PDA

View Full Version : Why does religion still exist today when most former religions died out?


Druganator
07-28-2009, 01:31 PM
The Greek religions died out when the Romans converted to Christianity, as did most of paganism. Islam replaced many middle eastern belief systems.

Why can't rational thought now replace these old outdated ideas?

Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, these and many others are already viewed as outdated.

Judaism is an exclusive club that tries to control it's people, not unlike the Freemasons who many view as a group of zealots.

why can't we stop using the horse drawn buggy and move on to at least the combustion engine?

jrrtoken
07-28-2009, 01:43 PM
The Greek religions died out when the Romans converted to Christianity, as did most of paganism.Er, no, but nice try.Islam replaced many middle eastern belief systems.Again, failure in logic.Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, these and many others are already viewed as outdated.Yes, how thoughtful to ignore the 1 billion practicing Hindus in the world.Judaism is an exclusive club that tries to control it's people, not unlike the Freemasons who many view as a group of zealots.What a wonderful display of fallacious intolerance.

So what's the real religion then? Christianity, right?

Why don't you back with some tolerance and critical thinking skills, and then we'll talk.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 01:52 PM
Er, no, but nice try.Again, failure in logic.Yes, how thoughtful to ignore the 1 billion practicing Hindus in the world.What a wonderful display of fallacious intolerance.

Why don't you back with some tolerance and critical thinking skills, and then we'll talk.

Well if all he said were so riddled with flaws and mistruths, perhaps you would be so great as to demonstrate your diverse knowledge on the subject. No? Then perhaps you should keep your simplistic contradictions to yourself and actually apply something to the thread. Stop the insults. ~ mimartin

I have to agree with the title of the thread in general; why are so many beliefs still held to as they were hundreds of years ago?

One of the most significant things that differenciates Greece and Rome from the others is polytheism. Also note that Rome based its gods off of Greek gods. Mars is Ares, Pluto is Hades, Venus is Aphrodite.

The belief in one god, monotheism, has become what lead to the more 'everlasting' beliefs that we have today. Where older civilizations might just assume another's gods are more powerful than their own, most monotheism declares that there is only one god. And that God is supreme god of the universe while all the others are to be fought and destroyed.

However this does bring up a point: considering how we're reaching so many logical explanations about how the universe works that don't revolve around religion, why hold to it still? I can understand if it serves to unite people with moral and ethical codes, but religion tends to discriminate everyone outside that belief. Anyone who is part of a religion can consider themselves close friends, but those outside are not covered under the same standards. Ever hear the term 'holy war'?

Druganator
07-28-2009, 01:58 PM
Er, no, but nice try.Again, failure in logic.Yes, how thoughtful to ignore the 1 billion practicing Hindus in the world.What a wonderful display of fallacious intolerance.

So what's the real religion then? Christianity, right?

Why don't you back with some tolerance and critical thinking skills, and then we'll talk.

i don't tolerate any religions. because they are all institutions that attempt to tell people how they should live their lives, what's right and what's wrong and i think people need to learn for themselves. i was raised as an episcopalian and i hate christianity the most out of all the religions.

And i'm speaking of all the zealots who believe god created man and everything else, and that the world can only be destroyed by god so we don't have to do anything about global warming, and that gay people are going to burn in hell because the bible says so.

all religions were created by man, in order to make himself feel like he matters when some people do not matter anywhere near as much as others, for instance, a seventeen year old boy living in the suburbs of DC (me) does not matter anywhere near as much as a Doctor in Prince George's county.

Lord of Hunger
07-28-2009, 02:02 PM
@ Original Post: That assumes that the secular ideologies of today are more "rational" than the religious philosophies of yesterday.

I know of only one "rational" secular ideology and that would be humanitarianism. Even then there is what I like to call the Kreia's Evil of Charity, which holds that when you provide someone with something they have not earned you have only robed a chance for growth from them, thus increasing their misery.

To my knowledge more people have died in wars and atrocities done in the name of secular ideologies than religion.

And furthermore Western society STILL refuses to acknowledge the benevolent impact of religious charities. I would know because last year during the summer I went down to Mexico with about thirty members of my Catholic Church and ten members of another Catholic Church to an orphanage for boys. There we accomplished so much for them: we cooked for them, played for them (this being the most important thing of all since it can get VERY lonely in a Mexican orphanage), fixed their bikes, made a garden for them, and rebuilt a roof on the center of an impoverished community living in a dump right next to a high security prison, all the while showing the people there ways to improve their condition by only using local resources (so we wouldn't entirely commit Kreia's Evil of Charity). And we didn't try converting them; we didn't need to because they were already Catholic but nor do I think we would have tried if they weren't. In our church we hold the view that it is best for us to just show the work of God (benevolence) and let people find inspiration in that rather than the words of a missionary or priest.

We have secular ideologies done to this world? We had Nazism, Communism, Social Darwinism, Utilitarianism, and worst of all...Nihilism. All of these secular ideologies lead only to atrocity and create the same sort of fervor found in religions without providing any spiritual growth. They starve the soul and make man a rabid animal because they possess the flaws of religions without the benefits. It is easier for a man to kill under a secular ideology than under a religious philosophy for one reason: In most religions you have to lie to yourself in order to kill for the religion you are about to disobey. Most religions such as Christianity have the whole thing of "do not kill" and "love your neighbor as yourself", and also "turn the other cheek". Secular ideologies don't have that (at least most don't). Nazism says it is okay to kill Jews and gays and the mental deficient and so on, Communism gives the people the right to "overthrow the capitalists and imperialists", Utilitarianism holds the greatest good for the greatest number so if a few people have to be killed, raped, or whatnot then it is no problem, and Nihilism holds no concrete morality at all (and is one of Hitler's inspirations for Nazism via the Ubermensch belief).

I'm not saying religion is perfect, it is but an attempt of man to vaguely understand the nature of the Divine both outside of us and within us. But I'll take my funky mixture of Buddhism and Catholicism over a secular ideology any day.[/RANT]
i don't tolerate any religions. because they are all institutions that attempt to tell people how they should live their lives, what's right and what's wrong and i think people need to learn for themselves. i was raised as an episcopalian and i hate christianity the most out of all the religions.
Um, secular ideologies also tell people how they should live their lives, what's right and what's wrong, and do not teach people how to think for themselves at all.
However this does bring up a point: considering how we're reaching so many logical explanations about how the universe works that don't revolve around religion, why hold to it still? I can understand if it serves to unite people with moral and ethical codes, but religion tends to discriminate everyone outside that belief. Anyone who is part of a religion can consider themselves close friends, but those outside are not covered under the same standards. Ever hear the term 'holy war'?
And in the case of secular ideologies have you ever heard the terms WWI and WWII? Especially the latter. And at least in the Crusades more people were dying on the battle field than in cities or death camps. There you had zealots killing each other for no good reason, but at least it was the zealots that were dying more so than in WWII where the zealots were killing civilians in death camps. Six million Jews whose crimes were that they held a specific religion, set of genes, and bodily characteristics, plus many more gays, mental deficient individuals, gypsies, slavs...you name it. The difference between a secular war and holy war is that in a holy war if your a zealot you kill another zealot but in a secular war you kill somebody completely innocent.

Darth InSidious
07-28-2009, 02:06 PM
...And this thread wins the Reductionist Ahistorical Nonsense Award 2009.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 02:07 PM
Nazism in WWII was based on Hitler's attacks on a religion (i know he also killed gays and gypsies and the handicapped which could also be perceived as his hate for non protestants) and his belief in Aryan Male Protestants. he was a religious zealot.

To my knowledge more people have died in wars and atrocities done in the name of secular ideologies than religion.

Um, secular ideologies also tell people how they should live their lives, what's right and what's wrong, and do not teach people how to think for themselves at all.

The jews wiped out a large amount of people in the early days of the bible, the spanish inquisition killed many people for not believing, the war we are in now started out as a christian nation attacking a muslim nation. (i do not think the sole purpose of whatever reason we went in their was religion at all but with that retard you never know) the crusades were fought against the Saracens and many many many people died in each one of those. muslims and jews are continuously fighting in israel and palestine.

i'm an athiest, i think religion should stay out of policies and lawmaking. so that they can't tell people what's right and wrong and how they should think, and you are right there are many secular ideoligies that tell people what to think. I don't follow any of them.

jrrtoken
07-28-2009, 02:14 PM
Well if all he said were so riddled with flaws and mistruths, perhaps you would be so great as to demonstrate your diverse knowledge on the subject. No? Then perhaps you should keep your simplistic contradictions to yourself and actually apply something to the thread.Thank you, moderator. :dozey:I have to agree with the title of the thread in general; why are so many beliefs still held to as they were hundreds of years ago?Simple, they've been ingrained into a society's culture. With enough time and pressure, one can easily adopt any custom. It isn't hard to fathom, really.However this does bring up a point: considering how we're reaching so many logical explanations about how the universe works that don't revolve around religion, why hold to it still?See above.I can understand if it serves to unite people with moral and ethical codes, but religion tends to discriminate everyone outside that belief.Er, somewhat. It depends on the demeanor of the one preaching, but also on religious dogma. Strictly speaking, some religious standards are more tolerant than others.Anyone who is part of a religion can consider themselves close friends, but those outside are not covered under the same standards. Ever hear the term 'holy war'?Again, religion will always be perverted as an excuse for violence by fanatics. This doesn't exactly conclude a fault in religion, just simply a fault in human nature. There will always be radicalism in any organization of individuals, religion included.i don't tolerate any religions. because they are all institutions that attempt to tell people how they should live their lives, what's right and what's wrong and i think people need to learn for themselves. i was raised as an episcopalian and i hate christianity the most out of all the religions.I can see your reasoning, but it's still fallacious. There will always be corruption and abuse by individuals within religious institutions. Does this make the religion itself corrupt? While it might give the religion in question a bad name, almost all of the time it is simply religious authority, which is strictly human in nature, that practices the abuse. To blame the religion in question, as a whole, as a vector for corruption would be close-minded.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 02:18 PM
Thank you, moderator. :dozey:Simple, they've been ingrained into a society's culture. With enough time and pressure, one can easily adopt any custom. It isn't hard to fathom, really.See above.Er, somewhat. It depends on the demeanor of the one preaching, but also on religious dogma. Strictly speaking, some religious standards are more tolerant than others.Again, religion will always be perverted as an excuse for violence by fanatics. This doesn't exactly conclude a fault in religion, just simply a fault in human nature. There will always be radicalism in any organization of individuals, religion included.I can see your reasoning, but it's still fallacious. There will always be corruption and abuse by individuals within religious institutions. Does this make religion itself corrupt? While it might give the religion in question a bad name, almost all of the time it is simply religious authority, which is strictly human in nature, that practices the abuse. To blame the religion in question, as a whole, as a vector for corruption would be close-minded.

i do not blame religion for all corruption, i just want to take it out of the equation to lessen what corruption there is and to attempt to fix that ******** that is congress. for whatever reason religion has also ingrained itself in there as well. Religion is ignorance of progress. some christians still think that evolution is a theory. Christianity itself is just a copy of other religions. look up the story of Horus. it mirrors the "life" of jesus in almost every way.



And in the case of secular ideologies have you ever heard the terms WWI and WWII? Especially the latter. And at least in the Crusades more people were dying on the battle field than in cities or death camps. There you had zealots killing each other for no good reason, but at least it was the zealots that were dying more so than in WWII where the zealots were killing civilians in death camps. Six million Jews whose crimes were that they held a specific religion, set of genes, and bodily characteristics, plus many more gays, mental deficient individuals, gypsies, slavs...you name it. The difference between a secular war and holy war is that in a holy war if your a zealot you kill another zealot but in a secular war you kill somebody completely innocent.

no in a secular war, the religious zealots kill people who are innocent in the name of religion.

