rules, sound familiar?
This is not necessarily a bad thing.
As long as we do not go out after the infidel in the name of science.
How many theories have been made that people believe in but do not have sufficient evidence to be proven?
Good thing is, when we reach a point where the theory is disproven, we should be chucking it out the window without a backwards glance.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
Note when he says "educated" it includes experience and "flexible" thinking.

I understand a knee-jerk reaction to getting offended in calling science a religion but it is such a trusted and emotionally charged method that it would be contrary to evidence to dismiss it out of hand.

Some cool articles on this topic:

Science and Religion: Albert Einstein
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/Einstein%20Sci%20%26%20Rel.pdf

Is Science the New Religion?
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Evil & Chaos wrote:

Satan's God-ordered "taking" of Job's property includes killing Job's ten children and his wife, IIRC.

Just children, the wife was left alive and in fact told Job to curse God.

I understand a knee-jerk reaction to getting offended in calling science a religion but it is such a trusted and emotionally charged method that it would be contrary to evidence to dismiss it out of hand.

Broadly, it can be said to be true, because it's always impossible for a single human to learn all of science and conduct all of its possible experiments - an element of faith is required in that you have to trust what some scientists say, because it's impossible to specialise in all forms of science simultaneously, and know everything.

Still, there's a crucial difference, in that you can pick any area of science you like from a text book or publication, (let's say, chemistry) conduct experiments and come to the same (or very occasionally, differing) conclusions as are related in the text book. You can never do that with religion, because none of it can be proven.

So although science requires a small amount of faith in other human beings (you need only have the faith that says "scientists, by and large, do apply the scientific method as they claim they do, and they aren't mostly liars who haven't really tested or proven any theories at all") it don't require faith in something that is intangible and impossible to prove exists to have faith in (all of) science.

It is, in fact, the "solipsism paradox" that I mentioned before that allows science to be described as a religion. Because you always (technically) need faith just to believe that you're a real person and everyone else you meet are real people too. That tiny uncertainty allows (technical) doubt to creep into even the most certainly proven of scientific theorems.

Science and Religion: Albert Einstein
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/Einstein%20Sci%20%26%20Rel.pdf

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein, 1954

Great quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Bringer wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

Satan's God-ordered "taking" of Job's property includes killing Job's ten children and his wife, IIRC.

Just children, the wife was left alive and in fact told Job to curse God.

Stupid woman. Always being crap in the Bible, women.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

Getting into the "free will" discussion, always a favorite.
People far better than me discussed this, I "believe" this quote:

“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free.
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

I "believe" this quote:

So, you think God can be surprised by events?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Manchu - my wife made me do things around the house last night so I did not get a chance to look up UK law regards cannibalism - going out tonight and Friday, so not sure when I will get the chance to answer you back.

No prob. I know the answer. I just thought, if SilverMK2 wants to think about this further then the way to do it is thinking about why cannibalism is illegal in the UK.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
So, you think God can be surprised by events?

Hehe, I think more that the overall way of things go "as planned" but the tiny details are left to themselves.

We can choose to ignore things (like the activities with gift hiding before a birthday) to keep things "fun", why set limitations on what a higher power does?
Who knows, we may just be a theory to be played out without interference (or only at key points) messing with the outcome.
Could be a blow to the ego that we are just in some petri dish allowed to play itself out to be checked later.

Motivation to act or not to is some of the biggest puzzles we work on daily, just try to figure out that for a higher being.

I figure you do your best, be accountable for your actions and hold others to theirs.
The blaming or crediting what happens to you to God just seems... egotistical or swinging the other way, a fatalist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Still, there's a crucial difference, in that you can pick any area of science you like from a text book or publication, (let's say, chemistry) conduct experiments and come to the same (or very occasionally, differing) conclusions as are related in the text book. You can never do that with religion, because none of it can be proven.

In each discipline there is a "body of evidence" to build from. Some people can do ALL the math or proof for each step. Some "faith" as described is needed to use a proven theory to move on to others. Much arguing happens because all the same conditions and materials must be carefully controlled to get some of the "reproducible" outcomes. It could be looked at a carefully controlled "ritual" to get the wanted outcome. I have made a career on measuring things, it is a consideration that the "usefulness" of something may not be completely measurable at that time. Think of belief as a "theory" where it is in the process of being proven or disproven that may not be doable in our lifetime.

So although science requires a small amount of faith in other human beings (you need only have the faith that says "scientists, by and large, do apply the scientific method as they claim they do, and they aren't mostly liars who haven't really tested or proven any theories at all") it don't require faith in something that is intangible and impossible to prove exists to have faith in (all of) science.

This is why it has many familiar elements of a religion and very zealous supporters of it. However it is incredibly useful and demonstrable which accumulates such "faith" due to a great track record.

It is, in fact, the "solipsism paradox" that I mentioned before that allows science to be described as a religion. Because you always (technically) need faith just to believe that you're a real person and everyone else you meet are real people too. That tiny uncertainty allows (technical) doubt to creep into even the most certainly proven of scientific theorems.

Very Buddhist viewpoint which I like. Our senses seem more geared toward limiting to bands of "interest" for our survival and our brains tend to "fill in the gaps" so perception is somewhat participative which can make us doubt what we perceive with good reason. The "cynicism" of questioning and following up on reasoning and perception appears reasonable faced with the degree of perceived reality person to person. To think of others as projections made from the self is rather depressing if taken seriously. Science is a means of rules that we agree upon on how we perceive our universe, others may think we are riding on the back of a giant turtle, it is hard to get someone to toy with a change of viewpoint without falling back on saying "you are wrong!" it does not get very far.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein, 1954
Great quote.

Agreed, it is finding that "wonder" of creation that I feel is so important. To think of it as an enormous clockwork is interesting at first, but we are always drawn to when "rules" can be broken = mysticism.

Deep thinking on this thread, I like it... just hope we can avoid flame or the occasional troll.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
But science can't be a religion as it has no attachment to the supernatural or a doctrine that talks about theses supernatural events.

Let us start with a dictionary meaning of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

I use these definitions when referring to religion and as far as I'm aware science has no supernatural elements to it. Also your definition sounds more like the definition of the word "belief" rather than "religion" as your definition would mean that anytime you strongly believe in something to

be true that it somehow becomes a religious belief like if you're rock climbing and you're 100% positive the harness and rope will hold your weight cause you've done testing and research on the product is that what religion means to you?

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Technically god killing people can't be murder, since murder is defined as one human being killing another.

and we were created in god's image. What does that make god?

 Talizvar wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
So, you think God can be surprised by events?

Hehe, I think more that the overall way of things go "as planned" but the tiny details are left to themselves.

We can choose to ignore things (like the activities with gift hiding before a birthday) to keep things "fun", why set limitations on what a higher power does?

Because we're often told of a specific limitation (or, lack of limitation) that the Christian God has - he is all-knowing.
He knows *everything*; Jesus says that God knows the number of hairs on every head on every human on earth, and all the thoughts within all their craniums.

Could be a blow to the ego that we are just in some petri dish allowed to play itself out to be checked later.

As an existentialist, that wouldn't trouble me, that would just be the nature of things.

Motivation to act or not to is some of the biggest puzzles we work on daily, just try to figure out that for a higher being.

It's pretty easy to work out, if your higher being took the opportunity to visit one of his gogolplex planets in the form of an evolved ape, and in the form of that evolved ape told us what type of people to go to bed with - that's an eternal deity with some extremely parochial concerns.

The blaming or crediting what happens to you to God just seems... egotistical or swinging the other way, a fatalist.

It is impartial and logical. If God knows *everything*, and God can do *anything*, then it necessarily follows that God knew everything about the universe he created at the moment of its creation. Everything.

Think of belief (in God) as a "theory" where it is in the process of being proven or disproven that may not be doable in our lifetime.

Okay then. The only way you test a theory is to try and disprove it. That's the basic form of the scientific method.

You can't prove a Deistic God, because Deist gods are too vague, and don't do anything after the moment of creation.
But you can disprove specific interpretations of specific Gods by testing and disproving those interpretations.
For example, I can test and disprove the existence of Zeus by climbing mount Olympus.
I can test and disprove the existence of Thor by cursing his name and not being struck with lightning.
I can test and disprove the existence of an all-knowing all-powerful Loving God (that's "Loving" as humans understand it) by examining how many infants die painfully of eye cancer, or natural disaster, etc.

That doesn't serve to disprove an all-powerful all knowing Indifferent God, of course. It just brings you to a place closer to Einstein, where it's obvious that Gods to not meddle in the affairs of Women.

It is, in fact, the "solipsism paradox" that I mentioned before that allows science to be described as a religion. Because you always (technically) need faith just to believe that you're a real person and everyone else you meet are real people too. That tiny uncertainty allows (technical) doubt to creep into even the most certainly proven of scientific theorems.

Very Buddhist viewpoint which I like. Our senses seem more geared toward limiting to bands of "interest" for our survival and our brains tend to "fill in the gaps" so perception is somewhat participative which can make us doubt what we perceive with good reason. The "cynicism" of questioning and following up on reasoning and perception appears reasonable faced with the degree of perceived reality person to person. To think of others as projections made from the self is rather depressing if taken seriously. Science is a means of rules that we agree upon on how we perceive our universe, others may think we are riding on the back of a giant turtle, it is hard to get someone to toy with a change of viewpoint without falling back on saying "you are wrong!" it does not get very far.

Here's the trap, though - by using the Solipsism Paradox as a foundation for a definition of science as faith (because of the basic uncertainty at the heart of the human condition you cannot technically prove the existence of anything beyond your own mind's perceptions), then everything else in life is a matter of faith too. You end up having faith that cars exist, that computers exist, that Justin Bieber exists.

Solipsism as a philosophical paradox is unfalsifiable yet intellectually bland - a worldview where faith in Justin Bieber is exactly the same as faith in God, or HB pencils, is a universe where the word "faith" has lost all meaning through (literally endless) dilution. It's a hall of mirrors trick, nothing more.

Ultimately science is *not* the same as religion. Whilst they may share some basic fundamentals, those fundamentals are also shared with literally everything else in existence. The real meaty stuff - lack of authority versus ultimate authority, inspiration versus revelation, existentialism versus credulity - it's all different.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein, 1954
Great quote.

Agreed, it is finding that "wonder" of creation that I feel is so important. To think of it as an enormous clockwork is interesting at first, but we are always drawn to when "rules" can be broken = mysticism.

I'd argue it's always been the other way around. When we knew very little, we saw gods in everything.
The more we learned, the more the gods died.
Now the only strong gods left, are those that were hardly there to begin with at all.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Let us start with a dictionary meaning of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

I use these definitions when referring to religion and as far as I'm aware science has no supernatural elements to it. Also your definition sounds more like the definition of the word "belief" rather than "religion" as your definition would mean that anytime you strongly believe in something to be true that it somehow becomes a religious belief like if you're rock climbing and you're 100% positive the harness and rope will hold your weight cause you've done testing and research on the product is that what religion means to you?

First, it would be a poor definition in a dictionary to describe "belief" with "belief" but I admit I favor this definition because it does not get caught up in the details that are easily refuted involving a leader or god. It is a bit like describing what makes something a table or stool, it possesses the nature and features of that icon.

Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
Science has been so incredible in technology that if it is sufficiently advanced, it can be indistinguishable from magic.
I like this article:
Matter being able to exist in two places at once.
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists
There is no mention that religion must be supernatural but most are so I do see what you are pointing to.

I do not "believe" in 100% certainty. I zip lined recently and they had a double harness, two wires, two roller sets and two separate straps. Enough hardware I am reasonably certain I could send my car down it. Still scared the heck out of me, or should I say it was thrilling? The reasonable certainty allowed me to get on with my life and have a fun experience. Religion allows people to get on with their lives thinking "someone's got their back". Like walking a tightrope with a net underneath, makes you less afraid and you can do it without freaking out.

Messy I know but talking about feelings: thinking there is some kind of afterlife sure beats the alternative: you die, you cease to exist, you oversized colony of cells die and rot.
If you are wrong in either condition it sucks.

If you truly think death is the ultimate end: why are you arguing with idiots in a forum? Go out and do something exciting, time is a wasting!

 Talizvar wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Let us start with a dictionary meaning of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

I use these definitions when referring to religion and as far as I'm aware science has no supernatural elements to it. Also your definition sounds more like the definition of the word "belief" rather than "religion" as your definition would mean that anytime you strongly believe in something to be true that it somehow becomes a religious belief like if you're rock climbing and you're 100% positive the harness and rope will hold your weight cause you've done testing and research on the product is that what religion means to you?

First, it would be a poor definition in a dictionary to describe "belief" with "belief" but I admit I favor this definition because it does not get caught up in the details that are easily refuted involving a leader or god. It is a bit like describing what makes something a table or stool, it possesses the nature and features of that icon.

Yeah, bad description on my part what I mean is a belief is accepting that you think something is true.

Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
Science has been so incredible in technology that if it is sufficiently advanced, it can be indistinguishable from magic.

Not true, as magic is supernatural and something that is supernatural goes beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature therefore it can't be scientific if it becomes the same as magic.

There is no mention that religion must be supernatural but most are so I do see what you are pointing to.

Name me one religion that doesn't have a supernatural element to it.

If you truly think death is the ultimate end: why are you arguing with idiots in a forum? Go out and do something exciting, time is a wasting!

Cause I enjoy it, it isn't a waste of time for me.

I'm Atheist here, placed my vote on the poll just now.

 Talizvar wrote:
In each discipline there is a "body of evidence" to build from. Some people can do ALL the math or proof for each step. Some "faith" as described is needed to use a proven theory to move on to others. Much arguing happens because all the same conditions and materials must be carefully controlled to get some of the "reproducible" outcomes. It could be looked at a carefully controlled "ritual" to get the wanted outcome. I have made a career on measuring things, it is a consideration that the "usefulness" of something may not be completely measurable at that time. Think of belief as a "theory" where it is in the process of being proven or disproven that may not be doable in our lifetime.

As a scientist, I have to very much disagree with this. Religion is not a scientific theory (an explanation for something with a large body of evidence backing it up); it is not even a hypothesis since a hypothesis requires that the proposed explanation be testable in some way, either by positively or negatively identifying evidence to support or dispute said explanation.

And regards "faith" in science - it is like the common usage of "theory" compared to the scientific use of "theory". I have faith that scientists carry out their work correctly, that the general scientific body of information is largely accurate and reflects, as well as we are able to determine, how the universe works. This faith is based on evidence from my work as a scientist, observing other scientists at work, reading the publications of other scientists and my many years of education in the sciences and scientific theory and underlying evidence and the knowledge that, given the appropriate amount of time and money, I would be able to replicate the work and conclusions of pretty much any scientist in any field you cared to choose; because that is how science works.

"Faith" in science is not the same as faith in religious terms. Nor are scientific practices similar to religious rituals.

 Talizvar wrote:
Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
Science has been so incredible in technology that if it is sufficiently advanced, it can be indistinguishable from magic.

Except that anyone in the world can pick up a text book, teach themselves how to do science, and distinguish how the magic is done.

You can't do that with religion.

There is no mention that religion must be supernatural but most are so I do see what you are pointing to.

It must be, otherwise it's not religion, it's just secular philosophy.

Messy I know but talking about feelings: thinking there is some kind of afterlife sure beats the alternative: you die, you cease to exist, you oversized colony of cells die and rot.
If you are wrong in either condition it sucks.

I enjoy the late Christopher Hitchens' thoughts on the afterlife, here's a quote from a debate he had with a chap named David Wolpe (a Rabbi):

"It will happen to all of us that at some point you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party is over, but slightly worse: the party’s going on but you have to leave. And it’s going on without you. That’s the reflection I think that most upsets people about their demise.

Alright then, let’s - because it might make us feel better – let’s pretend the opposite. Instead you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told “Great news: this party’s going on forever, and you can’t leave”. “You’ve got to stay. The boss says so and he also insists that you have a good time”.

