Badmovies.org Forum

Im a weird guy-so take this with a grain of salt. I just realized that I dont really believe in "God". Ive been conditioned for so long to believe in some ultra intelligent all powerful deity since childhood-but in reality-I was brainwashed. I believe that the Bible is a good guideline to living well-and that Christ was a great man-but "God"? I dunno....Dont make sense. Humans-monkeys that we are-have NO clue what the hell is really governing this universe-we guess-theorize-but thats about it. The universe is WAAAAY to complex for us mere mortals to understand. Its the height of Egotism to think that any religion or philosphy is he "true" one. Fact is-NO ONE KNOWS.


Is there such a word as "egotism"?  :question:

Dont get me wrong! If you are religious -GREAT! Just aint for me. I'm spiritual person-but I dont need make believe people to inspire me-(except for Bela Lugosi,of course-and he was a real person.).

Batman will dance-to make this touchy subject more platable-
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/l_5220f0b2c98c05cef716271967882447.gif)

When you look at mathematical odds against some basic things, such as the Earth emerging in all the conditions necessary to support life, or the universe NOT collapsing  back into itself after the Big Bang, it seems almost mathematically impossible that there was not SOME kind of guiding intelligence directing the process.  I think, all things considered, that odds favor a Creator over pure random chance.

  Everyone here knows that I believe in the God of the Bible, and that Jesus was His earthly incarnation, who revealed Himself as "the Son."  Anyone is free to accept or reject that.  However, do not for a minute accept the idea that Christ was "a great man."  Look at what He said - "No man comes to the Father except through Me."  "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."   "He who believes in Me, though He were dead, yet shall he live."  Jesus Christ was one of three things.  He was either absolutely insane - a delusional schizophrenic with a God complex.  Or else He was one of the cruelest charlatans that ever lived, because He said these things about Himself, knowing the whole time that they were false.  Or, last of all, that He was who He claimed to be - the immortal God clothed in a robe of humanity, the Word made flesh.
  I won't tell you what to believe, Ronny.  I truly believe in freedom of choice for all men.  But I will suggest to anyone - put away the thought that Jesus of Nazareth was "a great man."  That He most certainly was not.

Perhaps "agnostic" is the term you're looking for. I can't speak from experience, being a firm pagan and having been a Catholic before that, but the impression I've gotten from atheists is that they tend to be firmly in the camp that says that there is/are no god(s) and that the universe can be understood given enough time and exploration. Religion, of course, says that is at least one deity of some form. Agnosticism is a somewhat different group, more or less stating that the nature of the universe is unknowable.

I see where your coming from.Indy-BUT-fact is-I dont think the scriptures are a factual history of what was going on. Even if they ARE....Man needs to break his ancient hold on an outdated tale and make desicions on a more intelligent basis, Religion-Muslim-Christian-is always very biased. Crusades.Inquisition.Jihaads. I think the world would be better off without make believe "gods". Why cant you be a good person without bowing to some image? Christians say they dont worship idols. Bulls**t. Crosses? Little statues of the Virgin Mary? Religion is a  form of magical thinking. You live in a dream.
 And so do I. But my dream is old monster movies-comic books. A wife who I loved-but is gone. I know that Tara will never come back. There is no  Dracula. But it makes me happy to think of it.

Same with religion. Makes em feel good. Personally-it does nothing for me-if it helps you-swell. Yer ok Indy-I wasnt knoking yer faith-I was just stating my beliefs.

 

Yeh. Sounds right. I dont believe. I dont disbelieve. I dont know. And any philosophy that has the balls to say_"THIS IS THE WAY IT IS"-gimme a break. The universe goes on forever-maybe?-I dunno. All religions and theories are just that-THEORIES. There is not on iota of proof beyond their faith,
Christians,Muslims,Jews,... It's ancient politics. Know what? When I die-I'll find out,I reckon. Aint gonna kill folks if they dont believe what I do.

There are quite a few threads on this topic on this board, which are amazingly well argued and don't devolve into yelling matches (just one of the reasons I respect this board). I'm sorry I can't post to them directly at the moment.

I consider myself a hard-line agnostic, who would be atheist except for one tiny (or huge) detail. I do not buy the idea of an intelligent creator at the center of the cosmos, and I certainly don't believe in any of the ideas of God as presented by any of the major religions on this planet. However, I can not discount the idea that there is a God because it is essentially an unprovable hypothesis. This "proof" is important to me. Essentially, I'm the model of a man without Faith, in capital letters.

The Faith part is important, because by definition it relies on a belief that cannot be proven, and I won't make that step. If that is a good point of my central character, and all of those of my ilk, or a bad thing you will really have to decide for yourself.

However, not to attack indianasmith, I will disagree with the mathematically improbable odds of life argument. When you consider how immensely large the universe is, and how long it has been around, the mathematically improbable becomes more and more probable. It would probably happen somewhere, and we're lucky to be one of the places it did.

I will say two things. Congratulations for really questioning the things you've previously taken for granted. I think it's a vital step in any person's life. Now that you have, though, really ask yourself the difficult questions. Don't be afraid to take criticism from all the angles you can think of, and come up with your own conclusions. If you really keep at it, you may find yourself surprised at where you end up.

I still have this thing that if I do something wrong I'll be "struck by lightning". Which is a good way to keep folks in line. Religion is a form of law enforcement. Except the magic "Gods" will kill you. The bible is a great historical document-but as far as convincing me that some Omnipitant GOD lives in the sky..I see more proof for UFO's than "god". I believe in the wisdom  of the Bible-but the supernatreal nature of God...nope. Of course-I may be wrong. I dont believe. I dont disbelieve. I dont Know.

Know what I tink?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn81tOrs3WQ

I tink I gotta buy a nutter mouse trap!

"God exists because he has to." BUZZZZZ! Wrong answer!

Look at it this way. If the universe is too complex to exist without a creator,and that creator has to be greater than the creation, then god would have to have a creator greater than him by the same logic. Since nothing can be greater than god, god can't have a creator and therefore can't exist.

I'm with ya RC. Well, I was up until the dancing Batman  - egads! 

I was raised Catholic but somewhere along the line I realized I'd never really believed in any of that stuff.  Just ancient superstition born from the question "Why are we here?"  That's the answer they dreamed up because humans always need some sense of greater purpose.  And it was a really handy method of maintaining political control over people.  "I speak for your God" or maybe even "I am your God."  So you better pay your taxes  :teddyr:  I never could figure out why a being powerful enough to create the entire universe would care if we worshiped him. 

Agnostic is definitely the word. I identify as Christian in terms of values and culture and community, but I don't believe human beings are capable of understanding the divine, and claiming to know what God is and what God wants is at best an attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible, and at worst, the height of human arrogance. I generally express my beliefs as Christian Agnostic. I don't know, I don't think anyone has all the answers, but Christian is the brand of spirituality I practice to fulfill that need in myself. Church is about much more than God. There is culture and community and connection. Which is why I hate when people trash religion as a whole because they find some of the beliefs implausible. I also hate when people cling to the implausible beliefs as literal truth, when it doesn't really matter. How can one be open to the possibility of miracles, yet so closed-minded as to believe there is no more truth to be found? To me religion is a search for truth and meaning in our existence, and it should change and grow with humanity. Yet, we have these two sides who think we should either cling rigidly to beliefs thousands of years old, or leave the whole idea of religion behind because we've outgrown it. Both are unhealthy, and both are arrogant, in my opinion. The middle ground is where I choose to be.