Lord of Hunger
07-28-2009, 02:25 PM
You say progress...progress of what? The material? Man is a spiritual creature, his primary nature is to seek what is beyond the material, which is the only thing that grants fulfillment. You can give him all the riches of the world and he will still be unhappy because there is a limit to the happiness of the material (though unlike most Catholics I still acknowledge that divorcing one's self from the material is equally unwise). If you look at most of the wealthy, you can tell that they are often miserable internally. The exceptions are those like Bill Gates who share their wealth to achieve some form of benevolence in the world and thus improve their own spiritual condition. When you find a secular ideology or a non-religious lifestyle that make man truly happy without changing his internal nature or deceiving him, let me know.

Web Rider
07-28-2009, 02:32 PM
Because the big questions are still unanswered, and like a hundred, like a thousand years ago, people want to know these answers. Yes religion tries to tell people how to live their lives, just like you do. It's the nature of anyone who thinks they've got the right answers to tell other people how to live.

CommanderQ
07-28-2009, 02:32 PM
Nazism in WWII was based on Hitler's attacks on a religion (i know he also killed gays and gypsies and the handicapped which could also be perceived as his hate for non protestants) and his belief in Aryan Male Protestants. he was a religious zealot.

I think we've discussed that somewhere else in Kavar's....


Hitler, in no way, was moved to wipe out the Jews due to his religous fervor.

We've got to remember that Germany, after the Treaty of Versailles, was economically ruined, and was going through a Great Depression of their own.

Hitler knew that if he wanted the power he needed for his plan of the Third Reich, then he needed to unite the people. He also knew that often the best way to unite a people was the hatred of a common enemy.

The Jews seemed the most obvious people to make into an enemy{from Hitler's point-of-view}

He then blamed the Jews for the suffering of the German people, and Deutschland came to Hitler, who promised vengeance against the Jews and a return to the prosperity of the Early German Empires.

Still, even after being elected Chancellor, Hitler didn't have all of Germany under his hand, not everyone agreed with him, namely the Christians and the Catholics. So, Hitler embarked on a campaign to win their allegiance, twisting the words of the Bible to his advantage{and also using texts written by religous leaders, like Martin Luther}. One of many falsehoods that he said was that Jesus, not being a Jew {he was a Jew}, needed to be avenged by getting the Jews out of Germany.

So, Hitler was a master deciever, using religon simply to gain more power{he used this tactic not only with the Christians, but with the Muslims as well}. His goal was not a Religous Aryan Germany, it was really just an Aryan Germany loyal to him. If he'd been victorious in his war, then he would've undoubtedly turned on the religous peoples of the Third Reich, 'purifying his Empire further,' so to say.

Hitler was not a Religous Zealot, he just appeared to be, in order to gain the support of the German people. He was just a power hungry freak, not a Crusader.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 02:39 PM
While it might give the religion in question a bad name, almost all of the time it is simply religious authority, which is strictly human in nature, that practices the abuse. To blame the religion in question, as a whole, as a vector for corruption would be close-minded.

Alright then, I do not blame religion. I do blame those who use religion as an excuse to commit deeds that infringe upon the rights of others.

Just as true do I not hate guns. If there is a mass murder done by an AK-47, I don't blame the gun, but the psycho who wielded the weapon. Does that mean that I support having assault rifles made legal in the US?

I'm against religion also because I believe there is a logical reason that everything in the universe works as it does. I also believe that religion will only hinder our hinder our progress by accepting ignorance over knowledge. Our greatness as the dominant species on the planet wasn't because of god, but our own intuition.

You say progress...progress of what? The material? Man is a spiritual creature, his primary nature is to seek what is beyond the material, which is the only thing that grants fulfillment. You can give him all the riches of the world and he will still be unhappy because there is a limit to the happiness of the material.

When you find a secular ideology or a non-religious lifestyle that make man truly happy without changing his internal nature or deceiving him, let me know.

I respectfully disagree. What if a person EARNED all the riches in the world? That at least goes to show a person went to lengths to obtain what s/he wanted. Giving something away is not the same as earning it. But that's beside the point.

You are right that it is important for humans to strive for self-actualization, but that is not always found within religion. My father is an atheist... appreciates religion, but isn't religious... he is an ideal model for all humans to follow, I would say. He seeks knowledge and is very well-informed of the way the world works. He goes out each day with the intent to be better then than when he woke up. I have the tendency to waste time playing computer games or just letting things slide for a while. Although it makes me satisfied for a while, I eventually look back and realize that I could have become so much more if I dedicated myself when it was and wasn't critical for me to do so. I am seeking to change that, but have a long way to go. I am also acceptant of the fact real change isn't going to be easy, or quick.

My point is that the measure of how happy someone is goes towards self-actualization. When you have religion, you essentially offer a simple solution to explain something that otherwise would peak our curiosity and drive us to find the answer.

mimartin
07-28-2009, 02:42 PM
Because the big questions are still unanswered, and like a hundred, like a thousand years ago, people want to know these answers. Yes religion tries to tell people how to live their lives, just like you do. It's the nature of anyone who thinks they've got the right answers to tell other people how to live.

QFT

Below has nothing to do with the quote above or the person quoted.
******************
The moderators are watching this thread extra closely, so please stay within the rules of Kavar. You can make your point in a calm rational way. Please also stop the backseat moderating, if you have a problem with a post use the report feature.

Trench
07-28-2009, 03:03 PM
I don't know why your complaining. Some of us (me included) are perfectly content living out in the boonies "clinging to our guns and religion". You won't be able to stop us as long as we abide by the law (we have our rights), and if someone did manage to stop us, we would still do it behind your backs.
And the extremists who twists things around and lie so that they can get people to join them in killing innocents and waging war deserve to be locked up until they rot.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 03:30 PM
I guess that the title of the thread is quite simple. States and languages form, change, evolve, and dissolve... that's no surprise. Why not expect religion to have a similar cycle as well? Older religions died out. Newer religions took over either as an evolution from older ones, or just formed from scratch.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 05:44 PM
i'm not trying to tell people how to live, i'm simply trying to show people facts the same way a math teacher explains the answer to a math problem. i want people to at least think about the possibility that they've been lied to, all i can do is show them what i know, not what i believe. And i should not have said that Hitler's reasoning for killing all of those people was purely religious. the germans yearned for reasons for what happened in WWI the same way people yearn for a reason for their existence. Hitler, like many religious leaders, gave the german's an answer. An answer he, like the religious founders, made up.

I don't know why your complaining. Some of us (me included) are perfectly content living out in the boonies "clinging to our guns and religion". You won't be able to stop us as long as we abide by the law (we have our rights), and if someone did manage to stop us, we would still do it behind your backs.
And the extremists who twists things around and lie so that they can get people to join them in killing innocents and waging war deserve to be locked up until they rot.
the only problem i have with people being religious is that some very misguided people vote purely on that basis, then in turn those people that get elected use religion in their policies. I.E. the congressman who claimed that we do not need to do anything about global warming because the bible says that only god can end the earth.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 05:54 PM
i'm not trying to tell people how to live, i'm simply trying to show people facts the same way a math teacher explains the answer to a math problem.

Noble gesture, but really a futile one. It often takes more than good argument over an internet forum to convince people to change their beliefs.

Almost everything that we state is already known to people on the other side, so it's not like we explain something that people haven't already considered. Odds are that they are already aware of what the opposition presents, but that they've already made their judgment one way or another.

That's not to criticize people who believe in God; having strong values is a good thing. That's one thing that we have which animals do not. The question is whether you know exactly what values you are holding to and if we find that they are not valuable or valid enough, there is no point in holding on to them.

Gob
07-28-2009, 05:56 PM
Druganator, you can dislike religion. You can criticize it, point out all of its flaws... But that's not all you're doing. You're being downright intolerant of it. And intolerance is one of the most common flaws displayed by some religious people.

I'm not religious. I will probably never be religious. But you're acting as if religion is forced upon you. You're not living in the Dark Ages. Wherever you live, you're obviously free to practice whatever you want, including nothing.

The point of religion is to give you a path to find what you're looking for in life. Religion is saying, "If you do this, you just might be happy. If you want it." Nonreligious people are usually interested in finding their own path, or just don't care. Some people are just happy with life. That's OK, too. It's just whatever gets you through your life.

Most religious people aren't extremist, so it's unfair to criticize the mass of people that aren't for the select few that are. If people actually followed most of their religions the way they were supposed to be followed, then those extremists wouldn't be around, and neither would this discussion. And if you acknowledge that fact, then the discussion shouldn't be around anyway.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 05:57 PM
Noble gesture, but really a futile one. It often takes more than good argument over an internet forum to convince people to change their beliefs.

Almost everything that we state is already known to people on the other side, so it's not like we explain something that people haven't already considered. Odds are that they are already aware of what the opposition presents, but that they've already made their judgment one way or another.

That's not to criticize people who believe in God; having strong values is a good thing. That's what we have and animals do not. The question is whether you know exactly what values you are holding on to and if they are not valuable or valid enough, there is no point in holding on to them.

unfortunately i know how right you are, even in person many people fail to see the truth that stares them in the face. such as christians who have heard the story of Horus and know how long before jesus existed it took place. I would explain it but there is no point as it will either be ignored, or simply put off as a farce or something of that nature.

Druganator, you can dislike religion. You can criticize it, point out all of its flaws... But that's not all you're doing. You're being downright intolerant of it. And intolerance is one of the most common flaws displayed by some religious people.

I'm not religious. I will probably never be religious. But you're acting as if religion is forced upon you. You're not living in the Dark Ages. Wherever you live, you're obviously free to practice whatever you want, including nothing.

The point of religion is to give you a path to find what you're looking for in life. Religion is saying, "If you do this, you just might be happy. If you want it." Nonreligious people are usually interested in finding their own path, or just don't care. Some people are just happy with life. That's OK, too. It's just whatever gets you through your life.

Most religious people aren't extremist, so it's unfair to criticize the mass of people that aren't for the select few that are. If people actually followed their religions the way they were supposed to be followed, then those extremists wouldn't be around, and neither would this discussion. And if you acknowledge that fact, then the discussion shouldn't be around anyway.


i'm intolerant of it because it only serves to weaken the human population through promises of eternal life if they do what their religious leaders say. Catholics who (not anytime recently) made up all these laws never mentioned by jesus or even found in the bible. Muslim extremists who fabricated jihad to trick impressionable young muslim men into giving their lives for a cause they are told is theirs. the belief in deities is what i am most intolerant of. Toaism is an ideology devoid of these fabrications that tells people to enjoy their life while they have it, there is nothing wrong with that (in my opinion). Telling someone that if they are attracted to the same sex they will go to hell unless they pretend not to be, that's wrong (in my opinion).

Web Rider
07-28-2009, 06:31 PM
i'm not trying to tell people how to live, i'm simply trying to show people facts the same way a math teacher explains the answer to a math problem.
Now, if only you actually had an answer besides "you're wrong."


i want people to at least think about the possibility that they've been lied to, all i can do is show them what i know, not what i believe. And i should not have said that Hitler's reasoning for killing all of those people was purely religious. the germans yearned for reasons for what happened in WWI the same way people yearn for a reason for their existence. Hitler, like many religious leaders, gave the german's an answer. An answer he, like the religious founders, made up.
Some do, some don't. Point is, you are telling them the way they live their lives is incorrect(by not questioning), and that they should do it. You are TELLING people how to run their lives. Yes, people lied to the Germans, the British and French subjected them to horrible poverty and they're STILL paying off war debts.(2020 projected). Anyone could have done that, religious or not.


the only problem i have with people being religious is that some very misguided people vote purely on that basis, then in turn those people that get elected use religion in their policies.
OMG, some people vote entirely on their own personal opinion! Some people vote on opinions given to them by others! shocking! It's their life, let them live it. I'm sure few of us here really know enough about global warming to vote on the basis that we know what we're talking about. Everyone to some degree votes based on what they think they know, what they're told and what they believe.

i'm intolerant of it because it only serves to weaken the human population through promises of eternal life if they do what their religious leaders say. Catholics who (not anytime recently) made up all these laws never mentioned by jesus or even found in the bible. Muslim extremists who fabricated jihad to trick impressionable young muslim men into giving their lives for a cause they are told is theirs. the belief in deities is what i am most intolerant of. Toaism is an ideology devoid of these fabrications that tells people to enjoy their life while they have it, there is nothing wrong with that (in my opinion). Telling someone that if they are attracted to the same sex they will go to hell unless they pretend not to be, that's wrong (in my opinion).
I can't believe I'm reading this. Religion did NONE of that. You even wrote so! People did all of that. They used religion as their tool to accomplish it, the same way people use nationalism, patriotism, race, gender, economic problems and a hundred other things! And really, Taoism does not say that, and it has deities, please read up on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Beliefs

Druganator
07-28-2009, 07:22 PM
"Religious Taoism is generally considered to be polytheistic."

it also says on there that there are many different branches with different beliefs. i have met a few Taoists in my life, none of whom worshiped or believed in any deities, they simply followed the path

Now, if only you actually had an answer besides "you're wrong."

i prefer to say that they've been mislead as with MOST people who believe in a religion they were raised as such. ill say it again for emphasis, MOST, not all.