I’ve read about David’s father and I had a bad time when my own father passed on, but the father proposed by monotheism is the father who doesn’t die, who reassures his children, “Don’t worry, I’ll never leave you. You’ll never see the end of me. You’ll never get the chance to feel sorry. I’m always there. I’m the absolute ultimate in dictatorship. And in my courts, there’s no appeal.”

Do you really think that this would cheer up anyone of sentience or humanity or capable of feeling of irony? I submit: it’s out of the question.”

If you truly think death is the ultimate end: why are you arguing with idiots in a forum? Go out and do something exciting, time is a wasting!

Who said you were an idiot? Or that we were arguing?

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I enjoy the late Christopher Hitchens' thoughts on the afterlife, here's a quote from a debate he had with a chap named David Wolpe (a Rabbi):

"It will happen to all of us that at some point you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party is over, but slightly worse: the party’s going on but you have to leave. And it’s going on without you. That’s the reflection I think that most upsets people about their demise.

Alright then, let’s - because it might make us feel better – let’s pretend the opposite. Instead you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told “Great news: this party’s going on forever, and you can’t leave”. “You’ve got to stay. The boss says so and he also insists that you have a good time”.

I’ve read about David’s father and I had a bad time when my own father passed on, but the father proposed by monotheism is the father who doesn’t die, who reassures his children, “Don’t worry, I’ll never leave you. You’ll never see the end of me. You’ll never get the chance to feel sorry. I’m always there. I’m the absolute ultimate in dictatorship. And in my courts, there’s no appeal.”

Do you really think that this would cheer up anyone of sentience or humanity or capable of feeling of irony? I submit: it’s out of the question.”

I always though of it as getting tapped on the shoulder and invited to a better 'after' party

PredaKhaine wrote:
I always though of it as getting tapped on the shoulder and invited to a better 'after' party

Then why live this life at all, if the next is better?

This is the suicidal impulse at the heart of all religions that offer a better life on the other side of the veil - they say that this life, our real life, is an irrelevant eyeblink before you spend an eternity in a better place. If the Churches didn't institute mystical rules prohibiting suicide, they'd soon be extinct, or at least bereft of their genuine believers, if you catch my drift. And I'm sure we can all name religions that actively encourage certain types of suicide, and offer reward for those who self-exterminate in the correct propitiate manner.


And that "better place" you want to go to is simply a state of existence where you spend your eternity in endless praise of your jealous*** owner, or being tortured by your owner if you annoyed him during your brief eyeblink of breathing - It's such a depressing view of existence, to me, reducing humanity to the level of a Pavlovian creature, longing for death and a reward that will never come, and if it does come it will be intellectually void.


"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse."
Isaac Asimov



***God's own description of himself, in the 3rd commandment.

Evil & Chaos wrote:


And that "better place" you want to go to is simply a state of existence where you spend your eternity in endless praise of your jealous*** owner, or being tortured by your owner if you annoyed him during your brief eyeblink of breathing - It's such a depressing view of existence, to me, reducing humanity to the level of a Pavlovian creature, longing for death and a reward that will never come, and if it does come it will be intellectually void.

Thats one view of it - heaven is what you make of it.

The main point of heaven is to keep people in line. That way, when people began to settle down and live together in whatever time that was, they could cohabit successfully with each other. The commandments are a series of rules designed to help that happen.

There are some good rules in there too - thou shalt not kill is a fairly good piece of advice if you live in a community. Heaven and Hell were the big sticks people used to justify their rules.

There are still some useful rules in the 10 commandments.

Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shall not kill/murder.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
Thou shall not covet your neighbor's wife (or anything that belongs to your neighbor).

I'm also convinced all people *are* pavlovian creatures.

 Talizvar wrote:
Messy I know but talking about feelings: thinking there is some kind of afterlife sure beats the alternative: you die, you cease to exist, you oversized colony of cells die and rot.
If you are wrong in either condition it sucks.

Many people think along the lines that if there is no afterlife then that is a horrible thought, so they believe there is one. Unfortunately just because it might be horrible doesn't mean it's not true.

I am an atheist, always have been. But I have begun to get more interested in the subject of religion recently and have been looking into things more. The more I do research, the more convinced I am that there is no God of any sort.

One thing that does it for me (at least about the Christian religion) is that we know for a fact the Earth is billions of years old, that life evolved, therefore there was no genesis, no garden of Eden. That's a major part of the old testament out with. If there was no garden of Eden, there was no talking snake, no eating of the forbidden fruit, so there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, there was no need for Jesus to save us, so the new testament is out as well.

The fact that for the most part people share their religions with their parents and that religion just happens to be the one true religion, well that was very lucky for them, wasn't it? Good job they weren't born in a different country where the dominant religion is one of those false ones, because they would grow up believing that one. If we had been born in ancient Greece we'd believe in Zeus, if we lived in 11th century Norway, we'd believe in Thor and so on.

The fact that we look back and say how silly peoples beliefs were back then, yet those people believed just as strongly that they were right as people do today of their own religions. It's clear to me that todays religions will be looked back on with the same view that we have of the old religions, it's just a matter of time.

I'm Atheist personally

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:


And that "better place" you want to go to is simply a state of existence where you spend your eternity in endless praise of your jealous*** owner, or being tortured by your owner if you annoyed him during your brief eyeblink of breathing - It's such a depressing view of existence, to me, reducing humanity to the level of a Pavlovian creature, longing for death and a reward that will never come, and if it does come it will be intellectually void.

Thats one view of it - heaven is what you make of it.

All things are what you make of them. That's existentialism. :-)

The main point of heaven is to keep people in line.

I agree, promise of reward in the afterlife for favourable behaviour in real life, is a method of control.
That's how we got the Divine Right of Kings - the peasents were happy that the King had all the power and comfort, because God wouldn't have had them born poor if he wanted them to live in comfort.

There are some good rules in there too - thou shalt not kill is a fairly good piece of advice if you live in a community.

Note the rule in Biblical Hebrew is actually "You shall not Murder". Killing other humans is permitted. Indeed it is often directly ordered by God himself, after the giving of the Decalogue.

Heaven and Hell were the big sticks people used to justify their rules.

I agree. It's part of how you can tell they're human creations.

There are still some useful rules in the 10 commandments.

Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shall not kill/murder.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Great rules for living in a society, broadly.
You shouldn't honour your father and mother if they're evil, mind you. And stealing to save a life would be okay, etc.

Thou sall not covet your neighbor's wife (or anything that belongs to your neighbor).

I have some problems with this rule.
Firstly, it lumps your neighbour's wife in along with his property, his slaves, and his livestock - his owned chattel, in other words.
Secondly, it punishes thought-crime.
Thirdly, coveting can be a root cause for ambition. There's nothing wrong with seeing that your neighbour has a nice new car, and thinking "If I work hard I can have that car too".

The Decalogue also has nothing to say on some significant moral issues:
Where is : You shall not commit genocide
Where is : You shall not rape
Where is : You shall not take slaves

The reason they're not there is that, not long after giving the Ten Commandments to Moses, God comes back to Moses and tells him to commit genocide on a nearby nation of people (God specifically includes babies in the list of types of people to kill). God says to rape their women, and take the women of breeding age that survive the rape as slaves.

It's another reason you can tell that the Bible is a bronze-age human-made (specifically man made) artifact, and not divinely given - You have to ignore the huge swathes of the Bible that's honestly just evil, to the find the 5% that's good and say "aha! *this* is the true heart religion!".

And that 5% that's left? It's just good common sense - There's nothing uniquely religious to the command "Do not murder people".
"Do unto others as you would have them do to you" does appear in the Bible (both in the Old Testament and the New), but it also appears in every other moral philosophy and religion we're aware of, going back to the earliest writings we have, long before the Hebrews began their search for the answers to life's questions.

I'm also convinced all people *are* pavlovian creatures.

I believe we can rise above our base natures and don't have to act only on instinct, "salivating" at the thought of a reward after we die (just so long as we obey the power structures around us in this lifetime, to the obvious benefit of those power structures).

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I'm also convinced all people *are* pavlovian creatures.

I believe we can rise above our base natures and don't have to act only on instinct, "salivating" at the thought of a reward after we die (just so long as we obey the power structures around us in this lifetime, to the obvious benefit of those power structures).

After all that, I find out you're more of an optimist than I am

Human nature is inherently selfish. Finding out its better to cry 'fire' in some areas if you're being raped as people will respond much faster is an entirely depressing thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Yell_Fire

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I'm also convinced all people *are* pavlovian creatures.

I believe we can rise above our base natures and don't have to act only on instinct, "salivating" at the thought of a reward after we die (just so long as we obey the power structures around us in this lifetime, to the obvious benefit of those power structures).

After all that, I find out you're more of an optimist than I am

I find I'm typically much more of an optimist than most religious people. Something to with less fatalistic acceptance of arbitrary (and unchallengeable) rules, I suspect.

Human nature is inherently selfish. Finding out its better to cry 'fire' in some areas if you're being raped as people will respond much faster is an entirely depressing thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Yell_Fire

And I'd never argue that human psychology couldn't do with some better education - I'd argue we might do better as a society if we had dedicated Moral Philosophy classes in schools, instead of Religious Education classes (RE as a subject can be shunted over to the History department, because it is impossible to understand History without the context of religion as a consistent motivating factor behind many world events).

RE in schools is useless.

You either get taught by an atheist who doesn't care about the subject matter in the slightest or you get taught by a believer who forces it on kids who couldn't care less.

'How to be a good person and why you should try' should be taught somewhere in every school.
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Here in Oklahoma religion is not part of our school education AFAIK.

In Germany in the 90s we did have RE. We were split up into 3 groups. Catholics and Lutherans both got RE, and everybody else (and people that didn't want RE) got "Ethics" or "Morality" or something along that line.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
I find I'm typically much more of an optimist than most religious people. Something to with less fatalistic acceptance of arbitrary (and unchallengeable) rules, I suspect.

I'm pessimistic because experiences in life have taught me to always prepare for the worst. That way if the worst happens you're prepared. If it doesn't, its a nice surprise.
Thats nothing to do with religion, more common sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Here in Oklahoma religion is not part of our school education AFAIK.

In Germany in the 90s we did have RE. We were split up into 3 groups. Catholics and Lutherans both got RE, and everybody else (and people that didn't want RE) got "Ethics" or "Morality" or something along that line.

Thats sounds like better sense than when I was a kid - we were lumped into one class regardless of beliefs - bar Jehovahs witnesses (we had one). There were no other religions in our school back then.
It was taught by a a very nice christian man who couldn't control his class in the slightest. The net effect was the amount of atheists in the class grew significantly over the 5 years of secondary school.

PredaKhaine wrote:
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Yup - they get to be part of a prosperous forward-thinking western society. Practical Karma is its own reward, just as long as most people "do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Here in Oklahoma religion is not part of our school education AFAIK.

Here in the UK we technically have an official state religion (Anglicanism). This means that RE normally gets taught as fact by school teachers.
As PredaKhaine says, this has the entirely predictable effect of creating a lot of atheists.

At the last census, 25% ticked "no religion" on the form, and according to polling another 35% or so ticked "christian" for cultural reasons rather than because they believe in the tenets of Christianity (like, "there is a god").

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Yup - they get to be part of a prosperous forward-thinking western society.

Buts thats something most people take for granted.
Would you offer people personal physical gain for being good people?

If the only reason people are good is because of a reward then that says something about them doesn't it.

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Yup - they get to be part of a prosperous forward-thinking western society.

Buts thats something most people take for granted.
Would you offer people personal physical gain for being good people?

I would look to educate them to understand that if everyone (or, almost everyone) obeys The Golden Rule, then they'll get back what they gave, a thousandfold. There are atheist-majority countries like Sweden that don't seem to have descended into Darwinian anarchy after they threw off the mind-shackles of faith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shredder wrote:
If the only reason people are good is because of a reward then that says something about them doesn't it.

Indeed, you're not actually inculcating "goodness" in people. You're just making them behave in the manner you want them to because they're afraid of being tortured by a demon named Lucifer for all eternity.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Yup - they get to be part of a prosperous forward-thinking western society.

Buts thats something most people take for granted.
Would you offer people personal physical gain for being good people?

I would look to educate them to understand that if everyone (or, almost everyone) obeys The Golden Rule, then they'll get back what they gave, a thousandfold. There are atheist-majority countries like Sweden that don't seem to have descended into Darwinian anarchy after they threw off the mind-shackles of faith.

I'm not sure I agree with the golden rule - do I therefore need to be punished or re-educated?

(I actually don't - I think it creates an impression of a 2 way contract. Like giving a birthday present and expecting one back)

I think a better rule would be to treat others better than you expect to be treated. But thats far too idealistic

PredaKhaine wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with the golden rule - do I therefore need to be punished or re-educated?

(I actually don't - I think it creates an impression of a 2 way contract. Like giving a birthday present and expecting one back)

A 2-way contract is a pretty sensible way to look at it I think. That's what society is - a contract to behave within the expected norms of that society.
If you transgress those norms, you're going to either end up with the norms moving (racism or homophobia becoming unacceptable springs to mind), revolution (the rules are not moved, but entirely replaced with incompatible rules), or anarchy (the rules are breached so often as to become meaningless).

I'd submit that the various atheist-majority counties in the world tend to show that it's more often the former, than the latter two, that happens.

I think a better rule would be to treat others better than you expect to be treated. But thats far too idealistic

We can call that one the Titanium rule, if you like (The Platinum Rule and The Silver Rule are already taken, as variations on The Golden Rule). :-)



“Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error.”

― Linus Pauling

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:

(I actually don't - I think it creates an impression of a 2 way contract. Like giving a birthday present and expecting one back)

A 2-way contract is a pretty sensible way to look at it I think. That's what society is - a contract to behave within the expected norms of that society.
If you transgress those norms, you're going to either end up with the norms moving (racism or homophobia becoming unacceptable springs to mind), revolution (the rules are not moved, but entirely replaced with incompatible rules), or anarchy (the rules are breached so often as to become meaningless).

Its the expectation of giving to receive I don't like - If you do something nice for someone, you automatically expect the same in return. It would be nice to live in a society where if someone did something nice for you, they did it through sheer altruism. Not because they gave you something and now they want it back - like a society of loan venders...

Evil & Chaos wrote:

“Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error.”
― Linus Pauling

Awesome quote

since when did this start being a discussion on social contract and not one about religion? Besides, the concept of the social contract is silly and prone to failing stress-tests *cough* egypt *cough* *sneeze*gaza strip*sneeze*

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:

(I actually don't - I think it creates an impression of a 2 way contract. Like giving a birthday present and expecting one back)

A 2-way contract is a pretty sensible way to look at it I think. That's what society is - a contract to behave within the expected norms of that society.
If you transgress those norms, you're going to either end up with the norms moving (racism or homophobia becoming unacceptable springs to mind), revolution (the rules are not moved, but entirely replaced with incompatible rules), or anarchy (the rules are breached so often as to become meaningless).

Its the expectation of giving to receive I don't like - If you do something nice for someone, you automatically expect the same in return. It would be nice to live in a society where if someone did something nice for you, did it through sheer altruism. Not because they gave you something and now they want it back - like a society of loan venders...

I'd agree that there is a strong element of self-interest to the general application of the golden rule.
However I think that it's unavoidable - wanting to live in a more peaceful and happy world is an inately selfish act.

If you're not going to motivate someone to be good out of fear (of being burned alive in Hell for all eternity), then appealing to their self-interest seems a fairly logical philosophy. The only people who don't want to live in a happy, peaceful world are the religiously ideological, mad people, and arms dealers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 poda_t wrote:
since when did this start being a discussion on social contract and not one about religion? Besides, the concept of the social contract is silly and prone to failing stress-tests *cough* egypt *cough* *sneeze*gaza strip*sneeze*

Since we decided that one of the main functions of religion in the real world is to form a de-facto social contract.

Egypty and Gaza hardly count as examples of a failing (unified) social contract, because both situations are examples of opposed religious views causing friction (broadly speaking).

 Shredder wrote:
If the only reason people are good is because of a reward then that says something about them doesn't it.