 :thumbup:  A thoughtful response, AndyC.  There is a very good reason that Marx referred to religion as "the opium of the people" - people were supposed simply to acccept and not think.   Of course that can apply to anything that relies upon unquestioning acceptance.

I sum my views that I like God but I hate the fan club. 
But, that idea doesn't effect the way I act or behave.  Being an athiest takes as much effort and "belief" as being a believer.  I don't do extra harm and sometimes ask the big guy/girl for favors, but thats as far as it goes.

 I do think any god worth the effort doesn't need 1) our money 2) our praise 3) big @$$ buildings to worship in with full sound systems and TV stations 4) us to kill people on their behalf.
-Ed

 

You go there a lot.  I dislike your rationalized thoughts, particularly since you continually peddle this narrow fundamentalist tripe, within which you harbor your own doubts.  Jesus' sacrifice, if you believe that one was made for humankind, was made by a man who suffered, bled, and died.  To discount Jesus' humanity is to miss the entire point of Christianity. 

I only mention this because I just the other day came across this page of misquotations (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations) while researching something else, but that is a misinterpretation of what Marx wrote.  He was saying religion is a comfort or may be the only good thing in an otherwise bleak existence; religion lifts (or keeps) people "up" in trying times, logical or illogical.

From that site:



...
...
...



I meet your snarkiness with and equally emphatic "BZZZZTTT! Wrong answer," but only to make a point.   :)

Your logic is HUMAN logic, and is thus limited by what the human mind comprehends.  Given that infinity and eternity are VERY difficult concepts for even the smartest of us, it is VERY difficult for us to comprehend, or even talk about, God as the "I was, I am and I will be."

Ontological Naturalism has it's flaws as a world view, too, and they are equally illogical as any "plot hole" apparent in religious faith.  That's why this is a discussion of FAITH and BELIEF, not science. 

We don't need dogmatic insults in any discussion that seeks to explore the ideas and thoughts of those we respect.  While religious fundamentalist can be maddeningly dogmatic, so too can ontological naturalists, atheists, agnostics and any other group we care to name.  Christians, et al, don't have sole claim to that characteristic; it is part of human nature to defend one's core beliefs.

I admire almost everyone on this board for the way this (sometimes explosive) topic is discussed here, and I especially appreciate Ronnie sharing his "faith journey" with us no matter where it takes him.  And to everyone here, even those who stand on a different point of view from my own Christian viewpoint, I thank you all.  I learn something from every one of these discussions, even if I lurk without participating.

Again, thank-you all.  You all are blessings and I'm glad to know you.

I’m with Andy in how I identify myself as a Christian.  I believe in God and Jesus, but I don’t make a big to do about it around others.  I see nothing bad about people who are good and try to live a moral life with no belief of a promise of reward or fear of punishment to motivate them, as long as they are respectful of others beliefs. 

I only know what I know, and I see that you are a good person and have faith in love and that certainly hasn’t gone unnoticed by me.  I just hope that you find peace in whatever you decide to call yourself…atheist, agnostic, lugoseist.   

RC - you are never going to offend me because you are honest, and upfront, about who you are and what you think.  Even though we have never met, I think of you as a friend, and I would love nothing better than someday to sit down over a pizza and discuss - and maybe solve - all the world's problems with you.

AllHallows - You too are a friend, although frankly I find your use of the phrase "fundamentalist tripe" to be a bit offensive.  Then, you and I have never been really big on sparing one another's feelings!  Of COURSE Jesus was human.  He had a human body, and he ate, drank, and excreted the way any other human does.  BUT - and this is, I think, an area that will forever separate us - if He was ONLY human - just a mortal man - then frankly, most of His teachings would not make a great  deal of sense.  Everything he taught, even the lovely passages in the Sermon on the Mount that non-Christians the world over generally profess to admire, was rooted in an understanding of His being MORE than just a man. To discount Jesus' divinity is just as great an affront to Christianity as it is to discount His humanity!    Jesus clearly thought of Himself as being immortal and one with God.  All four Gospels show him acting in a manner that God alone could do - He forgave sins, He accepted worship, He said that He would judge the living and the dead, and that all men's salvation depended on believing and obeying what He said.  For anyone who was ONLY a mortal man to say such things would have been either madness or the height of hubris.  I live my life in daily gratitude for the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross.  But that sacrifice would have little meaning if not for the Resurrection that followed, which proved His Divinity.  And the Resurrection is the cornerstone of my faith and the way I live my life.

One other note - back to you, RC - in your initial response.  You commented that "I don't think the Scriptures are a factual report of what was going on."  If that is true, then my life is built around a fundamental falsehood.  However, it's a falsehood  that's made me a fairly happy, well-balanced person, and everybody needs some kind of belief system to get them through this world.  Mine tells me to love others and hurt no one, so I'm going to hang onto it no matter what.

  However, I will say this - if the four Gospels are NOT an accurate history of the life of Christ, then no such history exists.  Only the four New Testament gospels, and the epistles that follow them,  were written from eyewitness testimony, during such a short timeframe that the witnesses of the life of Jesus would still be alive.  The earliest of the Gnostic gospels that people fuss so much about were written over a century after Christ died, and were rejected by the followers of Christ not only because of their bizarre theology but also because of the fact that all of them were forgeries - they were ascribed to various disciples of Jesus (Peter, Paul, Thomas, Judas, etc.) but were written  long after those disciples were dead. 

If you leave aside all matters of theology and reason and ONLY apply the standard tests of history to the Gospels, they would emerge as the earliest and most accurate commentaries on the life of Christ.

Hope I have offended none, and contributed something useful.  One thing I love about this board is the fact that we can have conversations like this without them degenerating into shouting matches and flame wars.  Peace to all.

The misquotation is when Marx is quoted as saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses."   I quoted him correctly as having written "Religion...is the opium of the people"

In context: (also from Wiki)

"...Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

My emphasis.  Yes religion lifts people up - but separates them from reality to do so - comforts, numbs and provides an escape - just like a drug. Opiates alleviate pain and provide sedation.  I don't think I am misinterpreting in the way I offered it.

It's a tough question to answer and ultimately a very personal matter as to what one chooses to believe. Personally I think I am a believer but also think an awful lot of religion is just mythology too. It is a means of controlling the masses but that doesn't necessarily make it entirely bad. There's a lot of moral value to be found in most of the Earth's most predominant religions and I cannot deny that I think many religious people have done a lot of good in this world (although no doubt some did great evil in the name of religion as well). What do I believe? Sometimes I'm not entirely certain. I personally believe in Jesus and his teachings and what he stands for yet I also see great value in the teachings of Buddha too. I don't really believe in Hell as a burning inferno or Heaven as a golden paradise (as I certainly wouldn't want to live in a golden paradise) although I sort of believe they do exist in some fashion although I personally suspect Heaven is simply becoming one with the universe and the Creator. I don't believe people of other religions are necessarily going to Hell for example nor is it my place to judge them as who's knows if the different names aren't just different takes on the same divine Creator? I think I more or less agree with AndyC that fully understanding God may in fact be beyond our comprehension.

Lugosiest. I like that.  :thumbup: Im a Lugosiest.  :smile:

The responses to this have been very thoughtful and amazing. Religion is supposed to be a "taboo" subject....but NOT to discuss it seems...I dunno....you HAVE to discuss religion ...blind faith in anything seems dangerous.