JediAthos
07-28-2009, 07:49 PM
I was raised Roman Catholic, I have an aunt who is a Sister of Notre Dame(a nun), and my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles are very devout to their religion. I am not as I once was as I have come to disagree with the Catholic Church on various subjects. I do still believe the basic tenets of the faith, but it is the Church itself(the Vatican if you will) that I have issues with.

I wanted to provide a bit of background on me before I offered a response to the thread.

I think, as has already been said, that religion has endured as a part of humanity because humans do seek to explain the things which have eluded them for thousands of years. Religions will continue to exist I think as long as humanity exists because of that very reason and really there is nothing that will likely to be done to change that.

I think what the OP fails to realize here is that for every "truth" you present a follower of any religion will offer their explanation for that same thing as they have come to believe it. It's not an argument you will win nor will you ever change their mind. You think and believe as you do, and they think and feel as they do. That's really the end of it right there.

I don't really see how it weakens the human population to be honest. I'd love to hear you present some sort of evidence for that statement. Yes, tragedies have been committed using religion as justification, but those tragedies would likely have been committed anyway. The perpetrators would have simply found another tool to commit them.

Religious zealots do not make up the majority of religious followers. Congress is not what it is due to religion...not even close. Congress is what it is more due to grandiose political motivations, posturing, endless debate, and politicians who are more concerned about the party line and their political careers than anything else.

You say you are intolerant of all religions...frankly that's about as ridiculous as being intolerant of anything else. It is especially so given that you are living in the United States which is a country that has the freedom of religion in its most basic foundations. Many of the people that settled in the U.S. were seeking freedom from persecution because of their religion!

Druganator
07-28-2009, 08:08 PM
I was raised Roman Catholic, I have an aunt who is a Sister of Notre Dame(a nun), and my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles are very devout to their religion. I am not as I once was as I have come to disagree with the Catholic Church on various subjects. I do still believe the basic tenets of the faith, but it is the Church itself(the Vatican if you will) that I have issues with.

I wanted to provide a bit of background on me before I offered a response to the thread.

I think, as has already been said, that religion has endured as a part of humanity because humans do seek to explain the things which have eluded them for thousands of years. Religions will continue to exist I think as long as humanity exists because of that very reason and really there is nothing that will likely to be done to change that.

I think what the OP fails to realize here is that for every "truth" you present a follower of any religion will offer their explanation for that same thing as they have come to believe it. It's not an argument you will win nor will you ever change their mind. You think and believe as you do, and they think and feel as they do. That's really the end of it right there.

I don't really see how it weakens the human population to be honest. I'd love to hear you present some sort of evidence for that statement. Yes, tragedies have been committed using religion as justification, but those tragedies would likely have been committed anyway. The perpetrators would have simply found another tool to commit them.

Religious zealots do not make up the majority of religious followers. Congress is not what it is due to religion...not even close. Congress is what it is more due to grandiose political motivations, posturing, endless debate, and politicians who are more concerned about the party line and their political careers than anything else.

You say you are intolerant of all religions...frankly that's about as ridiculous as being intolerant of anything else. It is especially so given that you are living in the United States which is a country that has the freedom of religion in its most basic foundations. Many of the people that settled in the U.S. were seeking freedom from persecution because of their religion!

i never said zealots were the majority, they are usually the one's with the power though, correct?

I don't understand why everyone thinks i am trying to force anyone to do anything, i think that people should think for themselves, i can't make anyone do that because in doing so i would cause them not to think for themselves. This isn't an "argument" i hope to win. It's like trying to solve world hunger. people could try to figure some of these things out through science, but instead they take the cop out and just say god did everything. God made us, the world and everything else. he has a plan for all of us (so if he already has a plan why do people pray? if it's not part of his plan then you aren't going to get what you prayed for). Religion takes meaning away when it makes people believe (like someone said on here earlier) that their earned achievements are thanks to god and not their hard work. It puts meaning where it doesn't belong i.e. god created each and every person individually and he has a specific plan for everyone. it weakens the human population because it frowns upon pride, if people aren't proud of themselves and just chalk up their achievements to god then there isn't much reason to make a name for yourself. It makes people feel like they aren't good enough because every little thing they do is a sin.

Religion is also very inconsistent. Before the Nicene creed was written, many different sects believed that Jesus was simply a man, some believed that jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Other inconsistencies include the fact that only two gospels mention the fact that jesus' mother was a virgin. oh and none of the gospel writers met jesus.

Gob
07-28-2009, 08:41 PM
i never said zealots were the majority, they are usually the one's with the power though, correct?

No. I don't seem to recall when the governments of about 98-99% of the world became zealots.

I don't understand why everyone thinks i am trying to force anyone to do anything, i think that people should think for themselves, i can't make anyone do that because in doing so i would cause them not to think for themselves.

You're not forcing anything on anyone, because you don't have the power to do that to anyone but your kids. You are, however, intolerant, and no root level of intolerance is good.

people could try to figure some of these things out through science, but instead they take the cop out and just say god did everything.

The people who are in the position to solve world hunger aren't going to say, "Screw it. God did everything."

so if he already has a plan why do people pray? if it's not part of his plan then you aren't going to get what you prayed for

This, I agree with. I don't believe in praying. I don't mind people praying, but I think it's a silly thing to do, even if praying does somehow do something.

Religion takes meaning away when it makes people believe (like someone said on here earlier) that their earned achievements are thanks to god and not their hard work.

So? Let them believe what they want to. They're happy, and they did something good. Doesn't matter what their reasons are. And a lot of religious people don't think that way. They might believe that God gave them strength or whatever, but they're not going to dismiss their own hard work.

It puts meaning where it doesn't belong i.e. god created each and every person individually and he has a specific plan for everyone. it weakens the human population because it frowns upon pride, if people aren't proud of themselves and just chalk up their achievements to god then there isn't much reason to make a name for yourself. It makes people feel like they aren't good enough because every little thing they do is a sin.

I get the impression that you're talking about certain branches of Christianity, and not just religion in general. Like I said above, most religion places value on hard work, and doesn't say, "Whatever you do, God did it. So don't get so happy."

Religion is also very inconsistent. Before the Nicene creed was written, many different sects believed that Jesus was simply a man, some believed that jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Other inconsistencies include the fact that only two gospels mention the fact that jesus' mother was a virgin.

Religion changes. There are many different sects of different religions. There are many different perspectives. What are you going to do?

oh and none of the gospel writers met jesus.

You do realize that the Gospel writers were Jesus' direct disciples, right?

JediAthos
07-28-2009, 08:50 PM
Religions may frown upon pride but that sure as heck doesn't stop the great majority of humans for being quite proud of themselves. Inconsistencies happen in all facets of life...religion, science, history. The gospel writers not having met Jesus doesn't necessarily mean anything to be honest. There have been many books written regarding historical figures where the author lived decades after the subject of the book died. At the same time the Gospel of John is generally attributed to a disciple of Jesus as is Matthew though there are those religious scholars who believe Matthew did not write the gospel which bears his name, Luke is generally considered not disciple but merely an author who gathered the best sources he could gather and wrote what they conveyed, and Mark is known to be a cousin of Barnabus and may have been a disciple of Peter who was of course a disciple of Jesus.

Religion and humanity have coexisted for a very, very long time. They will likely continue to do so. I don't really see religion as a cop out...I would imagine that some people may use it as such, but a great many religious people do their best to help wherever they can through charities, missions, and other things whose aim it is to fight hunger, poverty, and homelessness among other things.

Darth InSidious
07-28-2009, 08:54 PM
i never said zealots were the majority, they are usually the one's with the power though, correct?
:rolleyes:

No, and that's half of the reason they're so furious.

I don't understand why everyone thinks i am trying to force anyone to do anything, i think that people should think for themselves, i can't make anyone do that because in doing so i would cause them not to think for themselves. This isn't an "argument" i hope to win. It's like trying to solve world hunger. people could try to figure some of these things out through science, but instead they take the cop out and just say god did everything.
Ahistorical rubbish asserting a science vs. religion dichotomy that is non-existent. Copernicus had no issue making scientific discoveries while remaining a Roman Catholic priest. Again, you talk nonsense and assert it as fact. That a few Creationists believe nonsense is irrelevant; the vast majority do not.

God made us, the world and everything else. he has a plan for all of us (so if he already has a plan why do people pray? if it's not part of his plan then you aren't going to get what you prayed for). Religion takes meaning away when it makes people believe (like someone said on here earlier) that their earned achievements are thanks to god and not their hard work. It puts meaning where it doesn't belong i.e. god created each and every person individually and he has a specific plan for everyone. it weakens the human population because it frowns upon pride, if people aren't proud of themselves and just chalk up their achievements to god then there isn't much reason to make a name for yourself. It makes people feel like they aren't good enough because every little thing they do is a sin.
So you don't understand theology, either.

Religion is also very inconsistent. Before the Nicene creed was written, many different sects believed that Jesus was simply a man, some believed that jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Other inconsistencies include the fact that only two gospels mention the fact that jesus' mother was a virgin. oh and none of the gospel writers met jesus.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 08:55 PM
No. I don't seem to recall when the governments of about 98-99% of the world became zealots.


You do realize that the Gospel writers were Jesus' direct disciples, right?

thats my bad i worded that very badly, the people in power in religious groups are usually zealots, The Pope for instance.

"Three of the New Testament gospels are termed “synoptics” (from the Greek word meaning “seeing together”) because they cover basically the same story. These are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Of the gospel writers, only two of the apostles Matthew and John had known Jesus"

source: http://www.ldsmag.com/articles/021231gospels.html

sorry i was mistaken

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 08:59 PM
Some do, some don't. Point is, you are telling them the way they live their lives is incorrect(by not questioning), and that they should do it. You are TELLING people how to run their lives.

OMG, some people vote entirely on their own personal opinion! Some people vote on opinions given to them by others! shocking! It's their life, let them live it. I'm sure few of us here really know enough about global warming to vote on the basis that we know what we're talking about. Everyone to some degree votes based on what they think they know, what they're told and what they believe.

I don't think that's exactly correct, the first piece. If a doctor says you should exercise and eat a diet of foods you don't like, are they telling you how to live your life, or are they suggesting how to improve your health? The same goes for religion to an extent.

One belief that says that eternal life exists promotes the idea that what you do in this life doesn't matter if your soul will live forever. I would rather that people keep their minds on the idea that life is precious and not to be wasted because of the belief in an afterlife. It is entirely their choice what they do with their lives, but just because they have the right to throw them away doesn't exactly mean that they should be encouraged to do so.

I would encourage people not to take religion as much as I would encourage them not to smoke, become obese, not to get infected with HIV, waste their lives watching TV, and many other acts that are detrimental to themselves. I would encourage people to not accept superstitions as answers because they are hollow pursuits. It's much better to just go about life and not assume that you are part of some greater plan unless you make yourself become part of one. Obama didn't become president because of God, but because he did what was required for it to happen.

If people wish to assume God controls their lives, then it's their right; but it would be better for them to assume they are in control and responsible for their lives.