I always liked this man, his quotes are something to chew on:

Robert Heinlein

"Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly — and no doubt will keep on trying."

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."

"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful —just stupid.)"

"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?"

I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

 Troike wrote:
I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

One of the reasons I hate Space Marines, their cult like ideology and 'burn first, ask questions never' attitude. Very dark ages Christianity.

 Shredder wrote:

 Troike wrote:
I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

One of the reasons I hate Space Marines, their cult like ideology and 'burn first, ask questions never' attitude. Very dark ages Christianity.

This actually kinda came up in a thread before, so I'll post my thoughts on it. Personally, I think it's allright to admire those sorts of traits if it's fictional characters that have them. For example, if those Marines were real and hurting real people, then we would most likely rightfully depsise them. However, since they're fictional, we can appreciate aspects of their zealot themes- the dedication to duty, the righteous rage and the refusal to back down, all things that appeal to the average Space Marine fanboy. On a similar note, we don't go around accusing Ork fans of supporting football hooligan riots or Khorne fans of liking senseless bloodshed IRL.

Don't get me wrong, if those traits put you off then feel free to dislike them, but it needn't put you off entirely. Like I said, I'm an atheist but I've come to love a group of fanatical warrior zealots.

Can you make a chapter that keeps on bugging the cult mechanicum and telling them "look guys, it's not the omnisiah. It's just basic engineering!" and then arguing against the Sisters of Battle before telling Chaos to bugger off because they are not real? (I truly say this in jest)

Space Marines are probably the most atheist branch of the imperium anyway though.

 d-usa wrote:
Can you make a chapter that keeps on bugging the cult mechanicum and telling them "look guys, it's not the omnisiah. It's just basic engineering!" and then arguing against the Sisters of Battle before telling Chaos to bugger off because they are not real? (I truly say this in jest)

Would they have power fedoras and engage SoBs and Chaos alike in fierce debate over wireless transmissions?

I too, am of course joking. Obviously those are just stereotypes.

 d-usa wrote:
Space Marines are probably the most atheist branch of the imperium anyway though.

Probably true. What's funny though is that a casual obsserver would never realise this, what with all the cries of "purge!", "cleanse!" and all that. Plus they have Chaplains and also dub some of their enemies as "heretics". I suppose it says something about how heavily 40K draws from its influences that the main human faction of non-believers really isn't all that recognisible as such to us modern people.

 Troike wrote:

 Shredder wrote:

 Troike wrote:
I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

One of the reasons I hate Space Marines, their cult like ideology and 'burn first, ask questions never' attitude. Very dark ages Christianity.

This actually kinda came up in a thread before, so I'll post my thoughts on it. Personally, I think it's allright to admire those sorts of traits if it's fictional characters that have them. For example, if those Marines were real and hurting real people, then we would most likely rightfully depsise them. However, since they're fictional, we can appreciate aspects of their zealot themes- the dedication to duty, the righteous rage and the refusal to back down, all things that appeal to the average Space Marine fanboy. On a similar note, we don't go around accusing Ork fans of supporting football hooligan riots or Khorne fans of liking senseless bloodshed IRL.

Don't get me wrong, if those traits put you off then feel free to dislike them, but it needn't put you off entirely. Like I said, I'm an atheist but I've come to love a group of fanatical warrior zealots.

Ha, yeah I get what you're saying. After all my main army is Dark Eldar and they're not exactly the nicest of people. In fact there aren't any nice factions, that's why it's grim dark.

While I do try to worship His Noodliness every second day or so, I am by all sensible means an atheist.

I can tolerate religion in other people as long as they don't oppress others.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Atheist. I'm an atheist because I see our culture and race is the macro sense. As in, current religions are just another phase in the evolving beliefs of mankind. My realization of this made me also realize that soon our religions will fade and new ones will replace them. After reaching this mindset I couldn't continue worshipping god in earnest. I

Geez hasn't happened for a while has it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

treslibras wrote:
While I do try to worship His Noodliness every second day or so, I am by all sensible means an atheist.

I can tolerate religion in other people as long as they don't oppress others.

The fact that you mentioned "tolerance" and "religion" when most of the world is religious doesn't speak well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Can you make a chapter that keeps on bugging the cult mechanicum and telling them "look guys, it's not the omnisiah. It's just basic engineering!" and then arguing against the Sisters of Battle before telling Chaos to bugger off because they are not real? (I truly say this in jest)

Space Marines are probably the most atheist branch of the imperium anyway though.

Sometimes sentient seeming AIs are basic engineering? Yeah.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shredder wrote:

 Troike wrote:
I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

One of the reasons I hate Space Marines, their cult like ideology and 'burn first, ask questions never' attitude. Very dark ages Christianity.

That's dark age Christian ideology? What? Never got within a solar system of being that extreme.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

 Shredder wrote:
If the only reason people are good is because of a reward then that says something about them doesn't it.

I always liked this man, his quotes are something to chew on:

Robert Heinlein

"Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly — and no doubt will keep on trying."

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."

"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful —just stupid.)"

"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?"

I remember a quote of how different man is from every other animal. Whereas nature subjugates every other animal we subjugate it. Mankind is above fighting for survival.......

I worship the dark gods! My personal patron being Tzeentch gotta live the plans even if you are being manipulated in a grander plan than yours (in all seriousness agnostic. I don't give one flip whether a god, gods, or flying spagetti monster lives I'll live my life how I believe it to be right. If one chooses that is wrong then so be it. I'll help my friends, work for a tomorrow, and live my days trying to strive for better whatever such an arbitrary word means)

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
Geez hasn't happened for a while has it?

When mankind explores the realms of the gods, man learns there are no gods and the ones which come to replace the old gods live in ever more remote parts of the universe until we come to the gods of today who don't live on mountains or in lakes but who exist outside of space and time itself and have no physical presence in the universe.

It is very hard to disprove something for which there is no proof of its existance or non-existance. At least for those who believe that there is something there despite a lack of any kind of evidence for there being anything in existance at all...

But then it is not our place to disprove your claims, but for you to prove them.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
Geez hasn't happened for a while has it?

When mankind explores the realms of the gods, man learns there are no gods and the ones which come to replace the old gods live in ever more remote parts of the universe until we come to the gods of today who don't live on mountains or in lakes but who exist outside of space and time itself and have no physical presence in the universe.

It is very hard to disprove something for which there is no proof of its existance or non-existance. At least for those who believe that there is something there despite a lack of any kind of evidence for there being anything in existance at all...

But then it is not our place to disprove your claims, but for you to prove them.

I didn't make a claim......
But regardless Mankind is very new in its scientific knowledge.
Far too new to even disprove God's chilling only 50 light years away.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

treslibras wrote:
While I do try to worship His Noodliness every second day or so, I am by all sensible means an atheist.

I can tolerate religion in other people as long as they don't oppress others.

The fact that you mentioned "tolerance" and "religion" when most of the world is religious doesn't speak well.

No idea what you want to say. (Could be a language thing.)

I think one point a lot of people are missing is that the until the Second Coming and if God is what the Bible says he is (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc...) then no matter how far humanity goes in terms of science or understanding the physical realm that God being God will be able to make himself undetectable by any mortal means anyhow. He lets us choose whether or not to follow him because if he appeared before us (which considering our inherent sin and mortality wouldn't be able to comprehend his full divinity which could very well lead to head explosions) it would take away the option of free will of choosing a life for yourself or one for God. Now obviously this brings up the question of whether or not there is free will but I seriously doubt most people will try to say that you are in no way accountable for your own actions. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that at some level this favour God has towards free-will rather than having mindless obedient automatons is made up by us being made in his image as creative autonomous beings. Hell even a third of the angels fell and they knew of God's divinity and they don't get a chance like we did. Hell is just a fulfillment of people who don't want anything to do with God as it is an area devoid of his presence where your only company are with people that roam from unrepentant hedonists to genocidal maniacs.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
I didn't make a claim......

You posted seemingly in support of certain religious claism; my point is that it is the remit of the claimant to support their claim rather than anyone elses to refute it. Especially when no proof is offered to support said claim.

But regardless Mankind is very new in its scientific knowledge.

In some ways, certainly. However look at how much we have discovered in such a short time. I guess actually working, studying and attempting to understand has done more for humanity than prayer and (re)interpreting and rewriting a couple of books over and over again.

Far too new to even disprove God's chilling only 50 light years away.

I'm sorry, but you have lost me here...

Someday in the far future Humanity may become "Gods" themselves. Look at all the stuff that we are doing now that just 100 years ago we thought that only "God" could do.

 tigonesskay wrote:
Someday in the far future Humanity may become "Gods" themselves. Look at all the stuff that we are doing now that just 100 years ago we thought that only "God" could do.

Definitely.

Take a man with an iPad, a car, and a gun, back in time a couple thousand years, and he'd be a God in very little time indeed.


At the time of the Ark of the Covenant's construction, if those things that are said about it are true*** (its ability to flash with lightning and apparently sometimes kill on contact), it must have seemed a miracle from God made manifest.

Now we know how certain materials can be made to interact with static electricity charges, building an object to hold and then discharge an electrical charge is to a modern mind an extremely mundane thing, a plaything of children. It would be laughable to claim such a thing as being divine.


***And since there's zero archeological evidence for the Exodus, they're probably not true, or at least grandly exaggerated. But let's assume they are true for the purpose of this thought experiment.

Was a hardened atheist but found my salvation in Jesus Christ
Any questions, comments or anything pm me I will be more than happy to discuss intellectually

Atheist. Its the only thing that makes sense to me. I wont believe anything else without evidence, why exclude god. That being said, each to their own.

 BlackOps wrote:
Atheist. Its the only thing that makes sense to me. I wont believe anything else without evidence, why exclude god. That being said, each to their own.

I've never seen snow
But in all seriousness a brand of science I call "grandiose science" (faster than light travel, how many atoms are in the universe, consciousness being a dimension , what relationship space and time really share (changes almost yearly), Bending space and time, dimensional travel, Accurate mapping of the expansion of the universe over time) is based on no evidence once so ever and is entirely conjecture and theory.
We don't know gak as a species, and so it's silly to take the view you're taking.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
I've never seen snow

I have seen snow, but even if you have not, snow is an observable, physical thing that you could easily go and see for yourself at any time.

But in all seriousness a brand of science I call "grandiose science" (faster than light travel, how many atoms are in the universe, consciousness being a dimension , what relationship space and time really share (changes almost yearly), Bending space and time, dimensional travel, Accurate mapping of the expansion of the universe over time) is based on no evidence once so ever and is entirely conjecture and theory.

Actually a most of your so called "grandiose science" is based in reality. Some of it is even testable. Even the highly theoretical stuff can be examined by others and at least tested for rigour.

We don't know gak as a species, and so it's silly to take the view you're taking.

Ah, I see... so because we don't know everything in the universe, we can't say that some things are so vanishingly improbable they essentially have no chance of existing? We can't say that if you have some outlandish concept, such as a magical unicorn flying through space controlling all actions in the universe with magical dust it shoots out of its butt it is up to you to put forward some kind of evidence that it exists rather than relying on some kind of knowledge gap defence and being able to say "well, you can't prove it doesn't exist! LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!".

And we know enough about the universe to say that what exists and how it functions does not require a god, that what exists and how it functions shows no evidence of there being, or having been, a god.

You want to believe some insane gibberish, go for it. Believe whatever you want. Most places allow freedom of belief (at least to an extent), but don't suggest that science and religion share the same kind of underpinnings, or that "science can't explain everything yet so we are right!" because unfortunately that is not how the world works.

Edit: Fixed quotes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
I think one point a lot of people are missing is that the until the Second Coming and if God is what the Bible says he is (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc...) then no matter how far humanity goes in terms of science or understanding the physical realm that God being God will be able to make himself undetectable by any mortal means anyhow. He lets us choose whether or not to follow him because if he appeared before us (which considering our inherent sin and mortality wouldn't be able to comprehend his full divinity which could very well lead to head explosions) it would take away the option of free will of choosing a life for yourself or one for God. Now obviously this brings up the question of whether or not there is free will but I seriously doubt most people will try to say that you are in no way accountable for your own actions. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that at some level this favour God has towards free-will rather than having mindless obedient automatons is made up by us being made in his image as creative autonomous beings. Hell even a third of the angels fell and they knew of God's divinity and they don't get a chance like we did. Hell is just a fulfillment of people who don't want anything to do with God as it is an area devoid of his presence where your only company are with people that roam from unrepentant hedonists to genocidal maniacs.

So, you have any proof at all that anything you have just said even vaguely approaches reality?

Every time I want to make a reply to something here, I end up being flooded with incandescent rage at the willing and intentional ignorance... and I don't mean the ignorance of science, I mean, ignorance and inconsistency of the very content of the idea being suggested. No self-referential fact checking, no attempt to generate any kind of internal consistency at all and preposterous arguments that if followed through from their source to conclusion with all facts line up come out as nonsense, untrue or simply BS.

This is about all I can write without ending up with a 30+ paragraph response comprised almost exclusively of sarcastic non-constructive remarks.......

 Grimskul wrote:
I think one point a lot of people are missing is that the until the Second Coming

Jesus says in the Bible he'll come back before everyone then alive had died.
He didn't come back, so either he lied when he promised his followers he'd return in ~30 years, or he didn't actually have the power to come back to life at all (Guess which one I think is more likely).

and if God is what the Bible says he is (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc...) then no matter how far humanity goes in terms of science or understanding the physical realm that God being God will be able to make himself undetectable by any mortal means anyhow.

What kind of horrible God would do that?

To give actual evidence of his existence to some iron age Palestinian peasants, but then start hiding and expect everyone else to take it on trust?
That's just pointlessly nasty behavior.

He lets us choose whether or not to follow him because if he appeared before us (which considering our inherent sin and mortality wouldn't be able to comprehend his full divinity which could very well lead to head explosions) it would take away the option of free will of choosing a life for yourself or one for God.

Free will clearly doesn't exist in the Christian model of the universe.

An omnipotent, omniscient Creator is incompatible with the idea of his creations having free will, because the creator's omniscience at the moment of Creation means the creator knows everything that will ever happen down to the tiniest detail (Jesus says God knows the number of hairs on your head) when he creates his Creation.

If he didn't know everything that would ever happen, he wouldn't be omniscient.

Either God knows everything, or God granted free will to his creations.
You don't get to have both, it's not logically self-consistent.

Now obviously this brings up the question of whether or not there is free will but I seriously doubt most people will try to say that you are in no way accountable for your own actions.

As an existentialist atheist, I don't actually know whether free will exists or not - and I'm comfortable not knowing.

Hell even a third of the angels fell and they knew of God's divinity and they don't get a chance like we did.

In the Christian model, God knew that a third of the Angels would turn against him at the moment he created them.
He always knew, and he was not surprised by their rebellion, because he knows everything.

Just because in the Christian myth God creates some creations that rebel against him, that does not prove free will exists in the Christian model of the universe.
It just proves that God made something to attack himself, presumably either in order to provide an instructional lesson to some of his creations, or simply because God enjoys creating things destined to go to eternal punishment in Hell.

Hell is just a fulfillment of people who don't want anything to do with God as it is an area devoid of his presence where your only company are with people that roam from unrepentant hedonists to genocidal maniacs.

Actually, according to the Christian model, the main criteria for getting into Heaven are:
1 - Belief in Jesus
2 - Repentance for sins

Under the Christian model of the afterlife, the most brutal Christian Serial killers get admitted to Heaven as long as they repent before they die (plenty do), and Buddhist saints go to Hell (because they don't believe in Jesus).


Random aside:
If the Bible didn't so relentlessly tell you God was the good one, and Satan was the bad one, would you be able to come to that conclusion just by reading the text?
I'm not so sure.
Consider Genesis.