So... you admit it?   :smile: :bluesad:  And just to show you there are no hard feelings, I think you "excreted" more than Jesus ever did!  :wink:

Admit Jesus' humanity?  I never denied it!

However, I am guilty as charged on the count of excessive excrescence.  Now, if you excuse me, I have to go take the Browns to the Super Bowl . . .

Hey RC, don't sweat it, you don't have to believe if you don't want to.  It's all optional.

I believe in something greater than ourselves - call it God if you want.  I don't think "he's" a person or anything.  I don't know what to call it.  But I take great comfort in knowing that I'm not the epitome of intelligence or design in this vast Universe of ours.  It would be a sad day for inteliigent beings if we are the top of the design tree.

I look at it this way:  a cockroach shares his existence with us but try explaining humans to him and he wouldn't have a clue.  He just doesn't have the software to cope with the complexity of who and what we are.

I think God and humans are that way too.

I do think there is a higher power of some type-but-as you say-it's waaay beyond my comprehension of what that would possibly be. I PRAY we are not the top of the food chain-now THATS scary!  :buggedout:

Well, I do hope we're at the top of the food chain, even if I'd like to think there's an intelligence greater than ours.

But what you describe is the definition of agnosticism. The word "agnostic" literally means "without knowledge." The agnostic believes that the nature of a deity, or even it's existence is either unknown or unknowable. People tend to lump agnostics in with atheists when the truth is an agnostic can lean just as far toward the theistic end of the spectrum. I would go as far as to say that most agnostics lean toward some type of faith, but have trouble accepting some of the specific beliefs as literal truth. They believe there must be something, but we don't know what it is. I've met people in ministry who believe that, but are also able to reconcile it with their Christian faith. Being agnostic simply means you don't believe anybody has all the answers. I see that as a healthy attitude that allows us to appreciate and relate to those who don't believe exactly what we believe.

Now, I do draw a line between real agnostic theism and people who say "I believe in God, but I don't believe in organized religion" because they had a bad experience as kids that put them off going to church (being scolded by b***hy old maids in huge hats and a gallon of cheap perfume, for example), or they're just too lazy or self-absorbed to belong to anything, whether it be a church or a service club or some other community activity requiring a commitment of time and energy. That's not agnosticism. It's an excuse to sleep in on Sunday.

RC -

I have had extremely fascinating discussions with Indy about this, both in threads and through PM. I love discussions with Indy because he is an intelligent man whom I can disagree with and it never gets ugly. This is well-covered territory between the two of us. I am a deist. I won't go into a detailed description of what that is, if you're interested you can go to deism.com and that will provide a pretty decent overview of my basic beliefs, although I have my own personal differences with what's there just as everyone does about the Bible or the Quran or any other religious text.

I am not an atheist. In fact, I am passionately not and atheist. Deism for me is the only belief system that makes any sense at all to me, and I am also a former Christian. One thing Indy and I are in total agreement on is that this notion of the universe being an accident is inconceivable. Everything observes an order. I've gotten into arguments with people over the existence of order and existence of chaos and so on. Order is self-evident, everything follows laws, and to fail to acknowledge them or refer to it as an accident is extremely disrespectful of this massive mechanism that is the universe. Even chaos is subject to the ordered laws of the universe. Chaos is simply something that appears random but only because it is part of such a bigger order that we cannot see it, and so it appears random. It can be reasonably argued that chaos may not even exist. Sorry, nihilists, but you can't escape it, try as you might.

I don't get how people can see the universe as a big accident. I can't see how, at this point, with all that our probing science and technology has seen of the universe, that there are still those that are atheists, or at least haven't yet ruled out this ridiculous "accident" notion.

Well, the "accident" portrayal is a bit facile. Speaking from my own point of view, I do not discount the universe as it is. In fact, when thinking about the whys and wherefores of why this universe exists at all, I will admit to complete befuddlement. Why is there something instead of nothing? And why does this something follow rules we can endlessly fumble at trying to figure out? That's what science is at its base, performing experiments to figure out why the universe works the way it does. Reality does follow rules, and we humans are in a fool's game to endlessly try and figure out those rules.

At this point it becomes pretty abstract, but I do not buy the idea that there necessarily has to be a central intelligence to the universe who can be termed "God." Yes, the world we live in follows rules. There is implicate order out of chaos. Does that de facto argue for the existence of a higher intelligence? I would argue that that is not necessarily the case.

I would, and will, argue that the universe simply IS. The idea of a "God" creator is very parsimonious, but it is not the only possible explanation.

I am continually inspired by the mysteriousness of the world we live in. It's one of the driving forces of my life. I don't think the idea that it may be possible that there is not a driving intelligence at the center of it all is ridiculous.

I disagree with you on only one count, science, and our trying to figure out the laws of the universe is not a fool's game, despite our fumbling about. However, your being inspired by the mysteries of the world and the universe makes you ripe for deism.

Usually and so far I am spot on with you Andy, but this bit gives me umbrage... I just don't find religion relevant to my life. 
God, yes, doing good yes, making the world better by works yes, but the gathering together for the celebration thereof, nah. 

Planting a tree, volunteering, or just loving and teaching your children right, all serve god's will better than a thousand hymns. 

-Ed

A Nihilist may say, "It's my nothingness that only matters to me".


Why would an agnostic go to church regularly? Since when are all churches always institutions of community service? They can sometimes be holy college fraternities, that perpetuate the good ol' boy system of knowing the right people. Whatever, most charities just want your money anyhow, so when I'm able to I give them money-- feed an Ethiopian baby rice for a week or two. I also open doors for people who aren't middle to upper-class white males-- I consider myself working-class, I'm not going to open doors for people who may be my boss: f@$k them. I may actually call the Shriner's hospital today so I can volunteer, so I can do something better with my time as I'm unemployed and I haven't seen too many openings recently, I figure I might as well do something useful with my time instead of pondering the existence of god-- How can I know? Why should I care? (Please don't bother trying to find her, she's not there). But truthfully, I really don't know, I think there could be something out there-- but then why does it allow Ethiopian babies to have it so bad?

This is a question that appears a lot in discussions like this:  "If there IS a God, why does he allow x?"

The problem I have with the premise of the question is that we are making a human judgment through our human lens on what happens in the world.

There are many answers to this question.  I don't think it as cut and dry as saying, "If there is a God, he'd have the world operate as WE think it should." 

The short answer is "who knows why he allows Ethiopian babies {or anyone else} to suffer." 

That's a good point, but if this divine being allows this suffering without it working out for the best in the end, it's just something I can't accept.

If you only think you're an athiest* then you're agnostic.

But if you are an athiest, welcome to the athiest club !  :cheers:

*man hug*

Only got one shot at living so make the best of it !






*I'm only an atheist when it come to organised religion. It woudn't surprise me if there was something big throughout the universe (other than my ego), but I don't think it operates with a belief system.

The problem of human suffering is deep and complex and has no easy explanation.  Much suffering is frankly self-inflicted, which falls under the general category of "free will" - that God will not intervene when mankind chooses to commit harm to his own kind.  Not a particularly satisfying answer.  I will say that, in THE CASE FOR FAITH, Lee Strobel has a chapter dedicated to this question - if God is good, why is there so much suffering allowed in the world?  The chapter is an absolute masterpiece.