Darth InSidious
07-28-2009, 09:00 PM
Since it seems no-one else has adequately dealt with this yet, it seems it falls to me to deal with the mountains of non-argument and nonsense in this thread. To stop myself from actually sinking far enough to slit my own wrists, however, I will be limiting myself to rebutting Druganator's non-points, rather than the non-points of this thread as a whole.

The Greek religions died out when the Romans converted to Christianity, as did most of paganism.
Crap. Grade A nonsense. Paganism in the Roman Empire only went into critical decline after it was made illegal by the Emperor Theodosius the Great in 389-391, although previous laws by him had outlawed haruspicy in 384 and sacrifice generally in 381, and crucially made the non-enforcement of these laws a criminal offence.

Islam replaced many middle eastern belief systems.
Lulz, no. It sprang up in the Empire, and was largely regarded in its early history as simply another Christian heresy.

Why can't rational thought now replace these old outdated ideas?
You proceed from so many false assumptions it's just not funny.

First you assume that mainstream religion and rationality are incompatible, which is manifestly false; you might bother to read Aquinas, Franzelin, or at least Fides et Ratio before commenting on this at a minimum, but I suppose expecting learning to back up your specious assertions would be too much to presume.

Second, you proceed from the discredited, and nonsensical idea that history is some great procession towards this point, and on to a Brave New World. This is generally known as Whig History.

You might find this useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)

Third, assuming your bizarre belief in the Next Great Shift, why should it be rationalism?

Fourth, and most ironic, your point is in no way rational, but based on an ignorance of history and historiography, and only a vague understanding of the religious values you condemn.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, these and many others are already viewed as outdated.
By whom? I know of no-one who thinks that, and your comment smacks of bigotry. Actually, that's not correct - it is bigoted, not to mention grossly fatuous. For the record there are somewhere in the region of 300 million Buddhists in the world, 23 million Sikhs, and as mentioned, somewhere around a billion Hindus. How dare you make such colonial, smug condemnations.

Judaism is an exclusive club that tries to control it's people, not unlike the Freemasons who many view as a group of zealots.
Again, crap. Judaism accepts converts, and your claims as to its nature are fatuous and betray a near-total ignorance of what Judaism is about.

why can't we stop using the horse drawn buggy and move on to at least the combustion engine?
Why are you incapable of understanding that it is your conceptions that are outmoded, and that the rest of the world has moved on from crude conceptions of "advanced" modes of thought? Is it just possible that it rests on a combination of bigotry and ignorance? Why yes, I think it is.

i don't tolerate any religions. because they are all institutions that attempt to tell people how they should live their lives, what's right and what's wrong and i think people need to learn for themselves. i was raised as an episcopalian and i hate christianity the most out of all the religions.
Wow, what a balanced backdrop against which to pass judgement on an enormous facet of human nature and expression. :rolleyes:

And i'm speaking of all the zealots who believe god created man and everything else, and that the world can only be destroyed by god so we don't have to do anything about global warming, and that gay people are going to burn in hell because the bible says so.
Oh, please. And how does a tiny if vocal minority, primarily problematic in your country in any way reflect the rest of the world? Good grief, you're as judgmental as they are, and about as lucid... or intelligent.

all religions were created by man, in order to make himself feel like he matters
I'd very much like to see the evidence for this. As an archaeologist I find your comments to be seriously lacking in a basis in evidence.

when some people do not matter anywhere near as much as others, for instance, a seventeen year old boy living in the suburbs of DC (me) does not matter anywhere near as much as a Doctor in Prince George's county.
And I doubt you would find any disagreement from any of the religions of Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Egypt or China. That is a distinctly post-Christian concept. Once again, young man, you attempt to universalise a difference of opinion with Christianity at large as a problem with all religions everywhere.

Further the idea is not limited to Christianity, or even the religious, and I would also point out that at seventeen years of age your life has barely begun, and you are in no position to judge what you will do.

Finally, the concept of "utility" in people is barbarous nonsense.

Nazism in WWII was based on Hitler's attacks on a religion (i know he also killed gays and gypsies and the handicapped which could also be perceived as his hate for non protestants) and his belief in Aryan Male Protestants. he was a religious zealot.
But he wasn't in favour of either Protestantism, Cathoicism, or Orthodoxy. He was a non-denominational "Christian" if he was anything, and his ideals had far more to do with nationalistic fury than religious zealotry. Don't they teach you history any more?

The jews wiped out a large amount of people in the early days of the bible,
So did everyone else. Again, you're commenting on things you know nothing about.

the spanish inquisition killed many people for not believing,
I tire of this incessant nonsense. The Spanish Inquisition killed very few and their most common sentences were more lenient than those of contemporary secular courts. They also had more pleasant prisons. Read Kamen's Philip II.

the war we are in now started out as a christian nation attacking a muslim nation. (i do not think the sole purpose of whatever reason we went in their was religion at all but with that retard you never know)
I'm only seeing one "retard" here. The last thing that war was about was religion, and having viewed Bush's comments on "wackos", I doubt it was at the forefront of his mind, either.

the crusades were fought against the Saracens and many many many people died in each one of those.
The Crusades were again primarily politically motivated. One need only actually know something about them to be able to spot this. Again.

muslims and jews are continuously fighting in israel and palestine.
Over a cack-handed attempt at reparation for the Holocaust; that has far more to do with geo-politics than it does religion. But please, don't let me poke too many holes in your rant.

i'm an athiest, i think religion should stay out of policies and lawmaking. so that they can't tell people what's right and wrong and how they should think,
But you can? Cute.

and you are right there are many secular ideoligies that tell people what to think. I don't follow any of them.
On the contrary, you follow a positivistic ideology sometimes referred to as "Neo-Darwinist"; whether you realise it or not is your own issue.

i'm not trying to tell people how to live, i'm simply trying to show people facts the same way a math teacher explains the answer to a math problem.
But you're not. You're showing people reductionist and at times patently false nonsense, and then demanding that they ought to agree with you.

i want people to at least think about the possibility that they've been lied to, all i can do is show them what i know, not what i believe.
Apparently you can't even do that. And the idea that religious faith is credulous and without doubt is even more magnificently silly than anything you've posted yet.

And i should not have said that Hitler's reasoning for killing all of those people was purely religious. the germans yearned for reasons for what happened in WWI the same way people yearn for a reason for their existence. Hitler, like many religious leaders, gave the german's an answer. An answer he, like the religious founders, made up.
:rolleyes: See above.

the only problem i have with people being religious is that some very misguided people vote purely on that basis, then in turn those people that get elected use religion in their policies. I.E. the congressman who claimed that we do not need to do anything about global warming because the bible says that only god can end the earth.
So you hate all religions because of some Christian idiots. Riiiiight.

unfortunately i know how right you are, even in person many people fail to see the truth that stares them in the face. such as christians who have heard the story of Horus and know how long before jesus existed it took place. I would explain it but there is no point as it will either be ignored, or simply put off as a farce or something of that nature.
There are many myths about Horus, and I'm guessing you're referring to "Zeitgeist: The Movie" here. Speaking as an Egyptologist, it's a crock of ****, as is the idea that that Horus is in any way relevant to discussion of Christianity.

i'm intolerant of it because it only serves to weaken the human population through promises of eternal life if they do what their religious leaders say. Catholics who (not anytime recently) made up all these laws never mentioned by jesus or even found in the bible.
Utter nonsense, and typical fundamentalist Protestant bull****. Perhaps if you knew half as much as you think you do you'd recognise that as the monstrously idiotic nonsense it is. For ****'s sake, the Catholic Encyclopaedia is even available for free on the ****ing internet. All you have to do is going and ****ing look!

Muslim extremists who fabricated jihad to trick impressionable young muslim men into giving their lives for a cause they are told is theirs.
Therefore all Muslims are evil? Great logic there, but then nothing we haven't come to expect from such a wondrous thinker as yourself.

the belief in deities is what i am most intolerant of. Toaism is an ideology devoid of these fabrications that tells people to enjoy their life while they have it, there is nothing wrong with that (in my opinion).
As has been shown, that's a gross simplification, and once again, you assert that deities are "fabrications". That is a totally unsupportable assertion.

Telling someone that if they are attracted to the same sex they will go to hell unless they pretend not to be, that's wrong (in my opinion).
And what a wonderfully informed opinion it is, too.


i prefer to say that they've been mislead as with MOST people who believe in a religion they were raised as such. ill say it again for emphasis, MOST, not all.
Are you trying to quote Jack Chick verbatim?

i never said zealots were the majority, they are usually the one's with the power though, correct?
:rolleyes:

No, and that's half of the reason they're so furious.

I don't understand why everyone thinks i am trying to force anyone to do anything, i think that people should think for themselves, i can't make anyone do that because in doing so i would cause them not to think for themselves. This isn't an "argument" i hope to win. It's like trying to solve world hunger. people could try to figure some of these things out through science, but instead they take the cop out and just say god did everything.
Ahistorical rubbish asserting a science vs. religion dichotomy that is non-existent. Copernicus had no issue making scientific discoveries while remaining a Roman Catholic priest. Again, you talk nonsense and assert it as fact. That a few Creationists believe nonsense is irrelevant; the vast majority do not.

God made us, the world and everything else. he has a plan for all of us (so if he already has a plan why do people pray? if it's not part of his plan then you aren't going to get what you prayed for). Religion takes meaning away when it makes people believe (like someone said on here earlier) that their earned achievements are thanks to god and not their hard work. It puts meaning where it doesn't belong i.e. god created each and every person individually and he has a specific plan for everyone. it weakens the human population because it frowns upon pride, if people aren't proud of themselves and just chalk up their achievements to god then there isn't much reason to make a name for yourself. It makes people feel like they aren't good enough because every little thing they do is a sin.
So you don't understand theology, either.

Religion is also very inconsistent. Before the Nicene creed was written, many different sects believed that Jesus was simply a man,
Some did, the majority of Christians didn't.
some believed that jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.
Bullcrap. That **** was invented in the 50s and pastiched by Dan Brown. It has no grounding in history.
Other inconsistencies include the fact that only two gospels mention the fact that jesus' mother was a virgin.
None of the Gospels mention the idea of the Virgin Birth, and that's not an inconsistency.
oh and none of the gospel writers met jesus.
Since it is uncertain who they were, that's another bull**** assertion. According to Christian tradition, however, at least two of the Gospel-writers were apostles, so that also blows your idea out of the water, and your grasp of biblical scholarship is also crap.

Learn some real history kid, and stop taking tv-docudramas as fact. Then come back and we can talk. Until then I refuse to show you anything but contempt, because your discourse is worth nothing better.

Lord of Hunger
07-28-2009, 09:17 PM
i never said zealots were the majority, they are usually the one's with the power though, correct?
Incorrect. Zealots make the most noise and do the most damage, but they do not necessarily do the most damage. Pope John Paul II was in no way and extremist and was one of history's most benevolent religious leaders. He opposed both Nazism and Communism where others were too afraid, he literally carried an old Jewish woman for miles ON HIS BACK in order to save her from the death camps.

And there are so many others that could be cited. However since we live in a society now where education and the media are predominantly controlled by secular forces, our society is constantly being fed the same story about how religious individuals are uneducated, superstitious extremists who want all gays to burn in hell and to blow up abortion clinics. Nothing is farther from the truth, since where I grew up the students who are the most academically motivated, open-minded, and tolerant are the kids who not only grow up in religious households, but go to church out of their own free will and participate in their youth organizations of their own free will. They are also far more generous, friendly, and compassionate than their secular classmates.
I don't understand why everyone thinks i am trying to force anyone to do anything, i think that people should think for themselves, i can't make anyone do that because in doing so i would cause them not to think for themselves. This isn't an "argument" i hope to win. It's like trying to solve world hunger. people could try to figure some of these things out through science, but instead they take the cop out and just say god did everything. God made us, the world and everything else. he has a plan for all of us (so if he already has a plan why do people pray? if it's not part of his plan then you aren't going to get what you prayed for). Religion takes meaning away when it makes people believe (like someone said on here earlier) that their earned achievements are thanks to god and not their hard work. It puts meaning where it doesn't belong i.e. god created each and every person individually and he has a specific plan for everyone. it weakens the human population because it frowns upon pride, if people aren't proud of themselves and just chalk up their achievements to god then there isn't much reason to make a name for yourself. It makes people feel like they aren't good enough because every little thing they do is a sin.
Then you have absolutely no understanding of how just about any religion works. Again you like so many people who are indoctrinated with the dogma of militant atheism, you take the views of the extremists and say that they are the teachings of the moderates. Yes, Christians believe God created every soul (which is different from the body) individually, and has a specific plan for everyone but not in the way you mean it.