- God creates everything (and bear in mind he knows everything, so he already knows everything that's about to happen)
- God tells Eve that if she eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge, she will die (this is a lie)
- The Snake tells Eve that if she eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge, she will gain sentience (this is the truth)
- Eve eats the fruit, and gains sentience. Her beau Adam also takes a bite.
- God is pissed. The Angels are pissed, and ask God to kick Eve & Adam out of the garden of Eden, not as punishment, but so that they don't also eat a fruit from the tree of eternal life and become like angels.
- God agrees with the angels and kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden.
- God curses Eve (and all her daughters throughout the rest of time) with extremely painful childbirths for the sin of not believing God's lie.
- God curses the snake to lose its legs, for the sin of telling the truth to Eve.

How do you read that story, and come away thinking God is the good guy?

Might as well throw that up for discussion:

Source

Hey atheists, let’s make a deal
Opinion by Rachel Held Evans, special to CNN

(CNN) – Famed atheist Richard Dawkins has been rightfully criticized this week for saying the “mild pedophilia” he and other English children experienced in the 1950s “didn’t cause any lasting harm.”

This comes after an August tweet in which Dawkins declared that “all the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.”

Dawkins is known for pushing his provocative rhetorical style too far, providing ample ammunition for his critics, and already I’ve seen my fellow Christians seize the opportunity to rail against the evils of atheism.

As tempting as it is to classify Dawkins’ views as representative of all atheists, I can’t bring myself to do it.

I can’t bring myself to do it because I know just how frustrating and unfair it is when atheists point to the most extreme, vitriolic voices within Christianity and proclaim that they are representative of the whole.

So, atheists, I say we make a deal: How about we Christians agree not to throw this latest Richard Dawkins thing in your face and you atheists agree not to throw the next Pat Robertson thing in ours?

Now I’m not saying we just let these destructive words and actions go—not at all. It’s important for both believers and atheists to decry irresponsible views and hateful rhetoric, especially from within our own communities.

(Believe me. There are plenty of Christians who raise hell every time Robertson says something homophobic or a celebrity pastor somewhere says something misogynistic.)

But what if we resist the urge to use the latest celebrity gaffe as an excuse to paint one another with broad brushes?

What if, instead of engaging the ideas of the most extreme and irrational Christians and atheists, we engaged the ideas of the most reasonable, the most charitable, the most respectful and respected?

Only then can we avoid these shallow ad hominem attacks and instead engage in substantive debates that bring our true differences and our true commonalities to light.

It’s harder to go this route, and it takes more work and patience, but I’m convinced that both Christians and atheists are interested in the truth and in searching for it with integrity, without taking the easy way out.

Pope Francis took a step in that direction this week with a letter in a Rome newspaper responding directly to questions posed by its atheist director and inviting respectful open dialog between nonbelievers and Christians.

So, yes, Richard Dawkins is an atheist. But so are authors Greg Epstein and Susan Jacoby. So is my friend and fellow blogger Hemant Mehta. So is Sir Ian McKellen. So is ethicist Peter Singer, who may or may not be the best example.

And yes, Pat Robertson is a Christian. But so is Nelson Mandela. So is acclaimed geneticist Francis Collins. So is Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee. So is Barack Obama. So is Stephen Colbert.

And I'm willing to bet that the same collective groan emitted by millions of Christians each time Pat Robertson says something embarrassing on TV sounds a lot like the collective groan emitted by millions of atheists when Richard Dawkins rants on Twitter.

Still, in the end, it’s not about who has the most charismatic or generous personalities in their roster, nor about who has the most “crazies.” It’s about the truth.

So let’s talk about the truth, and with the people who most consistently and graciously point us toward it.

Rachel Held Evans is the author of "A Year of Biblical Womanhood" and "Evolving in Monkey Town." Evans blogs at rachelheldevans.com, and the views expressed in this column belong to her.

How about we Christians agree not to throw this latest Richard Dawkins thing in your face and you atheists agree not to throw the next Pat Robertson thing in ours?

I go for the claims of religion, rather than the claims of religious people.

As the author states, it's all to easy to point at religious loonies and laugh. The real challenge is in looking at the basic religious claims themselves, and working out just how self-contradictory and incompatible with reality they are.

I don't think anything Dawkins says in his abrupt, possibly insulting way is any where near as embarrassing as the things Pat Robertson comes out with.
I'm a big fan of Dawkins, I think most of what he says is great.

A great quote I read, unfortunately I can't remember who said it, is "If the fundamentalists are wrong, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals."

If Pat Robertson and other fundamental Christians say things embarrassing, then there must be something embarrassing about the fundamental Christianity that they're adhering to.
Same goes for all religions.

 Shredder wrote:
"If the fundamentalists are wrong, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals."

Not really, since the 'fundamentals' they stick to are usually the worst bits all rolled together, ignoring the good, kind parts.

 motyak wrote:

 Shredder wrote:
"If the fundamentalists are wrong, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals."

Not really, since the 'fundamentals' they stick to are usually the worst bits all rolled together, ignoring the good, kind parts.

if one picks and chooses only the rosy parts, not only does one not really hold that faith, i find it hard to respect a person that says that they adhere to that faith but disagree with X. I'm fine with splinter sects, because the members of those splinters adhere to the tenets of those splinters. What I have a problem with are people who, for example, say they are Christians, and then spout off every reason why they are really socially well adjusted agnostics that go to church on sundays in order to appease relatives, neighbours and friends.

the trick is that fundamentalists are trying to remind you of your duties as a good X. It's why jesus was killed. He was--assuming that he was in fact real, and not the fabrication of the same kind of process that gives us narratives involving greek and roman pantheons, and, to a degree, books of the bible long-since discarded for whatever reason--a fundamentalist jew, and the cosmopolitan and Romanized jews in the cities happened to not care so much for all that old junk. There's a little more to it than just dismissing the extremists because they don't share your view or because it's inconvenient to have to deal with them for whatever reason. Dismissing fundamentalists would also require dismissing the faith itself. It's those very same fundamentals that make up, say, the entirety of christianity, though it's disagreements over those same fundamentals that establishes the different sects. Note that it isn't dismissal, but differing interpretation.

 motyak wrote:

 Shredder wrote:
"If the fundamentalists are wrong, then there is something wrong with the fundamentals."

Not really, since the 'fundamentals' they stick to are usually the worst bits all rolled together, ignoring the good, kind parts.

I prefer the label "literalists" to "fundamentalists", since that's what they do, they take their holy books seriously.


When they see Jesus condoning slavery in the New Testament, they say "Jesus thinks Slavery is fine". And here's the kicker: they're right.

Jesus does condone slavery. And he does compare God's relationship to his humans to a master who beats his slaves. Likewise, Muslim literalists aren't rooting around in the Quran to find the occasional passage that they can mis-translate in order to justify their politics - they're just taking the words of their God as written down in the Quran and taking them seriously - the Quran does command Muslims to strike off heads and fingertips of unbelievers, the New Testament does condone slavery, the Old Testament does say that people who try to change their religion should be immediately killed.

It takes revisionism, ignoring or intentionally mis-translating huge parts of the "holy" text in order to make the moral lessons of the "holy" books actually moral for today's society.


For example:
The Tenth Commandment in the Ten Commandments refers to not coveting thy neighbour's slaves.
Then the passages immediately after the Ten Commandments give extensive and explicit rules on when and how to take slaves, how to treat them (you may beat them as long as they don't die), and who gets to own your slaves when you die (your children inherit them).

How can one begin to pretend that is part of a moral worldview unless you intentionally mis-translate "slaves" as "servants" (as most english translations do) in the Ten Commandments, and simply ignore the following passages about taking and owning slaves?

These were the passages that were used to justify American slavery as late as the 1860's, less than 150 years ago... there are a small handful of old people alive today who are children of people who fought in that war.

So in order to be a moral religious person, one has to ignore the vast tracks of unambiguous evil to be found in the religious books.

But by the same token, how can you claim to be a follower of a religion, if you do ignore the parts that you don't like? You're ignoring the direct commands of the God you claim to hold holy and eternally moral.
It is hypocritical behaviour, IMO.

Atheist, because Chaos is not yet a recognised religion. Just kidding. Maybe

I just don't want to believe in any of your gods or deities. I don't wamt them, need them or wish to have anything to do with them. I've gotten this far without worshipping and my policy is; If the system works, don't feth with it!

Closest I would say would be pagan. I don't believe in deities or greater powers in the way most organized religions put it. Basically my views are you can believe what you want just don't proselytize and scaremonger others and that religion should have no contact or influence on how a country is run.

What?? No Jedi?

I had some Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door yesterday. I had a nice little chat with them.
I told them I was atheist and we talked a bit about how the universe was created and how could life have come about. I told them the theory about anti-particles and how they cancel out energy so that the energy total at the beginning was nothing yet there was still something. However not being Leonard Krauss, I don't think I convinced them.
I think they will be back since I was interested in what they had to say. I think I'll invite them in for a cup of tea next time and really get stuck in. Wonder if I can convert them to atheism?
I must be crazy.

Atheist, but I couldn't judge a person less for their faith unless they made it a point to push it onto others, guilt trip people, etc.

More often than not I find men and women of faith to be good people who are easy to like, despite the bad some very few individuals do.

No adherents of the "God Emperor"?

If all science and religion was erased from the planet, and had to start again from scratch, science would discover the same things, whereas religion would (if it rose at all) be different to what we have now.
That alone disproves the concept to me.

I should be an agnostic, but I'm not. I'm really an atheist. This quote is from Howard Phillip Lovecraft, but the bold part pretty well explain my feeling on all religions I know :

All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist.

Now of course, I don't obviously share all of Lovecraft's idea (he was also a racist ), but this quote really sums up my idea on the subject. For me, being an atheist is not about not believing in god(s), because there is no definition of god outside of religions, it's just about seeing the very nature of religion as preposterous. Claiming to know something we have no way of knowing, with extremely dubious argument, is a credibility-killer to me. Not to mention how those things almost always end up being pretty specific and looking like ad-hoc additions .

Troike wrote:I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

It's really not surprising, though. If you were religious, the Sisters would not only be heretics to you ( ), but would also portray the worse part of religion. Not something you would want to be reminded about. I mean, except if you were actually a frothing xenophobic zealot ready to kill anyone not agreeing with him. But then again, the whole “Sisters are heretics” thing would come even more into play.
I tend to believe the proportion of atheists and militant atheists among Sisters player outweigh by far their proportion among 40k players in general.

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:But in all seriousness a brand of science I call "grandiose science" (faster than light travel, how many atoms are in the universe, consciousness being a dimension , what relationship space and time really share (changes almost yearly), Bending space and time, dimensional travel, Accurate mapping of the expansion of the universe over time) is based on no evidence once so ever and is entirely conjecture and theory.

Except anyone believe science's role is to give us truth certainly has slept during the whole 20th century. Science is about finding a good enough model. Something that match all the possible observations. And among all the possible theories that do match all observations, we are going toward those that allows to predict as many things as possible. And then we look at the most plausible ones.
But really, if truth meant anything to science, we would have gave up on classical mechanics as soon as we would have found out they were false (and consequentially, likely all have gone mad). We didn't, because it was a good enough approximation in most case. Just like it's replacement are likely just good enough approximation for a theory that we will discover later, which in turn will be an approximation, and so on.
I seriously don't understand how anyone could pretend to know some truth about the way reality functions after classical mechanics' basic principle turned out to be false despite how much they made perfect sense and perfectly described all we could ever every hope to experience. And if those people base their claims on old books, and old traditions, and “inner revelations”, and “common sense”…

 marv335 wrote:
If all science and religion was erased from the planet, and had to start again from scratch, science would discover the same things, whereas religion would (if it rose at all) be different to what we have now.
That alone disproves the concept to me.

Except, you have no idea that that is true.

The nature of God and Truth, according to the Bible, were revealed to us through revelation. Your argument is right based on the assumtion that there is no God and no such thing as divine revelation. Congratulations.

 The Bringer wrote:
The nature of God and Truth, according to the Bible, were revealed to us through revelation. Your argument is right based on the assumtion that there is no God and no such thing as divine revelation. Congratulations.

So, you do mean his or her argument would only be true for every non-biblical religions (which are actually more than half of humanity even if you consider Islam and Bahaism as Biblical) ? Not so bad actually.

 d-usa wrote:
No adherents of the "God Emperor"?

It's an awesome religion. Flexible, too, since the Inquisition doesn't care how you worship the Emperor as long as you pay your tithes to the Administratum and fight for the Imperium when the time comes. All 11 of us Spehss Muslims on the board could be Spehss Mehreens, too! That'd be awesome.

 The Bringer wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If all science and religion was erased from the planet, and had to start again from scratch, science would discover the same things, whereas religion would (if it rose at all) be different to what we have now.
That alone disproves the concept to me.

Except, you have no idea that that is true.

The nature of God and Truth, according to the Bible, were revealed to us through revelation. Your argument is right based on the assumtion that there is no God and no such thing as divine revelation. Congratulations.

Way to ignore the fact that not all religions are biblical.

And actually, there is some small degree of evidence that he's right - as human cultures have developed in different, isolated parts of the world, they have created unique, non-compatible religions: Pagan elemental beings, the Greco-Roman gods, the Hindu gods, the Viking gods, Native American spirit worship, the Judeo-Christian god, etc. This points to the fact that a human culture, without any outside influence doesn't tend to any one particular version of religion, and there's nothing to indicate that any religions created after this reset button is pressed would bear any indication to current ones except for YOUR assumption that scripture is true.

Whereas scientific principles that have made it as far as accepted theory are globally true, and would remain so after this 'event' that causes civilisation to start again (and would eventually be rediscovered).

TheSGC wrote:It's an awesome religion. Flexible, too, since the Inquisition doesn't care how you worship the Emperor as long as you pay your tithes to the Administratum and fight for the Imperium when the time comes.

Yeah… except if you are a mutant. Then, you are doomed to have a life that sucks.

 Riquende wrote:

Way to ignore the fact that not all religions are biblical.

I give 1 case when the argument is wrong, and the statement is disproven. Besides, there are many other religions that involve divine revelation.

 Riquende wrote:

And actually, there is some small degree of evidence that he's right - as human cultures have developed in different, isolated parts of the world, they have created unique, non-compatible religions: Pagan elemental beings, the Greco-Roman gods, the Hindu gods, the Viking gods, Native American spirit worship, the Judeo-Christian god, etc. This points to the fact that a human culture, without any outside influence doesn't tend to any one particular version of religion, and there's nothing to indicate that any religions created after this reset button is pressed would bear any indication to current ones except for YOUR assumption that scripture is true.

Everything you have said so far is "suggests". There is nothing concrete, far from it. I make no assumption. I am merely giving reasons why the blanket statement given is false, and the reasoning flawed.

And besides, you're wrong to says that human culture hasn't gravitated towards any religion, as Islam and Christianity are both the largest religion and share VERY similar roots. You can trace their roots back to 2 brothers. Saying that humans don't tend to any "version" of a religion is natural for any religion. There are many uncertainties in Christianity, for example, and although they are not crucial it does lead to what you might call "versions" of Christianity.

 Riquende wrote:

Whereas scientific principles that have made it as far as accepted theory are globally true, and would remain so after this 'event' that causes civilization to start again (and would eventually be rediscovered).

Does it look like I'm questioning this fact?

 The Bringer wrote:
And besides, you're wrong to says that human culture hasn't gravitated towards any religion, as Islam and Christianity are both the largest religion and share VERY similar roots.

And the third largest is Hinduism, that is REALLY EXTREMELY different from both Islam and Christianity. The simple fact of being polytheist is anathema to those two others. So your point doesn't seem that solid.

Christian... Live in a country were people killed each other for centuries over 'religion' (Northern Ireland) but knowing many of the protagonists they were never interests in God just in money, power and the usual crap people want. People have abused God forever and will continue to do it, probably guilty of it myself more than I care to admit.

Being a Christian to me isn't some mad crusade or weird life it's just normal life trying to connect each day with my creator who has given me so much. And in reality I'm not much good at it, but will keep at it because its pretty immense!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
And besides, you're wrong to says that human culture hasn't gravitated towards any religion, as Islam and Christianity are both the largest religion and share VERY similar roots.