Here is the answer I give my students when this comes up.  It is in the form of a (true) story.

When I was young, my sister owned a cat named Annabelle Lee, a beautiful calico who loved to play with household trinkets.  One night while we were gone to church, the cat saw my Dad's rod and reel in the garage - with a shiny "Devil's Horse" fishing lure hanging from it.  The cat batted at the dangly lure, and one of the three treble hooks snagged her paw.  The harder she jerked away, the deeper the hook bit.  She clawed at the lure, trying to get it loose, and snagged her other front paw on the other treble hook.  By now she has torn the garage all up - stuff is knocked over, fishing line is wrapped around here and tangled with everything.  In her agony, she tried to CHEW the lure off her front paws and managed to get the last treble hook snagged in her cheek.   We came home to a terrified, wailing cat and a demolished garage.  My Dad told my sister to get a towel and some tin snips.  The only way to get the hooks out was to push them in past the barbs till they emerged from the cat's skin, clip the barbs off, and then pull the hooks out.  Even mummified in two beach towels, the cat managed to claw my Dad up pretty good before he finally cut and pulled the last hook free.  Then she disappeared under the house for three days to heal up, and never quite trusted my Dad after that.
   That's humanity.  We are stuck in a broken world - that WE broke - full of sin and misery and suffering, and all our efforts to free ourselves only entangle us deeper.  When God uses events and circumstances we cannot understand to try and pull us out of the mess, all we perceive is that we are being hurt further, and we blame Him and lash out at Him.  But, when His plan has worked itself out, we will find ourselves free to heal - and free to accept or reject Him.

That's how I see human suffering.

So Jesus was wrong to do all his humanitarian deeds?

God lets bad things happen to good people because thats what bad things are. If bad things happened to bad people they would be good things.

You get drunk and drive and you kill an innocent person. if you only killed real a***oles there would be no discincentive to not drive drunk and the whole world would be out of whack.

Although a bad thing happening to a bad person is still a bad thing.

You just feel less bad as you don't sympathise with a villan as much.

There's a difference between " a bad thing happening to you" and living a festering sh*t-hole of a life.

There's a lot of bad in the world and it doesn't spread itself out evenly. man is born free and in order to taste that most delicious freedom we need to have the possiblity of all this horrible stuff too.

the book of Job deals with alot of issues similar to this.

Why didn't God stop the plane from flying into the twin towers? because the plane HAD to fly into the towers. We had to know our government wasn't capable of protecting us and we had to know the muslims want us out of their countries and that we aren't immune to the problems we help create and on and on.

these are all simply signals that we must read. They aren't actually good or bad in that sense.

I'm Agnostic-which seems to be saying " I'm Clueless"...which is about right...as far as what makes the world go round. I have my own ideas...but they seem more at place in the plots of comic books than in a serious discussion on religious or scientific theory. But they work for me....for a while.
So-yeh-ok-I'm an Agnostic.

My thoughts on the "why does God let bad things happen to us?" are thus: whether something is good or bad is a matter of perception and time. Bad things can lead to good with time, as much as it initially hurts. War hurts like hell and is an absolutely terrible thing...yet it's often led to period of great innovation that resulted in technology that improved our lives.

I also believe that whatever being may be out there, we're not the only species this planet was made for and I honestly believe that the divine has taken a hands-off approach to the universe. Whatever happens to us is ultimately our responsibility at this point. I suspect that for some people that's a much more terrifying prospect than any Hell.

Thing is, I'm not so terrified of Hell as most others are.  I'm completely content with that.

The biggest fear is the fear of the unknown.  Nobody, faith or not, knows what happens once we pass.  Sure, our various faiths tell us what happen.  But to know if that's true or not, is the answer begging to be answered.

Logically, we just end up in a box in the ground.  But there's a part of me that wants it to be more than that and I'm scared it's not.

In response to Nukie's question -
Of course not.  Jesus'  healings and exorcisms were to give us a preview of what will be accomplished in the end, when evil is eternally banished and God reigns supreme.  Also, they demonstrated the Divine Power that lay behind his message.  After all, anyone can SAY "I am the Resurrection and the Life."  Only Jesus could call Lazarus forth from the tomb.

Father Andrew Greeley had one of my favorite quotes about Jesus. In reponse to the idea that Jesus wasn't relevant anymore or those principles weren't relevent anymore, this was in the late 60's, he said "Jesus was irrelevent in his own time. He was so irrelevent he had to be killed".

That was kind of the vibe I got when I was camapigning for Ron Paul in 07 and 08 though obviously I'm NOT saying Ron Paul is a heavenly being or something. The media at one time had no idea what the things we were talking about meant, at the same time they went above and beyond to not cover us.  Maybe they just thought we were nuts and disliked us for THAT reason who knows.

Greeley talked about how in Jesus time the big issues were the Roman occupation, when the end of days were coming and which was the best interpretation of biblical law. Jesus came and was like the kingdom of God is at hand. That other stuff is smaller than small.  It was just politics and talk. He was like, we are going to LIVE this NOW.

We are not in slaves, so things aren't provided for us. It makes the posiblity of a terribile life possible but also a great life. Slaves get fed and clothed but they can't do what they want. Those are the choices we have.

I love this quote from John Malcovich's character in In the Line of Fire:

"God doesn't punish the wicked and reward the righteous. Some die because they deserve to and some die simply because they come from Minneapolis. It's random and it's meaningless."

Now, that last bit makes this a typically nihilist statement, and not that interesting. But the rest of it states beautifully how much our life on earth changes and contradicts the notions of religious texts. It also points out one of the aspects of religious faith that has always annoyed me. Religion desperately wants to control people, and so according to revealed religion, God punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous, but because we can't see this happening in our world, then the religious rebuttal becomes "Well, it doesn't happen here, it happens in the afterlife." Likely story. You see that in Christianity and Islam bigtime, if in different forms. Buddhism takes this concept of retribution in a different direction. Karma can affect you in this life, or be put off into a later life. So in this case the retribution for sin goes forward AND backward. If you do something bad and it bites you in this life, well, then you had it coming to you, but if it doesn't, then you'll get yours when you come back in your next life (talk about covering your religious bets). Also, if you have bad things happen to you or you have a s**tty life, then you're paying for sins committed in a previous life. I don't buy any of it and it's just a way for people to exercise religious power to control people. It's a part of what our founding fathers were trying to get away from.

And then there's the fact that religions tend to just be plagiarized versions of things that came before. Today we view the religions of the ancient Norse, Roman, Greek, and Egyptian peoples as mythology. But for them it was very much religion. All of these essentially borrowed or even outright stole the Gods and religious concepts from the earlier civilization. This can even be seen in our modern religions that we should never (gasp) refer to as mythology. For example, there are just too many correlations between Jesus and the Egyptian deity Horus to be dismissed. Both were born of virgins by a supernatural power. Both had foster fathers. Both had their births announced by angels. Both were baptized in rivers. Both represented salvation to their respective followers and were even refered to as savior. Both had twelve followers. Both were in danger of being killed as infants and so their mothers had to go into hiding. Both performed miracles like healing the sick, walking on water, and raising someone from the grave. Both were crucified and have a cross associated with them. Both were supposedly resurrected after three days. There are other correlations, but that's a bunch already.