There was once a man who looked upon the suffering of man and yelled at God, "God, why aren't you doing anything about this?"

God shouted back, "I did do something about this! I made you, stupid!"

This point is made in many religions that we are here to do the Will of God by righting the wrongs in His name. We are the Will of God in that sense, we are His plan (or Her, though I actually think of God as an It).

And yes, pride is a sin, but only in the overly-egotistical. Pride is a sin when you place yourself above everything and everyone else, when you start thinking you're the center of it all. It is a sin because it is an ignorant attitude and a dangerous stance. The nature of the universe is for the prideful to fall. It is a quiet thing, but it is terrible.

Yes, one should take pride in one's good deeds and path, but humility is an important virtue. God does wish for people to take a stance and make names for themselves, but to also remember that they are and will always be mortal until the day of their death and can always fall.
Religion is also very inconsistent. Before the Nicene creed was written, many different sects believed that Jesus was simply a man, some believed that jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.
Proof? Let me guess...the Da Vinci Code or some other work of fiction? While it is true that some earlier groups of Christians believed that Jesus was a man, they were in the minority and there is no legitimate evidence of Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus (or Isa if you want to use his Islamic name).
Other inconsistencies include the fact that only two gospels mention the fact that jesus' mother was a virgin.
The virginity of Mary is actually an issue that has been central to the divide between Protestants and Catholics, though both still hold Mary as a figure of great importance within the faith.
oh and none of the gospel writers met jesus.
Incorrect. Where do you get your information? Luke and Mark were the only Gospel writers who never met Jesus, though Mark was a disciple of Peter so in sense the Gospel of Mark is the Gospel of Peter. Matthew was the tax collector that Jesus turned to his side. John is the beloved disciple.

And I don't care how insulting this sounds but you obviously have no knowledge of Christianity at the very least. Please do some studies of Christianity before you go about denouncing it. After all, aren't atheists supposed to be more educated than theists?

Arcesious
07-28-2009, 09:29 PM
It's simple: in every person is and always was the potential for idiocy, cruelty, greed, zealotry, and irrationality; regardless of their ideologies and beliefs.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 09:32 PM
I would quote some of that but it will take too long. There are more than four gospels, some, again some, include that jesus and mary Magdalene were a couple.

I never said all muslim's were evil. Don't assume please.

And every religion was created by man, because MEN, wrote the books, you can tell they were written by men because they tend to make it out that men are more important than women. I have as much proof that man wrote the books as anyone else does that god told them what to write.

I should clarify that by outdated i mean viewed by western society as old world religions.

Correct but Islam did replace most middle eastern religions. I never said right away.

And bush stated that (paraphrasing)"god wants everyone to be free and that's why it's part of my foreign policy"

I'm just glad that at age 17 i realized that God is as real as santa clause. I'm assuming I can't say the same for you but if you would like to believe that there is a man in the sky that can hear everyone talking all the time then go ahead. I might as well give you my permission since everyone thinks i want to dictate everyones actions even though i don't but that's impossible to tell through a forum post.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-28-2009, 09:33 PM
arc i like the complete 180 you've done before you were so sure your beliefs were absolutely 100% correct and to hell with everything else and look how far you've come

Lord of Hunger
07-28-2009, 09:43 PM
I would quote some of that but it will take too long. There are more than four gospels, some, again some, include that jesus and mary Magdalene were a couple.
Cite them then. Give me concrete links to Gospels actually written by anyone who lived at that time who actually met Jesus Christ and followed his ministry. Go on.

And every religion was created by man, because MEN, wrote the books, you can tell they were written by men because they tend to make it out that men are more important than women. I have as much proof that man wrote the books as anyone else does that god told them what to write.
God is within all human beings, including you. There is no difference between the Creator and the Creation.
And bush stated that (paraphrasing)"god wants everyone to be free and that's why it's part of my foreign policy"
And Bush could have said that apples are good for you in a radio address and people will start burning down apple orchards and health organizations will all cite apples as poisonous. I swear to God, Bush =/= Satan/Hitler/Stalin/Kim Jong Ill/Bin Laden. The guy made a **** load of mistakes, but he also did good things (such as AIDS relief in Africa, where he is immensely popular). Oh, and he is fluent in Spanish, something most Americans cannot claim.
I'm just glad that at age 17 i realized that God is as real as santa clause. I'm assuming I can't say the same for you but if you would like to believe that there is a man in the sky that can hear everyone talking all the time then go ahead. I might as well give you my permission since everyone thinks i want to dictate everyones actions even though i don't but that's impossible to tell through a forum post.
By the same standards you use, you are just as much mentally enslaved to atheism as I am to theism.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 09:43 PM
Much of what went on in human history could be explained without the presence of God. The creation of Adam, the Earth, the Great Flood... they were not created recently. They are very old tales.

Would you believe in a new bible story about Noah's arc that was discovered from 1000 years ago, considering that you now know the flood most likely attributed to when the Black Sea was created. Many other religions in that region have a similar story that took place when that occurred... it's still only a hypothesis though.

Adam and Earth's creation was written in times before the evidence of evolution was uncovered, and the theory generated. Would such ridiculous ideas have been taken by people as seriously if they were written today?

There is much more that humans don't know than what we do, so there are going to be a lot of questions we can't answer and a lot of holes in our existence. Religion effectively patched those holes when they were written a thousand years ago, but have since stopped being as effective because more logical theories have come to explain things anything religion has yielded.

Creation of Earth 10,000 years ago/rejected
Evolution/adapted to fit a model where god still created humans by planned creation
Great flood/rejected as some areas on Earth haven't had a downpour in a million years
Earth being center of universe/rejected
Alternate languages/ Ruins of Tower of Babel never located, so nothing to verify this.
Languages explained by study of their origins (traced similar to evolution actually)
Other religions/unable to determine which 'ONE GOD' is the one god who created the universe.

------

My point here is that it may have made sense to create such stories when we didn't know better, but it would be like believing in the same things that we did when we were children. We grew up; we abandoned such ridiculous nonsense such as santa, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny because we knew better when we got older. What makes religion any different from these figures?

Q
07-28-2009, 09:44 PM
I would quote some of that but it will take too long. There are more than four gospels, some, again some, include that jesus and mary Magdalene were a couple.
Source or it never happened. A Biblical source.


Oh, and are you high?


And yes, D_Y, you have made it quite clear on numerous occasions that you believe that anyone who believes in God has the mentality of child. Thank you for repeating it once again for those of us who didn't get it the first half-dozen (or more) times. And if you really want people to take you seriously, it might be a good idea to try to be a little less condescending and insulting. :dozey:

JediAthos
07-28-2009, 09:48 PM
I would quote some of that but it will take too long. There are more than four gospels, some, again some, include that jesus and mary Magdalene were a couple.

I never said all muslim's were evil. Don't assume please.

And every religion was created by man, because MEN, wrote the books, you can tell they were written by men because they tend to make it out that men are more important than women. I have as much proof that man wrote the books as anyone else does that god told them what to write.

I should clarify that by outdated i mean viewed by western society as old world religions.

Correct but Islam did replace most middle eastern religions. I never said right away.

And bush stated that (paraphrasing)"god wants everyone to be free and that's why it's part of my foreign policy"

I'm just glad that at age 17 i realized that God is as real as santa clause. I'm assuming I can't say the same for you but if you would like to believe that there is a man in the sky that can hear everyone talking all the time then go ahead. I might as well give you my permission since everyone thinks i want to dictate everyones actions even though i don't but that's impossible to tell through a forum post.

Yes, yes at age 17 you know everything...you have no more proof that God is not real than any other claimant of that statement.

How does the quote of George W. Bush relate to any of this? Are you trying to paint him as a religious zealot with power? If that is the case then I'm sorry..a belief in God doesn't make one a zealot. It is widely known that President Bush is not the world's most eloquent speaker. His foreign policy was not driven by religion and he didn't make decision because God told him to.

You haven't addressed hardly any of the arguments presented against you by Lord of Hunger or Darth Insidious. You've responded only in snipets...do you have anything substantial to back your arguments?

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-28-2009, 09:50 PM
Source or it never happened.


Oh, and are you high?

what part of "420 smoke weed everyday" don't you get is this some kind of conservative thing :dozey:

Q
07-28-2009, 09:55 PM
He said that he'd quit after the whole claiming to be his dad saying that he was dead thing.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 09:57 PM
Yes, yes at age 17 you know everything...you have no more proof that God is not real than any other claimant of that statement.

You haven't addressed hardly any of the arguments presented against you by Lord of Hunger or Darth Insidious. You've responded only in snipets...do you have anything substantial to back your arguments?

You can't exactly DISPROVE something of which has yet to be proven to exist in the first place. God doesn't exist... in the literal sense that he has not been confirmed to create the universe, be the one god, or that he even exists beyond an idea. Why do you go on the assumption that god exists unless that belief can be disproven?

I think that is would make more sense to say that god doesn't exist unless otherwise proven. It would be like me making a thesis statement without presenting anything to back my claim. Would you really take me seriously if I expect that people have to disprove my statement in order for you to say my theory doesn't hold water? Any person making an argument or thesis statement has to present the evidence to back his claim before he can demand counter-proof. That being so, supporters of god must prove he exists before they can rightfully demand proof that he doesn't.

Lord of Hunger
07-28-2009, 10:09 PM
You haven't addressed hardly any of the arguments presented against you by Lord of Hunger or Darth Insidious. You've responded only in snipets...do you have anything substantial to back your arguments?
I find that when one does it address a post fully, it is because one cannot offer a decent counter-argument.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong Druganator? Perhaps you can prove to me that God does not exist and that religions are vast conspiracies to mentally enslave all human kind by offering...hope? Forgiveness of deeds such as theft and murder? Fulfillment? Maybe even enlightenment?
I think that is would make more sense to say that god doesn't exist unless otherwise proven. It would be like me making a thesis statement without presenting anything to back my claim. Would you really take me seriously if I expect that people have to disprove my statement in order for you to say my theory doesn't hold water? Any person making an argument or thesis statement has to present the evidence to back his claim before he can demand counter-proof. That being so, supporters of god must prove he exists before they can rightfully demand proof that he doesn't.
Yes, scientific inquiry will answer everything. Have you ever considered for one single moment that science can be a bad thing? Take medicine. We can cure a wide host of diseases and help keep people with genetic conditions alive. The result is not only the possibility of overpopulation, but:

a) Variants of diseases that cannot be cured at because they target the body's ability to fight viral infections. Example? AIDS.
b) People who live to pass on their genetic defects to their offspring, making each new generation of humanity less healthy than their predecessors.

Ever considered that science causes just as many problems as it solves?

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-28-2009, 10:09 PM
He said that he'd quit after the whole claiming to be his dad saying that he was dead thing.

dude's name is druganator goddamn

JediAthos
07-28-2009, 10:10 PM
@DY: Why does it make any more sense to say that God doesn't exist unless otherwise proven? Perhaps it makes more sense to you and to the OP but there are millions of believers of various religions who would say otherwise.

Frankly, yes...if I were trying to disprove a thesis or something you were presenting as a statement of fact I would think you would want me to present something to back my claims just as I would expect you to present some evidence that your statement is indeed factual.

So, I guess that goes back to validity of this topic in the first place given that neither side could possibly present 100% hard evidence of their claims does it not?