And the third largest is Hinduism, that is REALLY EXTREMELY different from both Islam and Christianity. The simple fact of being polytheist is anathema to those two others. So your point doesn't seem that solid.

Even so, the whole dominance of religion thing is completely irrelevant.

 The Bringer wrote:
I give 1 case when the argument is wrong, and the statement is disproven. Besides, there are many other religions that involve divine revelation.

The point was "humans would create different religions after a reset button", you said "nuh-uh", and you think that's somehow disproving the point? What different religions have or don't have is irrelevant, they're not the same religion. Hell, Christianity isn't even consistent in its own beliefs, or you wouldn't have the crazy number of splinter groups out there.

Everything you have said so far is "suggests". There is nothing concrete, far from it. I make no assumption. I am merely giving reasons why the blanket statement given is false, and the reasoning flawed.

I accept there's nothing concrete (otherwise where would the need for debate be), but I'd rather have something logical supporting the point. And yes, you are making the assumption, your entire entire point of view presupposes that one religion is true, and guess what? It happens to be yours. You haven't given any reason why the 'blanket statement' is false other than you think it is. I refute your 'reasons' with "I don't care".

And besides, you're wrong to says that human culture hasn't gravitated towards any religion, as Islam and Christianity are both the largest religion and share VERY similar roots. You can trace their roots back to 2 brothers. Saying that humans don't tend to any "version" of a religion is natural for any religion. There are many uncertainties in Christianity, for example, and although they are not crucial it does lead to what you might call "versions" of Christianity.

No, I'm right in what I say. Islam has evolved from the other Abrahamic faiths, which is why I didn't include Islam in my list (I also grouped Judaism and Christianity and Greek and Roman gods for the same purpose). Human cultures that evolved independently, with no cross-cultural contamination or forced conversion have developed entirely different religions, even if some basic aspects (a creation myth, a single divine being, etc) are the same. Your claim of humans 'gravitating' towards one religion (Christianity) is easily explained by European global colonisation, forced conversion due to the Inquisition/Crusaders, Missionary work in the third world, so on. Hardly a 'natural gravitiation' of independent cultures towards one truth.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about 'versions' of one faith, I'm talking about completely independent religions beliefs.

Does it look like I'm questioning this fact?

Not interested, included for comparitive purpose.

Edit: massive quote tag failures.

 Riquende wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
I give 1 case when the argument is wrong, and the statement is disproven. Besides, there are many other religions that involve divine revelation.

The point was "humans would create different religions after a reset button", you said "nuh-uh", and you think that's somehow disproving the point? What different religions have or don't have is irrelevant, they're not the same religion.

Doesn't change the fact that all religions wouldn't necessarily be different. I would agree that any "wrong" religion would probably not exist in other realities/worlds.

 Riquende wrote:
Hell, Christianity isn't even consistent in its own beliefs, or you wouldn't have the crazy number of splinter groups out there.

Completely different matter. The reason Christianity has "splinter groups" is because there are only so many things you can tell people in a book... and these splinter groups arise for 2 reasons, either some groups don't take the Bible as collectively true, but rather pick and choose what they want to believe, or these people have disagreements over things the Bible does not specify, or does not specify clearly. Either way, Catholics and Protestants alike agree on most major points of the Bible. I've had a great deal of conversations with both sides, and they only disagree on minor matters, and often there is a great deal of misinformation that causes hostilities between them. (ie, Protestants claim that Catholics worship Mary, whereas Catholics would say they only revere her... etc.)

 Riquende wrote:

Everything you have said so far is "suggests". There is nothing concrete, far from it. I make no assumption. I am merely giving reasons why the blanket statement given is false, and the reasoning flawed.

I accept there's nothing concrete (otherwise where would the need for debate be), but I'd rather have something logical supporting the point. And yes, you are making the assumption, your entire entire point of view presupposes that one religion is true, and guess what? It happens to be yours. You haven't given any reason why the 'blanket statement' is false other than you think it is. I refute your 'reasons' with "I don't care".

Who said I was a Christian? And no I'm not making any assumption or presupposition. Never did I say that there would be a religion that was the same, I simply said that you couldn't say that the only thing that would remain the same is science.

 Riquende wrote:
Your claim of humans 'gravitating' towards one religion (Christianity) is easily explained by European global colonisation, forced conversion due to the Inquisition/Crusaders, Missionary work in the third world, so on. Hardly a 'natural gravitiation' of independent cultures towards one truth.

I probably shouldn't have said anything about the world gravitating towards Christianity, because it certainly isn't the truth. However, I do find it interesting that a cult that started in the Roman Empire managed to survive severe oppression and spread West, coming to dominate many nations. Just something interesting.

Well, I agree with the view that christianity is inconsistent with its own beliefs, but the same accusation can be leveled against any faith. Taking a look at any sect, and inspecting it, will reveal contradictions or inconsistencies. My own puritanical attitude caused me to pretty much turn to Judaism, but once that line of reasoning started, it couldn't stop, and on a good day I'm agnostic, on a bad day fervently atheist. I mean, take the one silly thing of "thou shalt have no other gods before me", and yet look at all the patron saints and the prayers that contradict this commandment.

While it is interesting that Christianity spread through the romanempire, it has to do with roman theology. It also really doesn't help Christianity's credibility given that all of the major Christian holidays fall on pagan holidays, and use pagan symbols. The way Christianity worked was by subverting or incorporating other religious ideas into the lore, but that's not really a worthwhile diacussionto get into because given sufficient time each religion or faith consumes or borrows from a neighbour.

The Bringer wrote:Doesn't change the fact that all religions wouldn't necessarily be different. I would agree that any "wrong" religion would probably not exist in other realities/worlds.

I guess it's either we have hundreds of false religions and one true religion, or we have a hundred and one false religion. I know where my bet is going.

The Bringer wrote:some groups don't take the Bible as collectively true, but rather pick and choose what they want to believe

Kind of mandatory on a self-contradictory book.

 The Bringer wrote:
The reason Christianity has "splinter groups" is because there are only so many things you can tell people in a book...

The thing is, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God. If God decided to reveal himself and bring 'the truth' to his chosen people, you'd think he'd be a bit more specific about things to prevent people getting the interpretation wrong. But instead we have a book that is full of inconsistencies and contradictions and things that are flat out wrong that the whole thing is just unbelievable.

 Shredder wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
The reason Christianity has "splinter groups" is because there are only so many things you can tell people in a book...

The thing is, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God. If God decided to reveal himself and bring 'the truth' to his chosen people, you'd think he'd be a bit more specific about things to prevent people getting the interpretation wrong. But instead we have a book that is full of inconsistencies and contradictions and things that are flat out wrong that the whole thing is just unbelievable.

Not to mention a heck of a lot of people arguing that, no, they are the chosen ones, not the others, and this without getting into which mem ers of a faith once getting past that islam/Christianity/Judaism stuff.... People arguning over who is more-chosen......

 poda_t wrote:

 Shredder wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
The reason Christianity has "splinter groups" is because there are only so many things you can tell people in a book...

The thing is, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God. If God decided to reveal himself and bring 'the truth' to his chosen people, you'd think he'd be a bit more specific about things to prevent people getting the interpretation wrong. But instead we have a book that is full of inconsistencies and contradictions and things that are flat out wrong that the whole thing is just unbelievable.

Not to mention a heck of a lot of people arguing that, no, they are the chosen ones, not the others, and this without getting into which mem ers of a faith once getting past that islam/Christianity/Judaism stuff.... People arguning over who is more-chosen......

Yeah, you're right.

Oh, so you mean the religion that your parents belong to, the one that they brought you up into, the religion that happens to be the dominant religion in the region where you live, THAT religion just so happens to be the One True Religion? Wow, you really lucked out there! Imagine if you'd have been born somewhere else, or at a different time in history, you'd be worshiping the wrong god! Lucky you!

I can talk with 1 person, not 3.

So, the "Word of God"... the inconsistencies and contradictions you mention I am not aware off. There is a chart on the internet about 1000 contradictions in the Bible, I started working on them one-by-one, and the first 15 or so were so incorrect I didn't even both continuing working through everything... as to this day I'm not aware of any direct contradictions in the Bible. Perhaps the most controversial subject is that of Predestination vs. Free Will... but interestingly enough, the relation between the two doesn't change anything for Christians, it just is a topic that creates heated debates.

Just because people debate who "the chosen one" actually is, doesn't change the fact that one of them could be right.

Besides, this has strayed far from the original path. Is there any reason my original statement is wrong concerning Divine Revelation? If not I think we're done here.

I am a Christian, and I find the majority of Christians tend to be inconsistent with their own beliefs. Take for instance the aids outbreak in the 1980s, where the church should have stepped up and lovingly treated this new generation of plague sufferers. Instead the "Christian Right" used it as an opportunity to turn homosexuals into pariahs. This is a direct contradiction to the "commands of Christ." Since I am religiously conservative but "a-political" leaning towards libertarianism I find the political hijaking of the evangelical movement one of the most cynical things in modern experience. Don't take this to mean that I think Christians shouldn't have a voice in the public sphere, but rather I believe the Republican Party has cynically used the Church and faith for their political goals. Some Christians seem to think being a good christian is rooted in their politics, rather I think your politics should be guided by your worldview.

/ I am sure I will get incoming DAKKA for this post.

- J

Besides, this has strayed far from the original path. Is there any reason my original statement is wrong concerning Divine Revelation? If not I think we're done here.

I believe you first have to prove that there is a divine to be revealed before we can deal with that...

Sorry for removing your name from the quote - on my phone and it is a pita to correct

 The Bringer wrote:
So, the "Word of God"... the inconsistencies and contradictions you mention I am not aware off.

YMMV, but let's just take one example among many that itches me : what about that fine story when Mose get all the way up to mount Sinai, get some rules from God which explicitly mention “You shall not kill” (amongst yet again strangely specific and not especially ethical stuff like “You shall not work on Sunday” and “You shall honor your parents”, but no mention of rape or slavery, because I guess that's no big deal), goes back to his people… and get everyone who worshiped a golden calf, wait for it, …
KILLED !

This comic (that some people might find offensive because it's absolutely not respectful and very derisive, but the rudest word here is farted) is actually a good jab at the tenth commandments' strange specificity :
http://www.god-comics.com/?p=313


However, I follow the Bible on one thing. I don't cut my hairs. I might loose my superpowers !

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Actually, it says you shouldn't murder. Murder is killing based off of hatred, or some other sinful emotion. And so killing and murder are 2 different things.

Oh really, I'm glad killing people for heresy is something nice and healthy, and totally not based on hatred. You heard that my Boko Haram friends ? Keep blowing off Christians, it's definitely not a sinful motivation that is driving you, and you definitely are not committing murder, because Christians are, you now, heretics. I would have earned a nice Godwin point if Hitler actually cared about religion, but actually he didn't, he cared only for supposed races, and I don't know, but maybe his notion of eugenics via genocide are considered as more sinful that religious hatred.

I think I found a contradiction : isn't there something in the Bible about good being good, and not a heartless horrible bastard ?

Now, maybe you will tell me it's not okay anymore because Jesus.
Let's sum it up. So, before, God was already extremely good and totally not the cruelest bastard, but it was totally okay, and actually encouraged by God, to kill others for blasphemy or heresy, because some guy and some gal, a very very long time ago, decided that they would like to know the difference between good and evil (also known as the original sin, go figure). But then God became a man by impregnating a woman while still being God at the same time, and the human-that-was-God-while-not-being-God died, so now it's not okay anymore to kill people for heresy or blasphemy even though we still try to see the difference between good and evil (well, kind off) . Err, is there a contradiction in here ? Someone tell me, I'm too confused to think it through now.

The “cutting your hair will cost you your superpowers, growing them back will give you your powers back” part was easier to follower, and quite cooler. I'm really surprised neither DC nor Marvel used Samson in one of their superheroes' stable. Could make for some cool story. Samson versus The Barber !!!

Just a few inconsistencies within Genesis:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

There are plenty more.

Question, did you actually read the Bible? Or did you pick that off of some website.

Genesis 1:11...27 - God planted seeds in the Earth
Genssis 2:4-9 - Adam was created, then God watered the earth and plants grew.

The problem is that people like you don't even read the Bible, or lack the understanding to properly read it, and you go through the Bible verse by verse making up contradictions that don't exist, but hey, if you "find" enough contradictions I will never be able to address all of them... and thus the Bible must be false.

EDIT - Rudeness, I've been having a bad day altogether, it shouldn't be reflected in my posts.

 The Bringer wrote:
idiots like you

Reported...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shredder wrote:
Just a few inconsistencies within Genesis:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

There are plenty more.

I think I addressed this at one point earlier in this thread. And of course this is a personal opinion.

Genesis 1 doesn't ever mention Adam, or the Garden of Eden. According to it God created the earth and humans.
Genesis 2 deals with the creation of Adam and the creation of the Garden of Eden.

Basically in Genesis 1 God creates everything, let's it chill, doesn't mingle.
Then he decides to show himself to man and begin a relationship with them. He creates Adam and places him in the Garden and in order to prove to him that he actually really is the God that made everything he creates "again" in front of Adam. Adam and Eve were not the first humans to walk on the earth, all those people were created in Genesis 1. Adam and Eve were the first humans to walk in the knowledge of God. That's why there were people for their kids to shag up with after they got kicked out.

Now keep in mind that I am not speaking with any kind of "This is what God says" kind of authority, nor do I claim that I have uncovered the only true interpretation. This is just my personal observation that I am sharing.

Sorry for loosing my cool, there is no excuse for it.

I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them, but no more.

 The Bringer wrote:
Sorry for loosing my cool, there is no excuse for it.

Don't worry about it, I can understand it, when someone is questioning something you strongly believe in, you can get very emotional about it.
But that's what discussions like this are for, asking questions and pointing out misunderstandings and learning more about what and why people believe what they do.

But to answer your question, yes, I did get that list off a website for convenience, and while I admit to not having read all of the Bible yet (I do plan on getting round to it) I have read through Genesis.

 The Bringer wrote:
I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them, but no more.

I'm sorry, but if killing people over divergence of religious believes is not murder or even hateful to you, I can quite see how you can deny any inconsistencies in the Bible.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them, but no more.

I'm sorry, but if killing people over divergence of religious believes is not murder or even hateful to you, I can quite see how you can deny any inconsistencies in the Bible.

I don't think that religious differences is a reason a justifiable reason to kill others. Give me specific cases. Today, sometimes "Christians" will do things such as bombing abortion clinics, I think this is entirely unjustified, and there is not 1 reason that the Bible supports such actions.

 The Bringer wrote:
there is not 1 reason that the Bible supports such actions.

You may think that but clearly many others disagree with you, some violently. It is also interesting that depending on which branch of Christianity you opt for, "the bible" can have different books/texts contained within it - I'm sure you are also aware of a number of times in history where an individual or group decided to cut out or add in different books or sections of text from "the bible",

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
there is not 1 reason that the Bible supports such actions.

You may think that but clearly many others disagree with you, some violently. It is also interesting that depending on which branch of Christianity you opt for, "the bible" can have different books/texts contained within it - I'm sure you are also aware of a number of times in history where an individual or group decided to cut out or add in different books or sections of text from "the bible",

I am well aware. Imagine it from a Christians perspective, you have to figure out what is the inspired word of God, and what isn't... it took a few Church councils to decide which texts they thought would be safe to include in the conglomeration we know as the Bible. I would like you to give an argument for why the Bible justifies murder of non-Christians, its very hard to figure out an argument and then build a counter-argument.

And for anyone else listing contradictions in the Bible, please clearly lay out your argument including verse references if you feel like anything is ambiguous.

 The Bringer wrote:
Imagine it from a Christians perspective, you have to figure out what is the inspired word of God, and what isn't... it took a few Church councils to decide which texts they thought would be safe to include in the conglomeration we know as the Bible.

Well, it is a good job that people can determine what is and isn't the word of god so accurately. Though the fact that different bibles have different texts kind of indicates that it is not quite so cut and dry... or none of it is the word of god

I would like you to give an argument for why the Bible justifies murder of non-Christians, its very hard to figure out an argument and then build a counter-argument.