Religions have evolved over time, have had cultural contact with each other and profoundly influenced one another. Why not? Back then information travelled at a snails pace and there was no way that the people of a region would ever know that their beliefs were partly or even significantly plagiarized from the heathen peoples from 1000 miles away or 2000 years away.

These are just some of the reasons why I simply cannot put any more stock in Christianity or Islam as I do in Zorastrianism or the ancient religions of Egypt. It's all just recycled concepts of the supernatural from humanity. This is not to say that I don't recognize the importance of religion in the development of the human mind over many millenia. Religion allowed humanity to think in abstract ways in contemplation of the unkown and the mysterious. In many ways, religion is part of the reason we even have science, which also requires abstract thought. I simply don't accept the religious doctrines of the world as the "word of God."

Hey, Flick - I respect your disbelief in Christianity, but I also know that if I repeated a falsehood you would want me to call you on it.  The whole notion of parallels between the narrative of Christ's life - especially the whole dying and rising again phenomena - was pretty much made up out of the whole cloth by late 19th and early 20th century scholars who were anxious to discredit Christianity as much as possible. THE GOLDEN BOUGH is a classic example, which contains several obvious distortions.   Both Osiris and Horus have been cited as parallels to Jesus, but when you go back to the original myths the parallels simply aren't there.  Modern commentators either severely distorted the details of the original stories or else fabricated them.  Now some myths - like the cult of Mithras, which in its fully developed form emerged about the middle of the second century - DID include a dying and rising savior figure, but every one of those myth cycles POST dates Christianity by a century or so.  Since Christianity was the fastest growing religion in the Roman Empire by that point, it makes sense that cults trying to gain followers would copy some of its elements.

There is a whole chapter on this in Lee Strobel's most recent book, THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS, and he provides both interviews with several scholars as well as an extensive bibliography.  One of them flatly stated that prior to Jesus, there ARE no dying and rising Messiah figures in any Middle Eastern myth cycle.  My copy of this book is at school, but I'll be happy to pull quotes and references from it if you so desire.

As far as the idea of divine justice goes, that of course is subjective.  I believe that God is, in fact, a God of both mercy and justice, and that there are rewards and punishments after this life.  I don't care to embrace any belief system that does not consign the likes of Hitler and Stalin to the lowest pits of hell.

I know I am going to regret getting into this: but I cannot let this sit.  This sort of thing offends me: Christianity is not so weak or feeble that it needs to be propped up by fabrications and distortions.

I would never stoop to challenge your belief in Christianity, Indy, but I will challenge your belief in this book.  It is faulty and unworthy.  Strobel has been "called" on a series of falsehoods. There are considerable problems with Strobel's book; among the primary ones being a persistent deficit of logic (not to mention the considerable biases of his sources!)  If his critics - and " late 19th and early 20th century scholars who were anxious to discredit Christianity" - are biased, so is he!  Strobel wrote what he did, as he did, to suit his purpose; as did his sources.

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/therealjesus.htm#conclusion  (note particularly point #5)

And an exerpt from http://webspace.webring.com/people/np/paul_tobin/paganrising.html :

"A typical fundamentalist apologetic sleight of hand is to claim that it was the pagan mysteries who copied the Christian story. In The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel quoted a fundamentalist apologist stating that "given the timing involved" it should be the pagans who plagiarized Christianity. Neither Strobel nor his chosen scholar, gave any further evidence for their claim.

Yet this claim is demonstrably false- for a couple of reasons:

It is well known that these mystery religion preceded Christianity by at least a few centuries. The myth of Adonis was known to the Greeks as early as the fifth century BCE. The Egyptian myth of Osiris dates back to at least 4,000 BCE and was recorded in detail by the Greek biographer Plutarch (c46-120 CE). The Persian Sun-God Mithras was mentioned in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (c480-c245 BCE). The cult of Mithraism reached Rome in the first century BCE.


The way the early church fathers defended against the mystery religions showed that they knew these pagan myths antedated the Christian ones. Justin Martyr (c160-165) claimed that the devil plagiarized Christianity by anticipation with the pagan religions in order to lead people from the true faith. He claimed the myth of the virgin birth of Perseus, an ancient Greek legend that preceded Christianity, was pre-copied by the "deceiving serpent" (Dialogue with Trypho: 70). Similarly he asserted that the cultic rites of Mithraism had a diabolical origin (Apology 1:66). Tertulian (c160-c225) made the same claim: that it was the devil that provided this "mimicry". That the church fathers would resort to the absurd theory of pre-mimicry (i.e. the copy coming before the original) means that they could not make the claim that the pagan mystery religions copied from Christianity! Why couldn't they? Because it must have been well known to them and to their audience which came first! "

 

Hmmm . . .  a challenge.


OK:  The elements of Osiris that resemble Christianity are far exceeded by those that do not.  You have to do a heck of a lot of editing to make the two compatible.

Second: While the legend of Mithras is ancient,  the bull-cult of Mithras with its blood baptism that some cite as similar to Christianity is virtually unknown in the first century.  The earliest detailed accounts of its belief system come from much later, and the earliest references to it still postdate Christianity.

And above all, there is this:  NONE of the so called "vegetation cults" or "resurrection myths" that Chrisianity supposedly plagiarized are based on a real, datable, historical person!  Adonis is treated as a legendary figure from long ago.  The EARLIEST accounts of Osiris and Horus claim that they were legendary figures from the dawn of time (also, I don't think Osiris was claimed to be born of a virgin in the original legends). Same with Persephone, Mithras, and all the others.  Not a one of them is ever placed in a context that anyone still living would have been able to bear witness to their supposed Resurrection.

On the contrary, Christianity ABSOLUTELY rises and falls on a real, historical figure.  He was born in the reign of Augustus and crucified in the reign of Tiberius.  The four Gospels that recount his life were all composed in the first century, when multiple eyewitness testimonies were available, and two of them have been attributed to eyewitnesses from the time of their writing (John and Matthew).  The earliest Christians staked their very lives on the belief that a real, flesh and blood person whom they knew had risen from the dead, thus proving His Divinity.  All the pagan myths are never portrayed as anything other than myths and ancient stories.  Not a one was recorded by their contemporaries.

  Last of all, the book I cited was NOT "The Case for Christ."  It is a much older work, and it was Strobel's first.  Of course he is biased - that's why the book is called The Case FOR Christ. The book I cited was much more recent, published in 2008, and is entitled THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS.  It is much more extensively researched than its predecessor.  And one note - if believing in the topic that you research and write about disqualifies you from being objective, does that mean I can ignore all works on evolution by scientists that ascribe to that theory?  Or all works on the Civil War by authors who believe the South was morally wrong?  Having a strong conviction on something doesn't disqualify you from writing about it.
  Fabrications?  I don't really think so.  Distortions? Frankly, I find that many people will throw that word down when someone reaches a conclusion they don't like.  Anyway, I thank you for the links, Newt, and will take the time to peruse them in great detail.  I enjoy a challenge and am not in the least offended by your post.  Thanks for your contribution!

It's all bulls**t. Religion is bulls**t. "My Gods better than your God". Any belief that states they are the only,true one. That aint Religion.Thats Facism.
Hitler was a Pope for his ideolgy.