Druganator
07-28-2009, 10:26 PM
Source or it never happened. A Biblical source.


when i said id quote it but it would take too long i was referring to DI's post

oh and For some reason Religion is the only thing exempt from the way everything else is proved.

for instance, if i were to say Dogs can talk, they just dont around people and then say, you have to prove me wrong otherwise i believe it.

Jae Onasi
07-28-2009, 10:30 PM
I think that is would make more sense to say that god doesn't exist unless otherwise proven.
It takes a lot of hubris to say you have knowledge of the entire universe in order to say God does not exist. One does not need to see the gardener to know that a garden is being cared for. One does not have to have die-hard physical proof of God to see that the statistical impossibility of life even existing on this planet without God requires just as much faith, if not more than faith in God.
i'm intolerant of it because it only serves to weaken the human populationI'm not sure whether to be offended at your statement when you talk about how the religious are intolerant, or if I should give you some kind of kudos for at least being honest about your Dawkinesque angry, "I hate all religion" atheism.
and you are right there are many secular ideoligies that tell people what to think. I don't follow any of them.Good thing you don't live in Russia, China, or North Korea.

i prefer to say that they've been mislead as with MOST people who believe in a religion they were raised as suchDid you know that the first project leader of the Human Genome project is Christian, converted from atheism no less, and that he loves studying and learning about all the medical and scientific mysteries because it helps us learn more about our own humanity, and the amazing complexity with which God created us? Are you saying all people of faith such as he are misled and are misleading others by continuing in faith? That we're trying to hold back science? He's been responsible directly and indirectly for more treatments, cures, and knowledge about the basic coding of our cells than anyone else in recent history. Your rant about Christians disliking environmental issues because 'God's going to end the world anyway' fixates on a small group. I happen to think we were given a phenomenal gift of life and this planet--both are precious, both need to be cared for properly.

Please don't pigeonhole people of faith into one single cubbyhole. We are far, far more complex, knowledgeable, respectful of people and this planet, and willing to learn all we can about science and other issues than you will realize unless you take the time to get past your anger about whatever was done to you at your former church and get to know people as the wonderful, complex, imperfect, unique creatures that we are.

I can't add anything to Darth Insidious' post other than to tell you that you do need to review history, and from real sources, not the completely biased ones on the atheist sites you're apparently visited. You've completely missed all the good things done by religion--billions helped by religious hospitals and missionaries in health care over the years, millions educated in schools when the gov't didn't have the money to pay for rural schools, millions fed because churches got together and created soup kitchens and community gardens, billions helped by church groups who helped build basic shelter and sanitation facilities so people weren't living in tents or shacks, and much, much more.

If you're going to bean-count all the bad things done in the name of religion, then you'd better count all the good things done--all the lives saved by people of faith coming together as communities to help people get medical care, food, shelter, clean water, sanitary facilities, working towards keeping our environment clean and safe for those around us, and so one, otherwise you're being dishonest not only to yourself but to everyone else here. I think you'll find the 'good done by religion vs. bad' scale to be weighed heavily in favor of the good if you're truly honest with yourself. The history books may describe the crusades, but they don't often report how many hospitals were built during that time, and how much the people of faith at that time worked through the church to feed and clothe the poor.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 10:37 PM
I'm not sure whether to be offended at your statement when you talk about how the religious are intolerant, or if I should give you some kind of kudos for at least being honest about your Dawkinesque angry, "I hate all religion" atheism.
Good thing you don't live in Russia, China, or North Korea.
Did you know that the first project leader of the Human Genome project is Christian, converted from atheism no less, and that he loves studying and learning about all the medical and scientific mysteries because it helps us learn more about our own humanity, and the amazing complexity with which God created us? Are you saying all people of faith such as he are misled and are misleading others by continuing in faith? That we're trying to hold back science? He's been responsible directly and indirectly for more treatments, cures, and knowledge about the basic coding of our cells than anyone else in recent history. Your rant about Christians disliking environmental issues because 'God's going to end the world anyway' fixates on a small group. I happen to think we were given a phenomenal gift of life and this planet--both are precious, both need to be cared for properly.

Please don't pigeonhole people of faith into one single cubbyhole. We are far, far more complex, knowledgeable, respectful of people and this planet, and willing to learn all we can about science and other issues than you will realize unless you take the time to get past your anger about whatever was done to you at your former church and get to know people as the wonderful, complex, imperfect, unique creatures that we are.

I can't add anything to Darth Insidious' post other than to tell you that you do need to review history, and from real sources, not the completely biased ones on the atheist sites you're apparently visited. You've completely missed all the good things done by religion--billions helped by religious hospitals and missionaries in health care over the years, millions educated in schools when the gov't didn't have the money to pay for rural schools, millions fed because churches got together and created soup kitchens and community gardens, billions helped by church groups who helped build basic shelter and sanitation facilities so people weren't living in tents or shacks, and much, much more.

If you're going to bean-count all the bad things done in the name of religion, then you'd better count all the good things done--all the lives saved by people of faith coming together as communities to help people get medical care, food, shelter, clean water, sanitary facilities, working towards keeping our environment clean and safe for those around us, and so one, otherwise you're being dishonest not only to yourself but to everyone else here. I think you'll find the 'good done by religion vs. bad' scale to be weighed heavily in favor of the good if you're truly honest with yourself. The history books may describe the crusades, but they don't often report how many hospitals were built during that time, and how much the people of faith at that time worked through the church to feed and clothe the poor.

You cut my post short, i said most because i understand that not every single christian grew up that way. I am very involved with homeless people because i want the only life they have to be a good one since when they die nothing happens. I'm not saying religion is pure evil, just like everything else, guns are not evil, drugs and alcohol are not evil, but if given to the wrong people, they are used for evil. I am for gun control, i am for government regulated marijuana so that potency purity and distribution could be better controlled, i think if religion were out of the picture, people would be doing just as many good things as they are now and they would have one less excuse for anything evil.

jrrtoken
07-28-2009, 10:40 PM
Good thing you don't live in Russia, China, or North Korea.Er, Russia has been tolerant of the Russian Orthodoxy since '17. Even Stalin was portrayed as an ally of the Orthodoxy by the state. That, and the Soviet Union collapsed over ten years ago, in case you haven't noticed. :indif:

Same goes for the PRC; 85% of the population identify themselves as freely practicing Buddhists.

Jae Onasi
07-28-2009, 10:45 PM
Er, Russia has been tolerant of the Russian Orthodoxy since '17. Even Stalin was portrayed as an ally of the Orthodoxy by the state. That, and the Soviet Union collapsed over ten years ago, in case you haven't noticed. :indif:

Same goes for the PRC; 85% of the population identify themselves as freely practicing Buddhists.
I was speaking more about the 'being told what to do and not listening' in a secular state, but I get your point.

Stalin may have been portrayed as an ally of Orthodoxy, but he was not--thousands of Christians were killed during his regime simply for being Christian. In China, people still are not allowed to worship freely--they have to get official permission from the State. Our missionary who is currently teaching in China is not allowed to talk about religion.

i think if religion were out of the picture, people would be doing just as many good things as they are now and they would have one less excuse for anything evil.Please explain the statistics showing that people of faith (regardless of type) are more generous with their time and money. They consistently on average donate more money and time to useful and helpful projects than atheists. Our church participates in a program with other churches to house the homeless and give them a dinner meal over the summer when the local shelter is overfilled. We're able to help a large group of homeless because we can get together as a group to make more food and provide clean cots and a large enough room for them in our church. We wouldn't be able to do as much individually as we do when we work together as a community.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 10:48 PM
@DY: Why does it make any more sense to say that God doesn't exist unless otherwise proven? Perhaps it makes more sense to you and to the OP but there are millions of believers of various religions who would say otherwise.

Just because there are millions who say otherwise doesn't mean squat. Hysteria is the reason that millions came to believe in christianity today, I think.

Despite this, there still remains no proof that god exists. Why should we take it for granted that he does? Why do we have to argue that god doesn't exist when figuring out evolution or the creation of the universe?

Web Rider
07-28-2009, 10:52 PM
Er, Russia has been tolerant of the Russian Orthodoxy since '17. Even Stalin was portrayed as an ally of the Orthodoxy by the state. That, and the Soviet Union collapsed over ten years ago, in case you haven't noticed. :indif:.

Of course, Russian orthodoxy is a lot like the religious leaders in the muslim world, if the political leaders aren't on their side, they're out.

JediAthos
07-28-2009, 10:54 PM
Just because there are millions who say otherwise doesn't mean squat. Hysteria is the reason that millions came to believe in christianity today, I think.

Despite this, there still remains no proof that god exists. Why should we take it for granted that he does? Why do we have to argue that god doesn't exist when figuring out evolution or the creation of the universe?


There still remains no proof that God doesn't exist either. If anyone who claims so can offer concrete proof that God doesn't exist I'd love to see it. I would not be so bold as to attempt to offer concrete proof that God does exist either because I can't. So, again I would play devil's advocate: Why should we take it for granted that God doesn't exist?

Druganator
07-28-2009, 11:09 PM
There still remains no proof that God doesn't exist either. If anyone who claims so can offer concrete proof that God doesn't exist I'd love to see it. I would not be so bold as to attempt to offer concrete proof that God does exist either because I can't. So, again I would play devil's advocate: Why should we take it for granted that God doesn't exist?

for the same reason it isn't a widespread belief or a fact that aliens exist. it hasn't been proven.

and @JO do you think those people would be any less generous if they didnt believe in god? I believe that people are good and people are evil, i volunteer at a non religious soup kitchen that fills up too quickly because i dont know of any christians that will help out there. I go there every other weekend and i have yet to speak to anyone of any faith. we are all there to help the homeless solely out of empathy

vanir
07-28-2009, 11:09 PM
As usual in religion vs science threads I think we are offering resounding confusion about religion between allegorical belief structures and fundamentalist political mythologies.

It is reasonable to observe that political dictates are by definition totalitarian and contain little democratic presence. But it is not religion. The formative and specific nature of religion can only be succinctly described with actual theological research of archaeological scripture and some degree of palaeoanthropology, it is a distinctly academic project requiring some degree of competence.

It is equally reasonable to assert that allegorical structures are more easily absorbed using a fundamentalist political mythology. It is easier to tell a child that governing their own behaviour will lend a greater appreciation for their wishes by an according figure such as Saint Nicholas, whom was indeed a historical individual.


It is simply childish to answer childish claims of supernatural naturalism with the misunderstanding the individuals in question have the slightest idea of what they are talking about in the first place.
Yes the world was not magically created 6000yrs ago by a supernatural entity, but the burden of proof lay with the claimant. Meanwhile science is not a matter of opinion, it is where establishments are self evidenced by physical observation, therefore where burden of proof has been satisfied to a reasonable degree.

Yet it is possible to shout down science and force educational dictates. This is what the Catholic Church effectively did during its formation by the adoption of Greek mythology as "scientific truths" by the mediaeval period in contrast to Judaic scripture, as a form of political revolution. Thus "mortal breath" became the "divine human soul" and "productive psychological state" became "Heaven."

Meanwhile there are always problems in defining allegory inherent to religious scripture, so mention of the angels created sectarian kabbala, mention of the messiah created the Christian sect (which evolved into its own distinct religion).


It's no biggie to figure out why religion still exists today. Regardless of how you view or interpret it, there is still insight in scripture, even if it is only psychological, political and sociological in nature. And profound things do attract followings.

But as I've mentioned before, judging religion by the religious is like judging music by its fans. There's more to it than that.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 11:09 PM
It takes a lot of hubris to say you have knowledge of the entire universe in order to say God does not exist.

It takes a lot of hubris to say that god exists without any proof.

One does not need to see the gardener to know that a garden is being cared for. One does not have to have die-hard physical proof of God to see that the statistical impossibility of life even existing on this planet without God requires just as much faith, if not more than faith in God.

How do you know that it is a gardener? Maybe it's just nature that succession would determine which species would dominate in a given ecosystem. No, we don't exactly need die-hard evidence; some evidence at all would be nice.