I don't recall ever saying anything on that topic

Though as I don't use the bible to guide anything I do, I could not say how or why Christians justify doing anything they do, let alone being complete gits to their fellow human beings. Certainly through history religious people of many stripes have used their beliefs to do some truely horrible things.

And for anyone else listing contradictions in the Bible, please clearly lay out your argument including verse references if you feel like anything is ambiguous.

I'm still more interested in establishing if it is worth doing that - please provide proof that there is something divine. Without that there is no point looking at the bible or any other religious text since it is just a man made work of fiction.

Edit: fixed quotes

The Bringer wrote:I don't think that religious differences is a reason a justifiable reason to kill others. Give me specific cases.

I already did. It just so happened you either missed the message or didn't care to answer. But I can do it again, if need be. But really, the first example is very interesting in how you seemed to defend the idea that killing people for worshiping a golden calf was not a contradiction toward the Thou shalt not “[kill] based off of hatred, or some other sinful emotion” commandment. Is it a contradiction, or is it not ?

Let's be clear here. I obviously don't suspect you of wanting to kill or harm anyone for religious divergence. I'm just a bit bewildered by your propensity to defend this kind of things in the Bible's myth. That'll likely never translate into any support in actual, non-mythological times (you don't support crusades, do you ?), but it's still a disturbing first step. Especially given I've already blasphemed god's name, and I don't like being stoned.

On a (slightly) lighter note, Leviticus 24:17 always remind me of this classic French comic :
http://rakotoarison.over-blog.com/article-27251921.html
Captions are mostly “Anyone killing someone else voluntarily will be executed”.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, it's quite funny how the Tau player is defending religion while the Sister player is attacking it when the Tau are the faction which get all sci-fi political utopia/dystopia theme (which usually don't include any kind of religion, if not outright banishing it) while the Sisters… well, are pretty religious somehow .
Might be because grimdark oblige, it the worst of religion and the worst of sci-fi atheistic political dystopia .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

I would like you to give an argument for why the Bible justifies murder of non-Christians, its very hard to figure out an argument and then build a counter-argument.

I don't recall ever saying anything on that topic

Poor bringer was clearly directing that toward me. We are many all arguing with him altogether with different arguments each, it's not easy for him.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

The Bringer wrote:I don't think that religious differences is a reason a justifiable reason to kill others. Give me specific cases.

I already did. It just so happened you either missed the message or didn't care to answer. But I can do it again, if need be. But really, the first example is very interesting in how you seemed to defend the idea that killing people for worshiping a golden calf was not a contradiction toward the Thou shalt not “[kill] based off of hatred, or some other sinful emotion” commandment. Is it a contradiction, or is it not ?

Sorry, I skimmed through your post because your ideas were all over the place and I didn't want to bother to make sense of it all.

Also the Israelites were not killed for worshiping a golden calf iirc, they were simply punished.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Let's be clear here. I obviously don't suspect you of wanting to kill or harm anyone for religious divergence. I'm just a bit bewildered by your propensity to defend this kind of things in the Bible's myth. That'll likely never translate into any support in actual, non-mythological times (you don't support crusades, do you ?), but it's still a disturbing first step. Especially given I've already blasphemed god's name, and I don't like being stoned.

You have too understand two things here, the Levitical Laws applied to God's people and God's people only. Therefore you should not be stoned for blasphemy. Secondly. the Levitical Laws are part of the Old Covenant and were replaced by the New Covenant, so they don't apply anymore.

EDIT:

Concerning "He who kills a man shall surely be put to death" - I went back and read the Greek, and the Greek word used in this passage is actually φονεύσει, which translates to kill/murder. The "put to death" is the Greek word θανατώνω, which means to kill/execute. Often times seeming contradictions like these arise from mis-translations/unclear translations.

 The Bringer wrote:
Also the Israelites were not killed for worshiping a golden calf iirc, they were simply punished.

Okay, I'm really sorry I don't understand ancient Greek, even though I had course for 3 years (I was a bad student, and I forgot everything extremely fast), so I must rely on translation.
This translation seem to imply they were killed. Like, really. How does the original phrase it ?

 The Bringer wrote:
You have too understand two things here, the Levitical Laws applied to God's people and God's people only. Therefore you should not be stoned for blasphemy.

I'm pretty sorry, but first this whole emphasis on the fact it applies to everybody including the stranger seems to imply otherwise. Second… by God's people, do you mean Jews ? Because it just so happen that by Judaic laws, I am a Jew. Third, should I feel relieved that this horrible thing applies only to Jews ? Do that make it in any way better ? Sounds to me like it's yet another discrimination, and quite worse actually.

 The Bringer wrote:
Secondly. the Levitical Laws are part of the Old Covenant and were replaced by the New Covenant, so they don't apply anymore.

Yep, already mentioned that earlier :

Now, maybe you will tell me it's not okay anymore because Jesus.
Let's sum it up. So, before, God was already extremely good and totally not the cruelest bastard, but it was totally okay, and actually encouraged by God, to kill others for blasphemy or heresy, because some guy and some gal, a very very long time ago, decided that they would like to know the difference between good and evil (also known as the original sin, go figure). But then God became a man by impregnating a woman while still being God at the same time, and the human-that-was-God-while-not-being-God died, so now it's not okay anymore to kill people for heresy or blasphemy even though we still try to see the difference between good and evil (well, kind off) . Err, is there a contradiction in here ? Someone tell me, I'm too confused to think it through now.

Would you tell me it was okay back then ? Would you care to explain how some guy dying on a cross made a difference on what is morally wrong and what is morally right ?

 The Bringer wrote:
Concerning "He who kills a man shall surely be put to death" - I went back and read the Greek, and the Greek word used in this passage is actually φονεύσει, which translates to kill/murder. The "put to death" is the Greek word θανατώνω, which means to kill/execute. Often times seeming contradictions like these arise from mis-translations/unclear translations.

It was a joke. A pun. I thought it was obvious, really. A reason to link to some silly cartoon which doesn't reference Christianity anywhere.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I'm pretty sorry, but first this whole emphasis on the fact it applies to everybody including the stranger seems to imply otherwise.

Leviticus was part of a covenant with the Jews, which Jews don't consider to be binding on the rest of humanity. There is nothing more to say about this. I wish I had references, but historically I know this is true.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Second… by God's people, do you mean Jews ? Because it just so happen that by Judaic laws, I am a Jew. Third, should I feel relieved that this horrible thing applies only to Jews ? Do that make it in any way better ? Sounds to me like it's yet another discrimination, and quite worse actually.

My bad, kind of funny mistake though.

And no, its not discrimination, it was self imposed in a sense by the Jews. Basically, the Jews more than any other group of people had seen the hand of God working in the world. They had seen miracle after miracle, and they were God's "chosen people."... of course they were held to a higher standard.

EDIT: Wait, are you a Jew? I don't know what you mean that by Judaic Law you are a Jew.

 The Bringer wrote:


EDIT: Wait, are you a Jew? I don't know what you mean that by Judaic Law you are a Jew.

I believe that anyone who is born of a jewish woman is automatically jewish.

I'm Mormon here.

Atheist? Cool.
Deist? Right on.
Pagan? Keep it up.
Chaos? Burn heretic!

Except for ruinous powers, I say live and let live. Everyone has different experiences and different ways to find truth. Each person is on their own journey and will do what they believe to be right. Some of the finest people I've known were atheist and some of the worst were religious and vice versa. Everyone's an individual and sees the world differently.

 The Bringer wrote:
Leviticus was part of a covenant with the Jews, which Jews don't consider to be binding on the rest of humanity.

Yes, but what does it means ? It means only the Jews had to stone the blasphemers, non-Jew could let them live. It certainly doesn't mean that non-Jews were allowed to blaspheme.

 The Bringer wrote:
EDIT: Wait, are you a Jew? I don't know what you mean that by Judaic Law you are a Jew.

*
It means my maternal grand-mother had to flee through all of Europe instead of studying, and some of her family died, why ? I say by Judaic law, because it says you are a Jew if you have a Jew mother, which I do.

You are completely failing to address the point of whether or not you support this act of obvious religious intolerance, and if you don't why is it not a contradiction to God's alleged benevolence and goodness.

 The Bringer wrote:
Sorry for loosing my cool, there is no excuse for it.

I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them, but no more.

Here's some of my favourites:

#1 - God is omnipotent, yet when he visits Egypt in order to MURDER all the first-born BABIES in the country, he needs the Jews to paint blood on their front doors so that he doesn't accidentally send his "destroyer" past the doorway to murder the Jewish babies too.

#2 - Jesus says before he ascends into Heaven that he'll be back to begin his reign on earth before everyone-then-alive had died. He then goes AWOL for 2000 years.

#3 - Hebrews 6:18 says God can't lie. In Genesis God lies to Adam (when he tells Adam that if he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, he will die within one day. Adam eats the fruit and goes on to live until the age of nine hundred and thirty).

#4 - The words above Jesus on the cross are given four times, each time different:
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"

#5 - Jesus was crucified at three o'clock (Mark 15:25), and six o'clock (John 19:14-16).



#Bonus #1 - When the crowd are chanting for the release of "Barabbas", and Pilate washes his hands of Jesus' death, as someone born a Jew I can tell you that in Hebrew "Bar Abbas" means "Son of the Father". Something has gotten very messed up with the translation there, and somehow the Romans (who ruled the early church) ended up looking really blameless in the eventual codified Bible, even though the crowd are clearly chanting for the release of Jesus ("Bar Abbas" is simply not a name in Hebrew, it is a description). There is of course no record of any such "criminal release ceremony" ever happening in history, which makes it even more likely to be garbled apocrypha.

#Bonus #2 - The Old Testament prophesies that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem, yet Jesus comes from Nazareth. Therefore we end up with the account of Mary traveling home to the town of her birth in order to have Jesus, and then return to Nazareth soon after. The reason given in the Bible for this is that the Romans required people to return to the town of their birth for the census... we know from historical records that the Romans required no such thing for the census. The whole census/Mary/Bethlehem/Nazareth thing reads to me like 1st/2nd century Christians inventing a narrative that makes their Jesus (who came from Nazareth) have been born in Bethlehem so as to match the Old Testament requirement for the Messiah's birthplace. Pity they invented a reason for the migration that we know from historical records didn't happen. That inconsistency with reality is actually persuasive evidence for Jesus' existence as a real man IMO, because if you were making up the entire story from scratch you'd just write him up as having come from Bethlehem in the first place, rather than trying to patch together the life of a man inconsistent with the requirements of the Old Testament.

 The Bringer wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

The Bringer wrote:I don't think that religious differences is a reason a justifiable reason to kill others. Give me specific cases.

I already did. It just so happened you either missed the message or didn't care to answer. But I can do it again, if need be. But really, the first example is very interesting in how you seemed to defend the idea that killing people for worshiping a golden calf was not a contradiction toward the Thou shalt not “[kill] based off of hatred, or some other sinful emotion” commandment. Is it a contradiction, or is it not ?

Sorry, I skimmed through your post because your ideas were all over the place and I didn't want to bother to make sense of it all.

Also the Israelites were not killed for worshiping a golden calf iirc, they were simply punished.

Nope. When God and Moses are chatting atop Mount Sinai, God sees the Jews worshipping the calf and wants to kill them all. Moses talks him out of it (apparently God can be made to change his mind even though he's perfect).
Then Moses comes down the mountain, sees the worship going on, and is overcome with rage and has his Levites kill 3000 of his own followers.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm Mormon here.

So you believe in a religion started by a convicted confidence trickster / conman, whose "book of Abraham" has been exposed as undeniable fraud?
Why?

 necrondog99 wrote:
I am a Christian, and I find the majority of Christians tend to be inconsistent with their own beliefs. Take for instance the aids outbreak in the 1980s, where the church should have stepped up and lovingly treated this new generation of plague sufferers. Instead the "Christian Right" used it as an opportunity to turn homosexuals into pariahs.
....

/ I am sure I will get incoming DAKKA for this post.

- J

Well, the Bible, including the New Testament, is very consistent in saying that being gay is an abomination in the eyes of God (the standard punishment for Abomination in the Bible is death).

 The Bringer wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

Way to ignore the fact that not all religions are biblical.

I give 1 case when the argument is wrong, and the statement is disproven. Besides, there are many other religions that involve divine revelation.

 Riquende wrote:

And actually, there is some small degree of evidence that he's right - as human cultures have developed in different, isolated parts of the world, they have created unique, non-compatible religions: Pagan elemental beings, the Greco-Roman gods, the Hindu gods, the Viking gods, Native American spirit worship, the Judeo-Christian god, etc. This points to the fact that a human culture, without any outside influence doesn't tend to any one particular version of religion, and there's nothing to indicate that any religions created after this reset button is pressed would bear any indication to current ones except for YOUR assumption that scripture is true.

Everything you have said so far is "suggests". There is nothing concrete, far from it. I make no assumption. I am merely giving reasons why the blanket statement given is false, and the reasoning flawed.

And besides, you're wrong to says that human culture hasn't gravitated towards any religion, as Islam and Christianity are both the largest religion and share VERY similar roots.

So?
There have been times when the largest religion was something else, Grecian-Roman Polytheism, for example.

The history of Homo Sapiens stretches back at least a hundred thousand years, but it's only the God that announced himself 2000 years ago in Judea that's the important one to consider?

You can trace their roots back to 2 brothers.

I'm assuming you're speaking metaphorically here, because Jesus & Mohammad definitely weren't brothers.

Please don't insult mine or other people's religions.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Please don't insult mine or other people's religions.

I didn't insult your religion, I asked why you believe in the religion started by a convicted confidence trickster, whose translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs in the "Book of Abraham" have been exposed as fraudulent?

Those are factual, impartial statements; Smith was convicted for being a conman (before he revealed the book of Mormon), and his translations of hieroglyphs have been shown to be wholly inaccurate.

So, why?
What is it about Mormonism that you find more plausible than other religions?
Is it the stuff about God living on planet Kolob with his wives?

I just find Mormonism especially incomprehensible. So what is it that makes it great?

Evil & Chaos wrote:
#1 - God is omnipotent, yet when he visits Egypt in order to MURDER all the first-born BABIES in the country, he needs the Jews to paint blood on their front doors so that he doesn't accidentally send his "destroyer" past the doorway to murder the Jewish babies too.

Maybe he just likes blood for the sake of blood. Do we know if he killed the firstborn in a very gory way ?


Also, there is something else that have always hitched me since I started talking about religion on the internetz.See, in French we don't have the neutral gender, it's always masculine and feminine, and we have this rule than we speaking about a bunch of things, with some feminine and other masculine, we use the masculine form. So there's nothing surprising about the fact we use the masculine form for god. But in English, there is a neutral gender. So why are we always talking of this immaterial unique being using the masculine form ? Wouldn't the neutral form be the obvious right choice ?

Maybe he just likes blood for the sake of blood. Do we know if he killed the firstborn in a very gory way ?

IIRC we're not told, other than that it was a fairly quick death (happened in one night and was done by morning).

God could have made their heads explode, or he could have simply stopped the innocent little babies breathing.

Doesn't really matter to me - it's still murder of innocents as part of vicarious punishment for the crimes of Pharaoh.

And to top it off, Pharaoh isn't even guilty of his own crimes, because God messes with Pharaoh's brain chemistry to "harden his heart" and make him keep ahold of the Jews even though Pharaoh's natural inclination is to let the Jews go.

So God made Pharaoh keep the Jews so that God could show off to the world by murdering all the first-born children and first-born cattle of Egypt.

Yep, God also kills all the first-born cattle in the 10th plague, even though He already killed all the cattle of Egypt in the 5th plague... this book makes no sense, sigh.

why are we always talking of this immaterial unique being using the masculine form ? Wouldn't the neutral form be the obvious right choice ?

Because the original Hebrew consistently refers to God as male, I guess.

It's part of the implicit patriarchy of Judaism (and 99% of religions), I'd argue, I mean you don't even get past Genesis III without God telling Eve that it is natural law that her husband will rule over her.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Because the original Hebrew consistently refers to God as male, I guess.