I'm gonna pull an "unfingered" thingy... and quote myself...  :lookingup:

Indiana thinks Jesus excreted!!!   :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :teddyr: :lookingup: :bluesad: :bouncegiggle:  
He must've!!  :teddyr:  Poor Jesus.  Did he ever have hard stomach??  :question:

Sorry it we hijacked your thread, Ronnie!  But this topic is important to many of us.

AHD - I finally agreed with you about something - the humanity of Jesus - and you keep on and on and on about one of the realities of that humanity I mentioned!  While I apprciate you attempt to lighten the tone, give it a rest, dude! :teddyr:

Newt - Just read through the entire site.  Needless to say, there is much that I take exception to, and I find that the author - whose name I could not locate on the article - is frankly just as guilty of assumption and supposition as the scholars he attempts to debunk.
Anyway, it is nearly midnight and I get up at 5:15, so I am taking a powder for the night.  Thanks for a fascinating link, and I apologize for one error - in reading the very end of the article first, I thought he was debunking THE CASE FOR CHRIST, not the later work.  My bad. 

Goodnight to all!

Let's say that some of the things I brought up are not entirely correct about comparisons between Jesus and Horus. Fair enough. I apologize for any inaccuracies, and I do appreciate you pointing any out, Indy. They are not intended as direct attacks on Christianity.

However, without going into hours and hours of extensive research that I don't have the time to do, and much as I would like to, couldn't this be a case of believing what one wants to believe? You can't tell me that every one of the correlaries I mentioned are completely false. That's impossible. A little further research has turned up some items that support some of those that are not related to attacks on Christianity. I promise at some point I when I do have some time I will share some of it with you via PM, Indy. Just give me some time.

However, my primary point stands. Religions throughout history borrow and steal concepts from one another. It has been the case throughout recorded history, and before that I'm confident. Why should any of today's widely practiced faiths be any different? The simple answer is, they aren't. I am sure that any Christian or Muslim wants very much to believe that their faith is original, the first to do this or that. It is a part of the human condition for one to want one's embraced beliefs to be unique. It is also part of the human condition to embrace information that supports one's beliefs and reject that which does not as naught but lies and falsehoods. Our brains are like soil seives, a system of filters, rejecting some particles and letting others through. Your filters are going to be biased differently than those of one who wants to discredit Christianity.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle when viewed by unbiased eyes. I'm not saying my eyes are unbiased, because I am a deist with some disdain for religion. However, I am indiscriminate in my disdain of religion. Christianity is not in my crosshairs any more than any other faith. It may seem as though it is, but this is only because I am within proximity of mainly Christian people. Were this site filled with Muslims, most would probably see me as vehemently anti-Muslim. You, with all the respect that you know I have for you Indy, are Christian and will defend it vigorously. In that light, I think I am a bit more unbiased when dissecting and comparing religions. I'm not questioning your intellect, Indy, in the slightest. I must, however, question your bias.

The ancient deity Mithras is also sited as an influence on the beliefs in the attributes of the man Jesus, and on the Christian tradition in general. I'm sure there are some falsehoods there from those wishing to attack Christianity, just as I am sure you could point out sources debunking such notions, from sources eager to defend Christianity no doubt. Again, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The deification of Jesus has borrowed from older religions, because, just as the Bible says (it is not without it's moments of beautiful wisdom) there is nothing new under the sun.

We've agreed about other things, my narrow-minded friend with convenient menory.  And that's one "on" too many.  But since you've stated I "keep on and on and on" that's three times, not twice, so I'm entitled to at least one more shot, but you won't be living down your "excreted" remark anytime soon.  :wink:
...so I will simply repeat: Did Jesus ever have hard stomach??  :question:

Let's see - he was a carpenter who worked with his hands and back for a living in a country where food was scarce.  I imagine his abs were ROCK hard!!

Flick, my friend - I will definitely plead guilty to the charge of bias.  But, as one of my professors remarked long ago, there are NO unbiased historians.  I would stretch that to say that there are NO unbiased human beings.  Period.

Peace to all!

Oh fudge, here we go again...  :lookingup:  Apparently you never heard the expression "hard stomach"?  It means constipated.  Just like your rock hard abs remark.   :wink: :thumbup:

I know some of the stuff debunking Jesus is motivated by all sorts of whatever, but right there in the bible the story of Moses being saved as a baby from being killed and the same thing happening to Jesus are pretty similar. PLus, how could a king order all the first born be rounded up and killed? There are no records of these things.

The essence of Jesus is in his teachings.

and I don't understand why people pay attention to Acts or Revelations. Jesus was the son of God. Whatever happened AFTER him is not from him and not important.

If Jesus was the Son of God, then the Acts of his Apostles as they carried out the Great Commission were of supreme importance.  After all, He gave them the authority to "bind and loose", so their creation of the church was in accordance with His instructions.

As far as Herod goes, if you read Josephus, he carried out so many atrocities in his long and cruel life that executing a few children in a tiny town might easily not make the chronicles of his reign at all.  Bethlehem was a town of 200 or so at the time Jesus was born; "every male two years old and under" would have been less than two dozen people - a blip in Herod's total body count.

OP, it sounds like you're probably more Agnostic than Atheist.

...Truthfully, I think that more people should try and figure out what they are. Question everything. Don't get caught up in family "tradition". Always be skeptical. Only then can you figure out what you are.

For what it's worth, I'm an Atheist.

I am not.  However, I used to claim that I was.

I posted this video (http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,123630.msg385606.html#msg385606) earlier tonight. 

That man's beauty and talent make me question that it is all random, that there is no divine direction.  True, given infinite time, monkeys probably can type Shakespeare.  But in this case, it happened DURING MY LIFETIME (Brother Iz, not Shakespeare...AHD, I would expect you to catch me on that one...   :tongueout:  )

And here's the rub: it's been happening during each and every lifetime since at least the beginning of recorded history.

I happen to believe that science cannot explain art...why we appreciate one thing as art and see another as trash.  The beauty of a singing voice, the passion of lyric, the magic of the optical illusion contained in special effects....art.  Humans create beauty each and every day, and I don't, any more, think that is random.

Ulthar brings up what is for me the most interesting point of the whole conversation.

Now, obsessing on rationality usually ends up with an undue importance on "proofs," ultimate or not. It's the stress on "proof" that keeps me on the edge of atheism and agnosticism.

But that ignores many of the most basic experiences of being human: art, love, emotion, ecstatic experiences. If you've lived this far without falling into the full throes of any of those, you haven't experienced anything near the fullness of what is possible in your life. In fact, I believe that these are the foundation of a healthy life. And for the large majority of the population, these experiences coalesce into a part of life people celebrate as "religion."

Love: Marriage. Art: Transcendence. Ecstasy: Stands on its own. Religion has stood at the center of all of these basics for thousands of years, and have provided an explanatory tool and road map.

Myself, I think it's an example of just how much we don't know about consciousness itself. Consciousness is, after all, the prism we have to view ourselves through. It can be said that our brains evolved to recognize patterns, and it is pattern recognition that has helped us survive and thrive on this planet. But that's a bit of begging the question.

Look at it this way. What do you feel when you hear Beethoven's "Ode to Joy?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A

I hear a triumph of the human spirit, and just how far away we still are from truly understanding ourselves on a scientific basis. But I don't believe it's an unobtainable goal. (I'll take my tongue out of my cheek later.)