And that's very arrogant of you to claim something that not only you don't know is impossible, but has happened. Life came to exist. And just because you don't know exactly how it did doesn't mean we should assume it's an all-powerful being that caused it to happen. There is far more evidence that supports life came about from nature than that god created everything. Even then, you still need to prove he exists. You can't place a deed to a person who might not even exist. Therefore you must prove he exists before you can contemplate god created life.

If you do anything besides that, you'll get only a circular argument.


Please don't pigeonhole people of faith into one single cubbyhole. We are far, far more complex, knowledgeable, respectful of people and this planet, and willing to learn all we can about science and other issues than you will realize unless you take the time to get past your anger about whatever was done to you at your former church and get to know people as the wonderful, complex, imperfect, unique creatures that we are.

I would gladly get past my anger, but that depends on you not debating with a circular argument. In order to argue about god's deeds, you MUST present something upon which that theory can stand on. Using a lack of proof as evidence does nothing more than say that science doesn't explain the origins of the universe. That is not a justification to say that god exists... just because science can't prove something *yet* It means that science hasn't disproven god. That is all the value of that argument.

I would be more than willing to accept that the universe is God's creation, but I won't accept God for ANY debate if you simply bypass the fatal flaw in that argument by assuming he exists. First prove that he exists... and then I will accept any argument that involves god. Otherwise you could just remove god and say it was the tooth fairy and that would hold just as well.

Lord of Hunger
07-28-2009, 11:25 PM
You cut my post short, i said most because i understand that not every single christian grew up that way. I am very involved with homeless people because i want the only life they have to be a good one since when they die nothing happens.
Then I salute you. Seriously, no sarcasm. You are doing a good thing.
I'm not saying religion is pure evil,
Um, yes you have.
just like everything else, guns are not evil, drugs and alcohol are not evil, but if given to the wrong people, they are used for evil. I am for gun control, i am for government regulated marijuana so that potency purity and distribution could be better controlled, i think if religion were out of the picture, people would be doing just as many good things as they are now and they would have one less excuse for anything evil.
The word I would use to describe this is NAIVE. Seriously, do you think that if religion were to suddenly disappear that there would be any less evil in the world? People make up excuses all the time...or don't even bother do so. If you were to take away all the excuse people make for their actions, the actions would still be there.

And again, you have not addressed the massive amount of good that religion has done in the world as myself and others have pointed out.

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 11:27 PM
There still remains no proof that God doesn't exist either. If anyone who claims so can offer concrete proof that God doesn't exist I'd love to see it. I would not be so bold as to attempt to offer concrete proof that God does exist either because I can't. So, again I would play devil's advocate: Why should we take it for granted that God doesn't exist?

Because we need proof that he exists FIRST. It is foolhardy to assume we also have to disprove the tooth fairy, santa clause, the easter bunny, the devil, star wars, daredevil, magic, lightsabers, anti-time... the list goes on.


I, D_Y, declare that I am an actual twi-lek Jedi!

Would it be fair of me just to go under the assumption that I am who I claim unless someone else has disproven what I am? Wouldn't it be more logical that I, the one making the claim, have to prove my point before I could expect for someone else to take it seriously? That is, for me to say that because you can't prove it, I am a twi'lek Jedi?

No! You would most definitely dismiss me out of hand unless I presented something that really had some validity to it. This is just as logical as assuming God exists until disproven.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 11:29 PM
Then I salute you. Seriously, no sarcasm. You are doing a good thing.

Um, yes you have.

The word I would use to describe this is NAIVE. Seriously, do you think that if religion were to suddenly disappear that there would be any less evil in the world? People make up excuses all the time...or don't even bother do so. If you were to take away all the excuse people make for their actions, the actions would still be there.

And again, you have not addressed the massive amount of good that religion has done in the world as myself and others have pointed out.

I havent denied them either, the intent of my post was not to debate whether or not christians are good people.

i will recognize them when there is proof that there is a god. otherwise i'll chalk up the good deeds for people, just people the same way people say that the bad things were done by people not religion.

Jae Onasi
07-28-2009, 11:31 PM
@DY--the final comment was to Druganator, not you.

Proof? It boils down to two things for me. First, the statistical impossibility of life developing without some kind of guidance. It is far, far too complex to have come to being on pure chance, even over billions of years. The chance of that is equivalent to throwing 1 marked electron into a universe full of electrons, and picking out the correct one on the first try. Do you have faith that you could pick the correct one? I don't, for either of us. Since it couldn't come into being on its own, it had to be created by something with the knowledge, power, and interest sufficient to do such a complex task. I call that entity 'God'.

Second, the Big Bang. Since the laws of physics break down before 10^-37 seconds after the Big Bang, science is not able to fully explain the Big Bang. Matter, light, energy were all created at the Big Bang, and science will never be able to explain that because the natural laws didn't exist before that fraction of a second. This requires an explanation outside the realm of nature to explain how an entire universe came into being, specifically a super-natural explanation. Something with the power and knowledge to create the intricacies of an entire universe, and all life on this planet, certainly has my attention as a Creator, and I am content to call that Creator 'God'. Believing that an entire universe was created out of nothing all by itself is illogical. This is why I say it takes more faith to believe atheism than it does in God of some flavor.

Furthermore, logic disallows you from proving a negative, you will never have sufficient knowledge to disprove God, and hard atheism (saying definitively 'there is no God') is thus logically self-defeating.

However, if atheism floats your boat, go for it--just don't denigrate me or others here for having faith.

vanir
07-28-2009, 11:35 PM
The real issue is not whether religious freedom should be allowed (which is what this argument is about) but how scripture is being interpreted.

Thus the argument over whether or not there should be religious freedom (that means where you say, I fully support your belief in God and everything which it entails), is a red herring over the real issue. How to interpret scripture, because whether you like it or not people are going to go around living their lives by these interpretations.

Damn those Protestants, but like Luther said, the Catholics were corrupt and now we're all buggered.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 11:40 PM
@DY--the final comment was to Druganator, not you.

Proof? It boils down to two things for me. First, the statistical impossibility of life developing without some kind of guidance. It is far, far too complex to have come to being on pure chance, even over billions of years. The chance of that is equivalent to throwing 1 marked electron into a universe full of electrons, and picking out the correct one on the first try. Do you have faith that you could pick the correct one? I don't, for either of us. Since it couldn't come into being on its own, it had to be created by something with the knowledge, power, and interest sufficient to do such a complex task. I call that entity 'God'.

Second, the Big Bang. Since the laws of physics break down before 10^-37 seconds after the Big Bang, science is not able to fully explain the Big Bang. Matter, light, energy were all created at the Big Bang, and science will never be able to explain that because the natural laws didn't exist before that fraction of a second. This requires an explanation outside the realm of nature to explain how an entire universe came into being, specifically a super-natural explanation. Something with the power and knowledge to create the intricacies of an entire universe, and all life on this planet, certainly has my attention as a Creator, and I am content to call that Creator 'God'. Believing that an entire universe was created out of nothing all by itself is illogical. This is why I say it takes more faith to believe atheism than it does in God of some flavor.

Furthermore, logic disallows you from proving a negative, you will never have sufficient knowledge to disprove God, and hard atheism (saying definitively 'there is no God') is thus logically self-defeating.

However, if atheism floats your boat, go for it--just don't denigrate me or others here for having faith.

we are here because of that one in a billion chance, if it hadnt happened we wouldnt exist. and it wasn't the first try, look at all of the extint primates and the cro-magnons and other, for lack of a better term, "devolved" humans.

Qui-Gon Glenn
07-28-2009, 11:40 PM
...And this thread wins the Reductionist Ahistorical Nonsense Award 2009.

FTW!!!

Good God, if you are listening, ten thousand thunders upon this thread!!! There are too many inane baseless claims to even begin quoting.... wow.

My belief here is that if God exists, then God either isn't interested in my deeming of damnation, or has bigger demons to fry. A big if, but must remain a respectable possibility. No less likely than the other way. 50/50, with very little real evidence to support anything. Really.

Intuition is the ultimate decider... what are you told from within? Whatever that is, if you believe it, it is true for you, regardless of whether you win the big lottery at the end or not. It just doesn't pay out like you thought... bummer. My intuition has been crossed back and forth, life experiences have swayed my view, and education has brought me perspective enough to say, unequivocally, I have no clue whether God exists or not, neither do you, it is an arguable point that must be respected, therefore you should give respect to religion insofar as that it represents a legitimate possibility.

Beyond that, you may criticize all you want... but that's not what you were asking for in this thread? You asked why religion still exists in the era of "Rational thought" (He...ha..hohoho)?

I think Web Rider said it, if not my apologies to WR and the OP, but this is the same question people have been asking themselves since conscious thought began (I will be glad to argue consciousness with someone :) ) - Who am I? How did I get here? Who made me? Why? Last I checked.... still waiting..... whistles......crickets?

Darth Miss Bully-pants, I wish I had saved my recent post from TG's forums on a similar matter for this thread... you are clever rather than smart, and trust too much in that cleverness. You have great potential, but no one wants to talked down to rudely. That must be obvious?

@Jae - you reminded me of Anselm and Aquinas for a moment... undecided if I should thank you or curse you.... if anyone's listening :lol:

Darth_Yuthura
07-28-2009, 11:48 PM
Proof? It boils down to two things for me. First, the statistical impossibility of life developing without some kind of guidance. It is far, far too complex to have come to being on pure chance, even over billions of years. The chance of that is equivalent to throwing 1 marked electron into a universe full of electrons, and picking out the correct one on the first try. Do you have faith that you could pick the correct one? I don't, for either of us. Since it couldn't come into being on its own, it had to be created by something with the knowledge, power, and interest sufficient to do such a complex task. I call that entity 'God'.

Nice speech. That's assuming that you wanted to create another big bang with the intent to create another Earth with another Jae Onasi, D_Y, and 6 billion other people to exist. Not to mention the billions of galaxies out there.

Maybe that 'stray electron' you spoke of could have just randomly veered elsewhere and created a completely different string of life that evolved into an intelligent variety. Maybe it was just the product of probability that we all happened? If you went 50,000 years and killed off ONE human female that would have had several children that would no longer live and reproduce, odds are that the future would have been so dramatically different that all 6 billion people on the earth today could seriously cease to exist. If that outcome happened, it wouldn't be so remarkable to assume that you get 6 billion people, but because the timeline has changed, they are not the same people as before.

Odds are that the Egyption empire wouldn't have existed, but another might have emerged around the nile valley as well. From such small changes yields dramatically different outcomes that you could reasonably assume the world you live in would cease to exist and become something VERY different, yet be very much the same. It may be that technology progressed slower, faster, everything was scattered differently... and it ultimately would have been the same to us if it happened differently.

If you killed that woman and wanted to rectify the timeline so everything would turn out as it does today... good luck. It is ONLY when you set out for a desired outcome that you can argue that it demands a supernatural being for it to happen. We are random. Galaxies are random. The DNA in our bodies is random. Our fingerprints are random... if someone could perfectly clone a person with the same fingerprints as an identical twin, I would believe god exists. (I'm serious about that. If you cloned a person, their fingerprints would not be identical. Only if something as small, yet as significant as this were to happen; I swear I would believe in God)

Otherwise, we all came about by random events... there is no god needed unless you organized the universe to exist in a certain way.


Second, the Big Bang. Since the laws of physics break down before 10^-37 seconds after the Big Bang, science is not able to fully explain the Big Bang. Matter, light, energy were all created at the Big Bang, and science will never be able to explain that because the natural laws didn't exist before that fraction of a second. This requires an explanation outside the realm of nature to explain how an entire universe came into being, specifically a super-natural explanation. Something with the power and knowledge to create the intricacies of an entire universe, and all life on this planet, certainly has my attention as a Creator, and I am content to call that Creator 'God'. Believing that an entire universe was created out of nothing all by itself is illogical. This is why I say it takes more faith to believe atheism than it does in God of some flavor.

Again assuming that someone sought a desired outcome, which is what we have today. That is going under the assumption that the law of probability is so great that only an all powerful god could have duplicated the universe in the same way as it is today.