I checked, Hebrew has only two genders, no neutral. So no problem here, it's the same as in French. But as far as I know most of the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew originally, so… There are a bunch of Greek manuscripts, and I do know that ancient Greek had a neutral gender. So did Latin, and I guess Jesus must have known it somehow. If Jesus was actually God, since most people know their gender, I guess he could certainly have clarified that information. Either he didn't because for some obscure reason he wanted people to mistake God as a male, or some implicit patriarchy is at work. Or maybe God actually have some kind of an ethereal di… I mean, male reproductive system. And it's bigger than ours, no doubt.

@evil&chaos, I'll get back to you after classes are over. Some of those I've never heard before, and some I'm familiar with.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Because the original Hebrew consistently refers to God as male, I guess.

I checked, Hebrew has only two genders, no neutral. So no problem here, it's the same as in French. But as far as I know most of the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew originally, so…

Aye but by Jesus' time Judaism was many centuries old already - it seems logical that it would have already become ingrained in the Jewish culture to call God "Father" and not "Mother", so Jesus would presumably have been doing what the Jews at the time did.

There are a bunch of Greek manuscripts, and I do know that ancient Greek had a neutral gender. So did Latin, and I guess Jesus must have known it somehow. If Jesus was actually God, since most people know their gender, I guess he could certainly have clarified that information.

It'd be worth noting that, Jesus was a Jew so he would have spoken ancient Hebrew (Aramaic), and would thus have been restricted in his use of language - it wouldn't matter what language his words were later translated into, because even if that new language did have a gender-neutral term available, it would be changing the meaning of Jesus' words to use it.

Either he didn't because for some obscure reason he wanted people to mistake God as a male, or some implicit patriarchy is at work. Or maybe God actually have some kind of an ethereal di… I mean, male reproductive system. And it's bigger than ours, no doubt.

IIRC, Mormons, who are a sub-sect of Christianity, believe that God lives on the planet Kolob with his wives (multiple).
God also manifests as a physical man at several points in the Old Testament (once he has a wrestling match with a guy named Jacob!)

So the Abrahamic tradition isn't in itself incompatible with God being a dude, I guess.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
It'd be worth noting that, Jesus was a Jew so he would have spoken ancient Hebrew (Aramaic)

Not necessarily only Hebrew. I mean, he was living in the Roman empire, didn't he ? Because Jews living in France usually speak French too, Jew living in the US tend to know English, and so on.
Yeah, at that time Jews were more concentrated in a smaller area, so with less imperative to know another language, but still.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
God also manifests as a physical man at several points in the Old Testament (once he has a wrestling match with a guy named Jacob!)

Oh, nice ! Who won ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Oh, nice ! Who won ?

Iron Man and Aqua Man tag teamed him

No, you insulted mormonism pretty harshly. that was way out of line. keep it civil.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
God also manifests as a physical man at several points in the Old Testament (once he has a wrestling match with a guy named Jacob!)

Oh, nice ! Who won ?

I want to know what cool stuff was in the lost 116 pages. I'm guessing something cool like how to be immortal. Damn that woman for being Satan's tool!

A court appearance paper written by the same people that later made it legal to hunt and kill Mormons.... yeah, I'd trust that. Also, your "facts" are wrong. Next time do some research before so casually insulting someone's religion. if you want a rational discourse, PM me. Stop bringing your second hand anti Mormon propaganda here. It's not the time or place for it.

 Musashi363 wrote:
A court appearance paper written by the same people that later made it legal to hunt and kill Mormons....

I didn't know that happened and have just looked it up - interesting stuff

However, since of the 10,000 mormons involved exactly none were actually killed by soldiers/etc, I can't say that it particularly matters that the order was given. Nor does it invalidate the fact that the court apparently found him guilty of conning people.

Also, your "facts" are wrong.

My I ask which ones and in what way they are wrong?

Next time do some research before so casually insulting someone's religion.

I would not say he was insulting someone's religion, I would say he was pointing out some pretty huge flaws in the character of the person who quite literally pulled said religion out of his hat and the pretty huge holes in the religion itself.

Stop bringing your second hand anti Mormon propaganda here.

It seems to me that nothing he has said is untrue, at least from my reading of the surrounding information.

It's not the time or place for it.

It's a thread about religion - it is the perfect place to discuss religion and the reason people believe certain things.

No, they are not true. That makes it bashing. This is not a Mormon bashing thread last time i checked. Yes Joseph Smith was convicted, but by the people that would later kill him. If you take the words of the people that would kill over religion, i dont know what to tell you. PM if you want a line by line explanation.

 Musashi363 wrote:
No, they are not true. That makes it bashing. This is not a Mormon bashing thread last time i checked. Yes Joseph Smith was convicted, but by the people that would later kill him. If you take the words of the people that would kill over religion, i dont know what to tell you. PM if you want a line by line explanation.

He doesn't want a rational conversation, he just wants to insult and condescend. This thread was supposed to be about sharing what religion you were, not bashing other people's.

 Musashi363 wrote:
No, they are not true. That makes it bashing. This is not a Mormon bashing thread last time i checked. Yes Joseph Smith was convicted, but by the people that would later kill him. If you take the words of the people that would kill over religion, i dont know what to tell you. PM if you want a line by line explanation.

Again - which points are untrue and why/how? As far as i can see from the information available nothing E&C has said is untrue - maybe you have evidence that will put some od it into context - i dont know since you seem not to want to share it and simply post that "it is untrue!" And claim persecution as defence.

Smith wasnt killed by the state, nor are the records of the state the only information we have about him, his life and death. It is not about taking the word of "those who killed him" and somehow using that idea to whitewash his life and actions while claiming bias - that itself is an incredible act of lazy and biased (i might even go so far as to say blinkered) thinking.

 Musashi363 wrote:
No, they are not true. That makes it bashing.

Please correct me on which aspects I got wrong, as I didn't set out to bash Mormonism, I set out to describe some of the main elements of the Mormon religion, and some of the known events of the founder of Mormonism's life.

Yes Joseph Smith was convicted, but by the people that would later kill him.

His early life trial & conviction for being a confidence trickster (a "glass looker") was in Bainbridge New York, and he was killed by a mob in Carthage Illanois.

Those are different places.

 Musashi363 wrote:
If you take the words of the people that would kill over religion, i dont know what to tell you.

I know, right. Doesn't sound a good idea. Yet still people keep taking the word of that old nasty guy named Moses, even after the Golden Calf Accident ! I wish they would stop .

Since I haven't received any PMs, I'm assuming you don't want a rational discourse. And like I said, no this is not the time or place. This is a thread about sharing what religion we are not "Google any dirt we can find online and attack others religion" thread.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Since I haven't received any PMs, I'm assuming you don't want a rational discourse. And like I said, no this is not the time or place. This is a thread about sharing what religion we are not "Google any dirt we can find online and attack others religion" thread.

There's been 16 pages of debates on and around religion so far. I rather expect that will continue no matter what you say.

You can either correct my (possibly misremembered) facts about the Mormon religion & its founder, or you can leave your flat "that's all lies!" statement to stand, that's your choice really.

IIRC Mormons vicariously baptise dead Jews and non-Mormon Christians (Including Adolf Hitler, IIRC), so that they can be converted into being Mormons in the afterlife. That's nice of them.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
IIRC Mormons vicariously baptise dead Jews and non-Mormon Christians (Including Adolf Hitler, IIRC), so that they can be converted into being Mormons in the afterlife.

They don't do that to atheist, hindus or buddhists ? Unfair !

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
IIRC Mormons vicariously baptise dead Jews and non-Mormon Christians (Including Adolf Hitler, IIRC), so that they can be converted into being Mormons in the afterlife.

They don't do that to atheist, hindus or buddhists ? Unfair !

I don't know; Perhaps one of the Mormons present could tell us?

I do know they promised Jewish groups who were very upset about the whole thing that they'd stop vicariously baptising Jewish holocaust victims, but then some Mormon groups carried on doing it in secret anyway.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Since I haven't received any PMs, I'm assuming you don't want a rational discourse. And like I said, no this is not the time or place. This is a thread about sharing what religion we are not "Google any dirt we can find online and attack others religion" thread.

I don't know about you, but I've been at work all day and haven't had time

However, why stick to PM? This thread is all about exploring religion and there are a few calls for you to put information out there regards your beliefs (and even if there were not, this is certainly the thread on Dakka where you could!).

You know who my favourite people in the world are? Condescending atheists.

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm not sure this thread will end well...

Nah, we're good here. We might actually make it to the second page.

That would be nice. As an Atheist, nothing annoys me more then seeing my fellow Atheists go out of their way to pick fights.

QFT from the first page.

 Gutsnagga wrote:
You know who my favourite people in the world are? Condescending atheists.

They are great, aren't they.

However, your username indicates you may be a follower of Gork and Mork - those are some gods I could get behind


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
QFT from the first page.

If only I could hide behind my lack of religious beliefs as a magical shield against criticism... but sadly if you have a point of view and you express it you should be able to discuss it rationally, including the basis for your view, how it was formed, etc.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

If only I could hide behind my lack of religious beliefs as a magical shield against criticism... but sadly if you have a point of view and you express it you should be able to discuss it rationally, including the basis for your view, how it was formed, etc.

Hmmm? the atheists going out of their way to be a d*** was not directed at you, it was directed at this:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm Mormon here.

So you believe in a religion started by a convicted confidence trickster / conman, whose "book of Abraham" has been exposed as undeniable fraud?
Why?

All he did was state his religion. It sure seems like he went out of his way to me.

 Gutsnagga wrote:
Hmmm? this was not directed at you, it was directed at this:

I was not sure as to what it was aimed at, however, I felt that I should answer. However, E&C does raise valid points. Would you be so upset if someone raised concerns over Scientology? Or tarot card readings? Or witchcraft? Or Astrology? Or Alchemy? What makes religion special that it can avoid any kind of probe into its validity?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
Hmmm? this was not directed at you, it was directed at this:

I was not sure as to what it was aimed at, however, I felt that I should answer. However, E&C does raise valid points. Would you be so upset if someone raised concerns over Scientology? Or tarot card readings? Or witchcraft? Or Astrology? Or Alchemy? What makes religion special that it can avoid any kind of probe into its validity?

I never stated that he did not raise valid points. I simply said he seemed like he was going out of his way to debate (argue) with someone over the internet. This made him seem like a bit of a donkey-cave, especially from the way he phrased the question.
Note that he did not straight out state something like this to any other poster.
I certainly believe people should be able to validate their beliefs, but I thought that the comment was quite unnecessary.

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I never stated that he did not raise valid points. I simply said he seemed like he was going out of his way to debate (argue) with someone over the internet. This made him seem like a bit of a donkey-cave, especially from the way he phrased the question.
Note that he did not straight out state something like this to any other poster.
I certainly believe people should be able to validate their beliefs, but I thought that the comment was quite unnecessary.

Fair enough

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I never stated that he did not raise valid points. I simply said he seemed like he was going out of his way to debate (argue) with someone over the internet. This made him seem like a bit of a donkey-cave, especially from the way he phrased the question.
Note that he did not straight out state something like this to any other poster.
I certainly believe people should be able to validate their beliefs, but I thought that the comment was quite unnecessary.

Fair enough

Well this is a first.
Striving our way to a better Dakka...

Note that he did not straight out state something like this to any other poster.

I'm sure I remember asking a catholic poster why he hadn't puked on a plate after mass to prove that the holy wafer transmogrifies into a chunk of flesh during the mystic ceremony of transubstantiation. Turns out the transformation into flesh is the kind of transformation where nothing actually happens (it's more, jesus turns into chunks of bread, than chunks of bread turn into chunks of jesus, apparently), however, so puking on a plate after eating a bit of jesus wouldn't prove anything useful.

I'm an equal opportunities rationalist.

And I really am genuinely curious why someone would believe in the Mormon religion, as yes it was started by a convicted con-man, a fact which everybody in Mormonism seems to know but not care about.

At the very least they are pages of off-topic posts, considering that this is a "what do you believe" thread and not a "prove to me that what you believe is real and/or I try to prove to you that you are wrong" thread.

@d-usa: There is an old saying about shooting fish in a barrel. What you have here is someone so pleased with taking cheap shots that he claims fish only come in barrels.

No, I don't believe all religions are the same.

Not all religions come out of hats from the mouth of a convicted conman.
One does.
That is undeniably interesting.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
No, I don't believe all religions are the same.

Not all religions come out of hats from the mouth of a convicted conman.
One does.
That is undeniably interesting.

And has absolutely nothing at all with the topic and purpose of this thread.

*shrug*

I think we've had some interesting, engaging conversations crop up in this thread, and think we're all the better for having not just shared views, but also discussed them.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I'm an equal opportunities rationalist.

Evil & Chaos 524739 6159988 null
wrote:No, I don't believe all religions are the same.

Back on topic:
I don't believe all religions are the same, but that still doesn't mean you can be rude/disrespectful to others.
And I personally don't think many of the conversations in this thread have been interesting.

A fair bit of it has just been 'INTERNET ATHEISM, HURDUR LOGIC AND REASON HURDUR I'M BEING PERFECTLY REASONABLE, BUT YOU ARE NOT.'

And I personally don't think many of the conversations in this thread have been interesting.

A fair bit of it has just been 'INTERNET ATHEISM, HURDUR LOGIC AND REASON HURDUR I'M BEING PERFECTLY REASONABLE, BUT YOU ARE NOT.'

In the forms of rational debate, this is known as "strawmanning the argument", wherein you build a caricatured version of your debate partner's words or attitude, then, (having stripped your debate partner's words of any of their actual content or inference) knock down the hollow shell of what remains.

Personally, I'm still waiting for "The Bringer" to return on his half of his "challenge" that he laid down.

 The Bringer wrote:
I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them...

I answered his challenge: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/524739.page#6146451

And he has promised a reply: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/524739.page#6146815


That will definitely be more interesting than people refusing to talk about a convicted fraudster.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

And I personally don't think many of the conversations in this thread have been interesting.

A fair bit of it has just been 'INTERNET ATHEISM, HURDUR LOGIC AND REASON HURDUR I'M BEING PERFECTLY REASONABLE, BUT YOU ARE NOT.'

In the forms of rational debate, this is known as "strawmanning the argument", wherein you build a caricatured version of your debate partner's words or attitude, then, (having stripped your debate partner's words of any of their actual content or inference) knock down the hollow shell of what remains.

Personally, I'm still waiting for "The Bringer" to return on his half of his "challenge" that he laid down.

 The Bringer wrote:
I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them...

I answered his challenge: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/524739.page#6146451

And he has promised a reply: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/524739.page#6146815


That will definitely be more interesting than people refusing to talk about a convicted fraudster.

In response to strawmanning the argument, that was just one example of the lack of content this thread contains. I do not think it is purely the internet atheists that have done a poor job of debating. That is just one of the largest cases of what I'm talking about occurring.

Also, I have no conversational partner on this thread. The only user I discussed things with was Silver, and we resolved that. I was not actually a part in these conversations, so never fear that I am stripping any debate partner of mine's attitudes (which I am presenting quite reasonably using internet atheists as an example) or words.

And yes, I do think people should stick around on threads a bit more, and not just leave them with questions unanswered.

 daedalus wrote:
I'd say I'm an agnostic with strong leanings toward atheism. I have no evidence that any religion is correct, and, since they all exist to a certain extent beyond the scope of observation, there's no real way to disprove them, so I can't say they're not all false. By the same token, my default position has to be that none of them are true.

I definitely find myself rallying against religions when their practitioners seem to believe that their teachings include the words "...and you can use this as an excuse to be a dick to people."

As a subject of study, Buddhism is particularly interesting to me, though it feels almost more philosophical than actually religious in nature.

There's no reason to think that any religion is correct. And Buddhism does seem far more like a philosophy than a religion.