I think family guy did a skit on that idea when one of the characters went to an alternate dimension where there was no religion. Humanity, not bogged down by the Dark Ages now live in a sci fi world of flying cars and cures for all that ails us, but they go to the Sistine Chapel and there's no art, just photos from some wannabe artist that are really bad.
 :teddyr:

And the real kicker is that without the church funding scientists during the Renaissance, who knows how the history of scientific discovery would have unfolded? Maybe we would be more advanced technology-wise, maybe we wouldn't (seeing as how experiments and prototypes cost money). Speculation on alternate history is fun!

There are degrees of bias, Indy.

I searched “resurrection myths history of”

I was not looking for anything about any specific book, nor about Strobel or Strobel’s work.  I was looking for discussions of the relative timelines of the various mythological traditions to do with resurrection.  One of the first handful of results that came up was “Lee Strobel The Case for the Real Jesus Reviewed”.  Since the material seemed so very apropos the discussion at hand, I used it.  That it also directly referenced Mr. Strobel’s writing was a bonus.

IF Mr. Strobel has corrected his misapprehensions on the relative timelines of the various resurrection stories in his subsequent works, I applaud him!  If not and he continues to adhere to and promote his manipulated timelines as discussed in the article I linked to, then I must conclude that his work and works continue to be specious.  It relegates him to the same bin as Erich Von Daniken, Whitley Strieber and Velikovsky.  

When attempts are made to bolster a Truth (capital very much intended) solely by means of assailable constructs, the unfortunate side effect is that that Truth becomes perceived to be potentially questionable by association and implication.  This is why I find such patently ridiculous assertions as in the book(s) in question to be objectionable in the extreme.  That trusting people will be taken in by their allure distresses and offends me.

Whether there would have been a Renaissance at all without the church is another question. Religious orders preserved a lot of knowledge through the Dark Ages, and the fear of an all-seeing and all-knowing God played a big part in holding civilization together in the absence of Roman law and order. Religion can be a powerful civilizing influence. People who argue that it holds us back don't usually take that into account.

Thanks for weighing back in, Newt.  I read the website in its entirety the other night, and while I agree that he did point out some logical weaknesses and questionable statements from the scholars Strobel interviewed, I frankly found that his criticism was rife with some blatant presuppositions, outdated scholarship, and prima facea judgements that were just as egregious as the stuff he was criticizing.

  He bluntly stated that none of the canonical gospels claimed to be eyewitness testimony.  What about John's statement: "This is the apostle who witnessed these things, and wrote these things"?  Not to mention that Matthew, according to every single bit of early testimony available (including Papias, who wrote with about 50 years of Matthew's original composition), was in fact written by ONE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES?  Then there is Mark, who, again according to some very early testimony, was the primary interpreter for Simon Peter - about as direct an eyewitness as you can get!  Only Luke says up front that he was  not an eyewitness of the life of Christ, but then goes on to say he had "carefully interviewed those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word."  But no, the author simply says "No eyewitnesses wrote in the Gospels" and leaves that unsupported statement hanging.
  He also completely rejected the whole chapter on fulfilment of prophecy, apparently because he either questions whether  the prophecies were supposed to be about the Messiah or assumes the Gospel writers made up the events . . . with absolutely no proof either way!  I challenge anyone to read Psalm 22 or Isaiah 51-52, then read the accounts of the Crucifixion recorded in the Gospels, and not see the fulfilment of those prophecies.  Especially Psalm 22, which was written by King David 1000 years before Christ and 700 years before the Phoenicians invented crucifixion, yet describes the death agonies of Christ on the cross in vivid detail!
  He says that Luke is "not a classical historian."  Sir William Ramsay, a Biblical archeologist who spent 25 years excavating in the Holy Land, said that Luke was "a first-rate historian, deserving to be ranked among the greatest historians of antiquity."  Who am I to believe?  A man who spent 25 years in research and excavation, and originally approached the Gospel accounts from a very skeptical point of view until convinced otherwide, or an internet critic who didn't even sign his name to his dissection of Strobel's book?  (I couldn't find his name, anyway.  I may have missed it because it was very late when I finished it.)
  He also states that "where the Synoptic Gospels don't copy each other, they contradict each other."  I find it interesting that where there are minor differences in the wording of a narrative or sermon in the Gospels (which is sure evidence of eyewitness testimony, since people notice different things in a statement or event and emphasize different aspects of it), the critics always scream "Aha!! Contradiction!" But when the accounts echo each other word for word, they say "Aha!!! They were all copying from _____!"  (Fill in the blank, sometimes it's Mark, or the mythical Q document, or whatever).  The fact is there are no irreconcilable contradictions in the narrative accounts of the Gospels, only minor variations that point to different perspectives on the same event.  The whole issue of whether Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark becomes moot when you realize that all three of these works were written within the same decade by authors who knew each other and worked together.  They drew upon many of the same sources, especially the teaching and memories of Simon Peter and the other apostles, as well as their own experiences.
  these are just three examples that come to the top of my mind in reviewing the website I read a few days ago.  I actually spent a good deal of time going over it in my head after I went to bed that night, and there were a number of others, too, but I have slept since then and really don't care to read the whole page again.
  My overall point is that, while he did point out a number of weaknesses in Strobel's book, and in apologetic works in general,  his webpage was far from the systematic debunking that it claims to be, and that his own criticisms were filled with some of the same weaknesses that he slams in his subject matter.

  In the end, faith is just that - Faith.  Either Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, or He was not.  But I do believe that history backs up many of the claims made about Him, and those historical truths make the path to faith a little easier for the mind to take.  But in the end, my faith rests in Christ Himself, not in whether or not Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell or others may have written good books defending Him.  I enjoy this sort of discussion a great deal, and appreciate your input.

And if we can't properly view him through our human lense, than all discussions about this being amount to nothing.


I should find my copy of it (one of several books given to me by someone from a Christian group).  As I recall it though, almost all the arguments in that book were targeted more at people looking to confirm their Christian beliefs..  I found it all quite unconvincing when attempting to view it from a neutral POV.


How anyone could read that book and still LIKE the God of the bible let alone worship him is truly amazing to me.  It's particularly bad when the youngest friend (Elihu I think?) of Job makes the "How can we understand God?" type argument - except we don't need to, as we earlier read EXACTLY why God did this.  And God's motivation is stupid and childish at best.  Ugh, I hated that book. 


A better example is Zoroastrianism.  Quite a few similarities. 


The point isn't that they exactly copied it, but that it appears ideas were used from outside sources.  There are WAY MORE of those in the Old Testament than new of course - you know, like the nearly direct copying of the Noah flood myth from the far older Utnapishtim flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh.  101 Myths of the Bible is a helpful book in this regard.

The problem with this whole debate is that it tends to polarize too easily, as I think Jim H was trying to point out. One side tends to become the side trying to invalidate Christianity as a complete myth, while the other side defensively reacts by refusing to acknowledge anything contrary to the idea that Christianity is a unique and original faith.

Just to make myself clear, I was in no way trying to paint a picture of Christianity being a plagiarized religion. However, to deny that any modern religion has borrow elements from older religions is the equivalent of burying one's head in the proverbial sand. The early gnostics cannot be explained away. They were a part of the early Christian faith. They were a mystic and esoteric lot that also embraced many of the apocryphal works that were omitted from the modern Bible. The Gnostics were the big connection between the early Christian faith and more eastern traditions. Gnosticism both influenced and was influenced by Christianity. It is through the Gnostics that some of these elements borrowed have worked themselved into Christian traditions. Not the only means, certainly, but it's simply ridiculous to deny the influence of gnosticism on the early Christians. Emperor Constantine, in an effort to solidify the faith and gain unity, allowed the Council of Nicea to decide on what constituted the scripture and what did not, doing away with the more esoteric nature of Christianity that existed up to that point, and of course, Gnosticism was no longer the profound influence on the faith that it had been.