Druganator
07-28-2009, 11:48 PM
FTW!!!

Good God, if you are listening, ten thousand thunders upon this thread!!! There are too many inane baseless claims to even begin quoting.... wow.

My belief here is that if God exists, then God either isn't interested in my deeming of damnation, or has bigger demons to fry. A big if, but must remain a respectable possibility. No less likely than the other way. 50/50, with very little real evidence to support anything. Really.

Intuition is the ultimate decider... what are you told from within? Whatever that is, if you believe it, it is true for you, regardless of whether you win the big lottery at the end or not. It just doesn't pay out like you thought... bummer. My intuition has been crossed back and forth, life experiences have swayed my view, and education has brought me perspective enough to say, unequivocally, I have no clue whether God exists or not, neither do you, it is an arguable point that must be respected, therefore you should give respect to religion insofar as that it represents a legitimate possibility.

Beyond that, you may criticize all you want... but that's not what you were asking for in this thread? You asked why religion still exists in the era of "Rational thought" (He...ha..hohoho)?

I think Web Rider said it, if not my apologies to WR and the OP, but this is the same question people have been asking themselves since conscious thought began (I will be glad to argue consciousness with someone :) ) - Who am I? How did I get here? Who made me? Why? Last I checked.... still waiting..... whistles......crickets?

Darth Miss Bully-pants, I wish I had saved my recent post from TG's forums on a similar matter for this thread... you are clever rather than smart, and trust too much in that cleverness. You have great potential, but no one wants to talked down to rudely. That must be obvious?

@Jae - you reminded me of Anselm and Aquinas for a moment... undecided if I should thank you or curse you.... if anyone's listening :lol:

the reason i know there is no god is because religion, every religion, from paganism to scientology, was created by humans in order to fill a void that those same otherwise brilliant people could be trying to find out instead of taking another group of peoples theories as their own.

Q
07-29-2009, 12:01 AM
@D_Y:

And out of all of that chaos sprang DNA, just by random chance, of course. :roleyess:
Jae is correct. Believing that we're all just a gigantic cosmic accident requires just as much faith as believing that we aren't, and perhaps more.

But do keep forcefully talking down to people in as insulting a manner as you can. It can only help your cause.

Darth_Yuthura
07-29-2009, 12:10 AM
But do keep forcefully talking down to people in as insulting a manner as you can. It can only help your cause.

Not to sound arrogant, but such people who generate circular arguments aren't exactly helping the matter. Jae has presented God's ability to organize the universe to a desired outcome as proof, but that leads to another question: how can you be sure that this is the desired outcome that God set out to achieve when he created the big bang?

Q
07-29-2009, 12:14 AM
OMG! Circular arguments!!!111!!1

For the umpteenth time in this thread: you can't prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, your constant whining about circular arguments is simply a case of pot; kettle; black.

GET IT?

Druganator
07-29-2009, 12:16 AM
OMG! Circular arguments!!!111!!1

For the umpteenth time in this thread: you can't prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, your constant whining about circular arguments is simply a case of pot; kettle; black.

GET IT?

can you answer why everything else has to be proven in order for it to be accepted?

vanir
07-29-2009, 12:18 AM
I think it is as big a mistake to make a scientific argument for why any explanation whatsoever is an unfalsifiable hypothesis as it is to make a religious argument as to why a supernatural explanation is scientifically sound.

And that is not agnostic to say.

The current cosmological model does not even attempt to speculate any event prior to Planck Time. It does not suggest there was any creation event at all, nor any big bang. It merely outlines that the events following Planck Time look to observers just like a big bang had happened, but there is no data to directly support this. Look it up. The current model equally supports the Big Crunch and the Black Hole Universe, also M-Theory and any number of others, it begins at Inflation and not before.

By equal measure the eventuation of life is a wholly anthropic form of data gathering until life is discovered some place other than Earth. The only possible speculative math for the eventuation of intelligent life is the Drake Equation, which suggest an extremely high likelihood of abundant life in the universe if unknown variables are given speculative values.
The current model of evolution is complex evolutionary diversity however, which dictates the anthropic principle that life is accordant with the nature of quantum physics. This is extremely controversial however because it simply does not discount the fundamental contention of intelligent design. Back where we started.

Because scientific theorum is falsifiable by nature it can only discount supernatural explanation within the scope of available data, science is by nature agnostic but does lend itself to theism if by allegory.


Someone I consider a personal friend is a PhD theoretical physicist and believes in God for example. He is in no conflict about it.

Q
07-29-2009, 12:18 AM
can you answer why everything else has to be proven in order for it to be accepted?
It has been proven. To me.

Druganator
07-29-2009, 12:21 AM
It has been proven.

To me.

has it been proven to the standards of anything else?

mimartin
07-29-2009, 12:26 AM
the reason i know there is no god is because religion, every religion, from paganism to scientology, was created by humans in order to fill a void that those same otherwise brilliant people could be trying to find out instead of taking another group of peoples theories as their own.For a moment lets say I accept you assessment that all religion is just man’s creation. Wouldn’t that only prove that all religions are false?

That alone does nothing to either disprove or prove the existence on a supreme being.

Q
07-29-2009, 12:27 AM
has it been proven to the standards of anything else?
Of course not. Belief is completely subjective. I don't think that there never will be a universal, one-size-fits-all basis for it.


You know, I could ask why you believe that without a doubt God doesn't exist, since there is no evidence that he doesn't.

Druganator
07-29-2009, 12:28 AM
For a moment lets say I accept you assessment that all religion is just man’s creation. Wouldn’t that only prove that all religions are false?

That alone does nothing to either disprove or prove the existence on a supreme being.

it proves that a supreme being is the creation of man in order to fill the void i mentioned before

@Q because i don't believe in anything unless it's been proven to me, call me old fashioned

Darth_Yuthura
07-29-2009, 12:38 AM
OMG! Circular arguments!!!111!!1

For the umpteenth time in this thread: you can't prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, your constant whining about circular arguments is simply a case of pot; kettle; black.

GET IT?


Yes, I got it. Since I cannot prove God doesn't exist, I can't use that as evidence.



It has been proven. To me.


Then that means God has to be proven to exist before he could be used in an argument.


You know, I could ask why you believe that without a doubt God doesn't exist, since there is no evidence that he doesn't.


And what if there is no evidence that he does? What then?

Druganator
07-29-2009, 12:48 AM
This thread has grown repetitive. Everyone keeps saying the same thing over again.

because, again, for whatever reason deities are exempt from reason

Q
07-29-2009, 12:49 AM
Then that means God has to be proven to exist before he could be used in an argument.
It's been proven to me. I couldn't care less whether or not it's proven to you or anyone else. I'm no evangelist.

And I haven't been arguing for God's existence as much as trying (in vain, obviously) to get certain people to realize that arrogantly making absolute statements with no proof doesn't help their argument.
And what if there is no evidence that he does? What then?
How about dropping the subject?

Druganator
07-29-2009, 12:54 AM
It's been proven to me. I couldn't care less whether or not it's proven to you or anyone else. I'm no evangelist.

And I haven't been arguing for God's existence as much as trying (in vain, obviously) to get certain people to realize that arrogantly making absolute statements with no proof doesn't help their argument.

you have less proof than people who believe in Bigfoot, theyve at least got that fake tape.

mimartin
07-29-2009, 12:55 AM
it proves that a supreme being is the creation of man in order to fill the void i mentioned before If true, it would prove that the supreme being from religious text were false. It does nothing to disprove the existence of a supreme being. It would just prove that man’s limited concept of God was false.

May I suggest you look up the concept of the burden of proof?

For the record, I am not asking you to disprove the existence of God because I would consider that impossible.

Q
07-29-2009, 12:55 AM
you have less proof than people who believe in Bigfoot, theyve at least got that fake tape.
And yet, strangely enough, I don't give a damn. Like I said, I'm no evangelist.

You and D_Y can feel free to burn in hell for all I care. I won't stop you. :p

Trench
07-29-2009, 12:56 AM
you have less proof than people who believe in Bigfoot, theyve at least got that fake tape.

:disaprove
And yet, strangely enough, I don't give a damn. :p

What he said.

Darth_Yuthura
07-29-2009, 12:59 AM
And I haven't been arguing for God's existence as much as trying (in vain, obviously) to get certain people to realize that arrogantly making absolute statements with no proof doesn't help their argument.

You said yourself that you wanted proof. Is is so wrong to ask for proof before the opposite side submits something?

Druganator
07-29-2009, 01:01 AM
If true, it would prove that the supreme being from religious text were false. It does nothing to disprove the existence of a supreme being. It would just prove that man’s limited concept of God was false.

May I suggest you look up the concept of the burden of proof?

For the record, I am not asking you to disprove the existence of God because I would consider that impossible.

there is no reason to believe in any supreme being. Quantum physics my friend, everything is random, we are the way we are by chance, we are not perfect beings, we are just the most intelligent ( i'm not the crunchiest chip in the bag mind you). so i ask you this, what is the most universal human characteristic, fear? or laziness? (that's from Waking Life by the by) Are we as humans afraid of what it would mean to know we are truly alone? or just too lazy to try and find out through work as opposed to simply believing what "that guy said"

@Q if there was a hell i would take offense but since the only thing remotely close to an afterlife is the 6 minutes of brain activity left after we die i'll just have a very long pleasant dream. or a nightmare but it won't matter as i'll be quite dead.

for real this time, not like the last time.

Q
07-29-2009, 01:06 AM
You said yourself that you wanted proof.
No, I didn't, because I know that there isn't any either way.

And, once again:
How about dropping the subject?

mimartin
07-29-2009, 01:09 AM
there is no reason to believe in any supreme being. Did I say there was? No, I did not.

And none of the rest of that does anything to prove or disprove there is a supreme being.

Druganator
07-29-2009, 01:10 AM
Did I say there was? No, I did not.

And none of the rest of that does anything to prove or disprove there is a supreme being.

Did I say it did? No I did not.

Then are you saying that it was spam and had nothing to do with your original point of this thread? ~ mimartin

can i reply to you? if i can here's what i'll say. it was a statement of how i believe we came into being. not proof or disproof of anything.

Q
07-29-2009, 01:15 AM
Well, there's a couple of hours that I'll never get back. :indif:

JediAthos
07-29-2009, 01:16 AM
Well, there's a couple of hours that I'll never get back. :indif:

QFT...don't ya hate it when that happens?

Q
07-29-2009, 01:23 AM
can i reply to you? if i can here's what i'll say. it was a statement of how i believe we came into being. not proof or disproof of anything.
OK, I have to ask again: are you high?

SRSLY.

Lord of Hunger
07-29-2009, 01:24 AM
Lol, this thread is a joke. The thread starter, Druganator, has failed to address several major arguments made against his and has offered no rational evidence to support his views.

Meanwhile, Darth_Yuthura has done a better job of defending the premise of this thread than it's maker, though I disagree with many of her points as to be expected.

I request that the moderators shut this thread down please. There is little to be said anymore.

Druganator
07-29-2009, 01:28 AM
Lol, this thread is a joke. The thread starter, Druganator, has failed to address several major arguments made against his and has offered no rational evidence to support his views.

Meanwhile, Darth_Yuthura has done a better job of defending the premise of this thread than it's maker, though I disagree with many of her points as to be expected.

I request that the moderators shut this thread down please. There is little to be said anymore.

which arguments prove the existence? if there are none then i see no need to respond to them. in order for something to be true in every case it needs to be proven. Earth's Gravity for instance is true in all cases.

Since no one has proven there is a god then i have won. Religion is pointless if it believes in something that caannot be proven. if you can prove me wrong please do so, if you can't then "go home and rethink your life"

mimartin
07-29-2009, 01:49 AM
"go home and rethink your life" I'm rethinking why I accepted Darth333 offer.

Since this thread is not even touching on the topic "Why does religion still exist today when most former religions died out?" and has only became a spamfest it is being shut down. There are other threads devoted to the Atheist vs. Theist debate. This would have been an interesting topic had it not been a disguise for the real agenda.