@evil&chaos

#1 - God is omnipotent, yet when he visits Egypt in order to MURDER all the first-born BABIES in the country, he needs the Jews to paint blood on their front doors so that he doesn't accidentally send his "destroyer" past the doorway to murder the Jewish babies too.

There is only one good reason I could give from reading the passage, and that is that some of the Israelites were not faithful to God, and some that were not Israelites probably did believe in God. The action of putting blood on your door would have been a public proclamation of where you stood on the matter.

#2 - Jesus says before he ascends into Heaven that he'll be back to begin his reign on earth before everyone-then-alive had died. He then goes AWOL for 2000 years.

What verse is this? Sorry.

#3 - Hebrews 6:18 says God can't lie. In Genesis God lies to Adam (when he tells Adam that if he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, he will die within one day. Adam eats the fruit and goes on to live until the age of nine hundred and thirty).

In Genesis, it says that "You will surely die". What translation of the Bible are you getting that from?

#4 - The words above Jesus on the cross are given four times, each time different:
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"

Alright, so we've made the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God. So I compared the Greek between the 4 passages, and all include the same phrase, "Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων" which means the kind of the jews. Some are proceeded by another phrase, and some followed by another phrase. One could make an argument that part of the inscription wasn't included, and all of the gospels agree on what was said. So none of the Gospel said anything that contradicted with the other, they simply omitted some of the text because face it, they wrote these long after the actual events occurred. Its amazing that the accounts were so similar.

#5 - Jesus was crucified at three o'clock (Mark 15:25), and six o'clock (John 19:14-16).

Good one. Very good one. I've heard this one before. Basically the Romans and Jews had a different way of keeping time. Both the accounts, assuming they were using the same system, do contradict. However, if you take it that Mark wrote in the Jewish time, and John in the Roman time, they say the same thing. Honestly this isn't much of a stretch because Biblical scholars have said that Mark's style of writing had been "very Jewish" whereas John wrote in a much more "gentile, Roman" manner.

Hey, you didn't answered me either.
Why do God asks of Jews to stone blasphemers if he is not an horrible evil bastard ?
Why should I have been stoned to death if I had done the very same thing I do now, but before some guy which is actually God decided to let people kill him on a cross ? Would what I did be more morally wrong, or something ?

Yeah, I'm kind of insistent on that, but it's because I really really don't like being stoned to death, for some reason that's quite a big deal to me .

 The Bringer wrote:
There is only one good reason I could give from reading the passage, and that is that some of the Israelites were not faithful to God, and some that were not Israelites probably did believe in God. The action of putting blood on your door would have been a public proclamation of where you stood on the matter.

Because God couldn't know without massive display of gore ? Also, I thought the punishment had nothing to do with believing in god or not, because obviously there were millions of other peoples all around the world that didn't believe in god, didn't splash gore on their doors, and didn't get their first-born to die.

I made up my own religion, which encompasses my beliefs within it.
Basically goes like this- there are 3 deities (one of life, one of death and one of balance) imperfect, and thus we were created imperfectly.
They each have influenced us for unknown reasons, but ultimately have no real care for us. They have many races spanning the stars.
When we die, we die. Upon earth we must find harmony in all things, in our imperfections.
All suffering and imperfection ends upon the coming of Kona, who is a being that destroys the 3 imperfect beings and becomes the perfect deity. And brings the unknown perfection to the imperfect.

Onward, Konite soldiers!

Marching as to war,

With the life of Kaunis

Going on before.

 The Bringer wrote:
@evil&chaos

#1 - God is omnipotent, yet when he visits Egypt in order to MURDER all the first-born BABIES in the country, he needs the Jews to paint blood on their front doors so that he doesn't accidentally send his "destroyer" past the doorway to murder the Jewish babies too.

There is only one good reason I could give from reading the passage, and that is that some of the Israelites were not faithful to God, and some that were not Israelites probably did believe in God. The action of putting blood on your door would have been a public proclamation of where you stood on the matter.

A lack of belief after the first nine plagues would be pretty damned unlikely - even Pharaoh believes by that point, it's just that God won't let him let the Hebrews go (God screws with his free will and "hardens his heart").
Nor would a public proclamation be required, if God knows everything - the text makes it clear that it is not a public proclamation (who to? it is night, nobody's going to see the blood other than God), but a piece of "blood magic" to keep God from sending his destroyer across the threshold ("blood magic"/"sacrificial magic" is very common in the Bible, up to and including the sacrifice of Jesus).

The ten plagues of Egypt are interesting in part because after God sends the first 4 or 5 plagues (I forget how many), the wizards of Egypt are able to equal them.
It's only about half way through the wizards of Egypt stop bothering to show up (they decide they don't have the power to summon a plague of lice, IIRC, even though they managed to summon a plague of frogs without trouble).

Anyways, from your answer it's clear that you can't give a firm reason as to why this isn't a contradiction in the Bible between God being presented as knowing everything, and God needing some pointers as to which babies to murder. I'll also note that no non-Hebrew first born babies were spared IIRC, which refutes the second element of your supposition.

#2 - Jesus says before he ascends into Heaven that he'll be back to begin his reign on earth before everyone-then-alive had died. He then goes AWOL for 2000 years.

What verse is this? Sorry.

Matthew 16:28
Yes! I tell you that there are some people standing here who will not experience death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom!”

Jesus was wrong, unless some of the people standing there are still alive.

#3 - Hebrews 6:18 says God can't lie. In Genesis God lies to Adam (when he tells Adam that if he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, he will die within one day. Adam eats the fruit and goes on to live until the age of nine hundred and thirty).

In Genesis, it says that "You will surely die". What translation of the Bible are you getting that from?

The majority of them.
Some translations omit the reference to "in that day".
But in most translations (95%+ of them, so let's be reasonable and assume they're most likely getting it right), it's on the day the apple is bitten, death occurs.

The line is Genesis 2:17:

King James 21st:
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”

American Standard Version
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Amplified Bible
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Common English Bible
17 but don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because on the day you eat from it, you will die!”

Contemporary English Version
17 except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!”

Darby Translation
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

Easy-To-Read-Version
17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”

English Standard Version
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

1599 Geneva Bible
17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the [b]death.



I can pull up a couple dozen more translations if you like, to make it very clear that it's an undeniable mis-translation to omit the reference to death occurring on that day?
If you really insist, I'll even work out my own translation by learning the hebrew meaning of each word, but I don't think that's necessary.

#4 - The words above Jesus on the cross are given four times, each time different:
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"

Alright, so we've made the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Actually no, you challenged for contradiction, which I provided.
I don't need to make the claim that the Bible is the word of God, in order to spot contradictions within it.

Do you make the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God?
Presumably you must believe it to be free of contradiction, since you challenged people to find contradictions.

o I compared the Greek between the 4 passages, and all include the same phrase, "Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων" which means the kind of the jews. Some are proceeded by another phrase, and some followed by another phrase. One could make an argument that part of the inscription wasn't included, and all of the gospels agree on what was said. So none of the Gospel said anything that contradicted with the other, they simply omitted some of the text because face it, they wrote these long after the actual events occurred. Its amazing that the accounts were so similar.

So the contradictions prove they are divine because they only slightly contradict each other, even though they were written a long time later.
I think there are a good number of other reasons for similarity, beyond "God did it".

And honestly, you're too-easily glossing over the fact that each time the inscription is given, it's different. That is a contradiction.
If one man comes to me and says a sign says "THIS IS BOB, KING OF THE PLEBS" and another man comes to me and says a sign says "THIS IS BOB FROM LONDON, KING OF THE PLEBS", what we have there are two accounts that do not match.

We are left with the inescapable conclusion that either one is false, or both are false. They cannot both be correct, because that would be a logical contradiction.

#5 - Jesus was crucified at three o'clock (Mark 15:25), and six o'clock (John 19:14-16).

Good one. Very good one. I've heard this one before. Basically the Romans and Jews had a different way of keeping time. Both the accounts, assuming they were using the same system, do contradict. However, if you take it that Mark wrote in the Jewish time, and John in the Roman time, they say the same thing. Honestly this isn't much of a stretch because Biblical scholars have said that Mark's style of writing had been "very Jewish" whereas John wrote in a much more "gentile, Roman" manner.

Citation needed that the Romans and the Jews were using time systems that were 3 hours out of sync.
Citation needed that John writes in a more Roman style.

Did you find my bonus #1 & bonus #2 interesting too?

Ta.

I find it interestig that you claim to have such a knowledge of the Jewish text and at the same time display such a complete lack of knowledge regarding prophecy and the symbolism and foreshadowing present in these events.

The blood issue alone is enough for me not to take your claims seriously, since it appears that you missed the simplest lesson of that story.

Your "death" issue is just another example of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't see a person actually discussing spiritual or religious things. You seem like you are making arguments about specific words as if they have a single meaning and specific events as if they could only have a single meaning that you have already predetermined.

When people make claims of a biblically literal nature or that the bible is a direct communication from god, it is reasonable to look at the text critically.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
When people make claims of a biblically literal nature or that the bible is a direct communication from god, it is reasonable to look at the text critically.

Very true, and I would not argue against a critical look at a text.

But the arguments being made are not just the result of a critical look at the text, they also rely on his specific definitions and interpretations being the only acceptable answers.

Like the Genesis "death" arguments. His whole argument relies on his belief that the death that is mentioned in that passage could only mean an instantaneous physical death and since neither Eve nor Adam instantly fell dead to the ground God must be a liar. It ignores spiritual death, it ignores death of a relationship, it ignores death of a certain promised way of life, it ignores that they did in fact at some point experience physical death.

Like the blood argument: His argument on that relies on his belief that the blood could only be meant as a message to God and that it means that God must not be able to know about each family without it ignores all other possible meanings.

And I truly have absolutely zero problems with people talking about "here is what I believe" and then somebody countering "here is what I believe".

It's the whole "here is what I believe" followed by the "well, here is why I think you are wrong, now prove to me that my interpretation of that text is not the only correct interpretation that could possibly be acceptable" response that gets on my nerves.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't see a person actually discussing spiritual or religious things.

And by “spiritual or religious”, you mean “vague, blurry, substance-less statement that holds no true meaning and can be distorted as will”. How appropriate !
What's next ? “Pope whateverhisname (they change so quickly these days) is dead !!! And by dead, I mean he hurt his finger, which is kind of like dying if you think about it in the right way”


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though maybe actually God is in fact just some old king, and this whole omnipotence, immortality, ubiquity is just not some “physical omnipotence, immortality and ubiquity”, but rather some “spiritual” one.
Hey guys, I'm spiritually omnipotent, immortal, ubiquitous too, please start worshiping me too !

...the arguments being made are not just the result of a critical look at the text, they also rely on his specific definitions and interpretations being the only acceptable answers.

I don't think I've made too many assumptions in my analysis.

Like the Genesis "death" arguments. His whole argument relies on his belief that the death that is mentioned in that passage could only mean an instantaneous physical death and since neither Eve nor Adam instantly fell dead to the ground God must be a liar. It ignores spiritual death, it ignores death of a relationship, it ignores death of a certain promised way of life, it ignores that they did in fact at some point experience physical death.

Sure, I assume "death" means "death", and not "something that's not death".

God is claimed to be a perfect being - can the perfect being not say what he means in an easily intelligible manner?

Like the blood argument: His argument on that relies on his belief that the blood could only be meant as a message to God and that it means that God must not be able to know about each family without it ignores all other possible meanings.

I rely on the text in Exodus 12 saying that the blood is a sign that God will look at to decide whether or not to enter the house and murder the firstborn babies inside.

Look at it this way:

- If the blood isn't required as a message to a (non-omniscient) God, then God is requiring a blood rite propitiation from his believers, otherwise He will MURDER the babies of His own believers!

Honestly, my interpretation is rather charitable (morally speaking) compared to the moral message delivered by a truly omniscient God in that passage.

Moral message by a non-omniscient God: I have come to save you from oppression and strike at your captors! Make a sign so I don't accidentally murder your babies!

Moral message by a truly omniscient God: I have come to save you, but only if you supplicate yourselves before me by conducting a blood rite; if you don't conduct a blood rite animal sacrifice and propitiate as I demand, I will murder your first born babies along with the Egyptian babies! I AM A NICE GUY!


I think the moral message delivered by a non-omniscient God is much nicer than that delivered by a God who knows everything.

And I truly have absolutely zero problems with people talking about "here is what I believe" and then somebody countering "here is what I believe".

It's the whole "here is what I believe" followed by the "well, here is why I think you are wrong, now prove to me that my interpretation of that text is not the only correct interpretation that could possibly be acceptable" response that gets on my nerves.

The Bringer laid down the challenge in this case, and I in my semi-competent manner accepted the challenge.
*shrug*

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't see a person actually discussing spiritual or religious things.

And by “spiritual or religious”, you mean “vague, blurry, substance-less statement that holds no true meaning and can be distorted as will”. How appropriate !
What's next ? “Pope whateverhisname (they change so quickly these days) is dead !!! And by dead, I mean he hurt his finger, which is kind of like dying if you think about it in the right way”


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though maybe actually God is in fact just some old king, and this whole omnipotence, immortality, ubiquity is just not some “physical omnipotence, immortality and ubiquity”, but rather some “spiritual” one.
Hey guys, I'm spiritually omnipotent, immortal, ubiquitous too, please start worshiping me too !

you're not Kona!

boo

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
you're not Kona!

Would you bet your eternal soul and risk an eternity of suffering at the hand of tormentors that would make even the worse Dark Eldar cringe for many eternities on that ? Your call, really. It's just that it would suck for you if you were wrong.

@evil&chaos, you make many fair points. I will spend more time on it and respond hopefully by Tuesday.

Ok, it seems pretty obvious now that you are purposefully ignoring me, Bringer.
I'm left to wonder why.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
you're not Kona!

Would you bet your eternal soul and risk an eternity of suffering at the hand of tormentors that would make even the worse Dark Eldar cringe for many eternities on that ? Your call, really. It's just that it would suck for you if you were wrong.

I am willing to bet a life one cannot prove exists to me. You can try and scare me with all that heaven and hell mumbo jumbo, but I didn't buy it as a child and I am not buying it now.
Suck for you if I'm right (well not really, according to the Book of Kona, when you die, you just die, until Kona's awakening-then perfection awakens)
One should want to be a part of a faith because they believe what it teaches, not because they are trying to scare you into it.. That's just brainwashing control/
If I genuinely wanted to be Christian I'd pick a church from one of the hundreds that exist and go there. But I don't believe what they teach and fear of suffering when I die scares me and more then death itself does.
I refuse to live a life of fear of something no one can prove exists, besides what a book says.

I choose to believe what feels right to me. Nothin' set in stone, and my beliefs are constantly evolving the more I experience. So long as I don't do something that is harmful to others, and try to be a good person, maybe that'll be enough for the big guy in the sky.

So, I choose Other.

 Guardsmen Bob wrote:
I choose to believe what feels right to me. Nothin' set in stone, and my beliefs are constantly evolving the more I experience. So long as I don't do something that is harmful to others, and try to be a good person, maybe that'll be enough for the big guy in the sky.

So, I choose Other.

become a Konite.
it's the religion that wants you to feel good about yourself

The old new covenant debate is an interesting one and highlights changing fashions in the modern church. Traditional Christianity believed that Jesus came and fulfilled the old covenant. He didn't replace it as it had been promised forever, he widened the covenant through his death to allow everyone to avail of the promises. The slavish devotion to the letter of the law disappeared as no one was capable of living to it, but that didn't stop it from being good in Gods eyes. Sacrifice was no longer required to atone for breaking covenant on the believers part because that had been taken care of. Punishment became Gods domain. Humans couldn't punish as they were too biased and hypocritical. (something this blog proves beyond doubt!!)

Sadly many modern Christians trying to align themselves with today's lovely happy world were anything goes...and have become ashamed of their God. Yes traditional Christianity says God will punish sins of blasphemy and many others it's just not up to us anymore to do it....Modern western chuch has a different position today, but the church embracing wrong teaching is as old as the bible and God forgives alot of crap. Hey it's not up go me to judge but it dosnt stop it happening! Repent!!