Besides, the Christians before the first Council of Nicea are a dramatically different lot than modern Christians. The early Christian were practically socialist, embracing common property concepts and altruism. The culture of the early Christians is in stark contrast to our modern Western culture of rugged individualism and free thinking. Christian socialists at least understand that the values eschewed in scripture have a closer relation to socialism than what many modern Christians would have us believe. I always find it amusing that our Pledge of Allegiance was written by one such Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy, and that so many Patriotic Americans don't know that, or get very upset when it is brought up to them. My main point to all of this is that I don't know that Christians really know much about their own traditions of faith and how they came about. This is understandable, because faith is transmitted through what they learn from the Bible, and through the guidance of their churches.  

Gnosticism is a fascinating phenomena.  They seem to have been trying to blend elements of Greek Platonic philosophy with NT Christianity, but the Gnostic gospels and epistles that survive reflect a very wide variety of beliefs - all of them seemed to share a conviction that physical matter was inherently evil and could NOT possibly be handled, touched, or used by God.  So their interpretation of Christ was that he simply was not flesh and blood, but only appeared to be such.  So the whole Crucifixion and Resurrection narrative was of secondary importance to them.  Essentially, there philosophy was not that man is lost and needs to be saved from his own sinfulness, but rather that man is ignorant and needs to be taught.  While there is an appealing nature to that point of view, a long hard look at humanity leads me towards the "hopelessly lost" conclusion.
   However, one thing worth pointing out is that ALL the Gnostic gospels postdate the New Testament books by almost a century.  While some have tried to argue that the Gospel of Thomas was written very early, the textual and linguistic evidence tends to point to a date after 175 AD - in other words,  nearly 150 years after the life of Christ and about 80 years after the last books of the NT (John's Gospel and Epistles) were written.  The Gnostics had a tendency to write their own gospels and epistles and stick the names of the original disciples onto them, but none of their works were ever really accepted by the mainstream church.  A great deal of the Christian literature of the Second Century - the works of the so-called Apostolic Fathers - spent time denouncing Gnosticism.
  It is true that the early Christians, as described both in the Book of Acts and early Roman testaments, did practice communal living.  It is also worth noting that human greed wrecked the Jerusalem commune (the story of Ananias and Sapphira) just as it has wrecked every other attempt at socialism and communism that mankind has tried.
  One last note - it is a very common misconception that the Council of Nicea somehow dictated or decreed what books would be in the New Testament.  That is not true.  What Constantine did was ask the assembled bishops (and this was the first gathering of leaders from the entire Christian community since the Jerusalem Council described in the Book of Acts, around 48 AD) to provide him with 50 copies of the Christian Scriptures, to be sent to all the major cities of the Empire.  He also asked them to come up with a universal confession of faith that all Christians could agree on, and to determine whether the teachings of Arius of Alexandria were true or if they were heresy.  The Council produced the Nicene Creed, which passed with only 3 dissenting votes, copied the Christian Scriptures (some think the two oldest complete manuscripts of the NT, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, are surviving copies of from this time), and after giving Arius a careful hearing, determined his teachings to be false and misleading.
   One thing that did become apparent, though, is that there was some disagreement over a handful of shorter NT books.  Some churches recognized and used them, others did not.  These books were Jude, II Peter, and II and III John.  There were also two very popular Christian writings - the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache - which many wanted to include.  A second council  was held at Hippo in 400 AD to rule on these works.  They determined that the short epistles were, in fact, apostolic in origin and should be included, while The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, although doctrinally solid, did not come from the time of the Apostles.  So those two works were still read and studied in the early church, but no longer considered Scripture. 
   Many people have tried to challenge their findings, but one thing worth remembering is that they were 1600 years closer to the time of Christ than we were, and, now that Christianity was legal and aboveboard, they had access to records and documents that no longer exist today to make their determination.  I believe that all the books of the New Testament, as we have them today, come to us from the time of the Apostles - even II Peter, which many scholars today dismiss as non-Petrine in authorship. 
   The standard set by the Council of Hippo was simple enough.  1.  Was this work written or sponsored by one of the 12 apostles?  2.  Was it recognized by the early church as an inspired work?  3.  Does it line up, historically and doctrinally, with the other NT Scriptures?
  At any rate, I continue to enjoy this fascinating discussion and the respectful and tolerant tone that has pervaded it throughout.  I think we lost RC sometime ago, but if you are still following this, my friend, thanks for starting this dialogue!

I read "the early christians" a while back. it was very difficult reading, that style. It's by the guy who wrote the rise and fall of the Roamn empire, all however many volumes they are. One thing he talked about was how the early christians were still practicing jewish stuff, but they dropped it so they could recruit more pagans, basically.

Excellent input Indy. (Incidentally, Newt, I've enjoyed your input immensely and I hope you haven't thrown your hands up).

I agree that gnosticism is a fascinating system. It is still practiced or held by a very small minority of people. It is such an esoteric gathering of beliefs, and in fact had some influence on the Quakers. You've illustrated the other side of what I was trying to say about the gnostics, that they both influenced and were influenced by Christianity. I'm not so much interested in what predates or postdates what. Those arguments are much more important to those trying to establish the validity of their particular faith claims. There is enough evidence of the influence back and forth between those two systems of beliefs, and they are close enough to each other in terms of historical context that it matters little, the likelihood still remains that the gnostic beliefs have influenced Christian tradition just as Christianity has affected gnostic beliefs.

Indy, you and I have gone back and forth on the authenticity of the Biblical scriptures, the existence or non-existence of falsehoods within those scriptures, and the like for some time now via threads and PM. My claim is not that the scriptures are full falsehoods. My claim is that there is historical evidence and plenty of scholars who have supported the gamut from Jesus not having even existed at all, to him being the son of God and that the Bible is the direct word of God. Most humans busy themselves with accepting those pieces of evidence and those scholars who support their beliefs or rejecting or attempting to discredit those that do not.

In the end it comes down to choice, as you have so eloquently pointed out. You choose to have faith in these things. I choose to have trust in our Creator. The word "faith" to me has been so perverted that I cannot embrace it, even if I do appreciate certain definitions of it. I prefer "trust." I trust my Creator, because I observe see God through the Creation only. It is all I need. I don't worry about whether or not my Creator will reveal himself to me or no because He already reveals himself to me all the time through the wonders and miracles already apparent in the Creation. I find that the scriptures of the world tend to paint a picture of God that carries with him some of the worst of humanity's personality flaws. I can't fathom a jealous God. Why would God be jealous? Why would a being that is perfect and omnipotent have reason to be jealous? Jealousy is one of the basest of human emotions that I find insulting to attribute to our Creator.

I cannot shake this trust and I cannot shake those convictions, and so according to Christianity I am destined for eternal damnation.  

You're inscrutable to me. 
I too am an admirer of IZ, particularly that recording and love it, too, like millions do.  I had not seen the footage of the ashes scattering.  Thanks for that. 

Well, Flick, you have left yourself open for faith, or trust, term it how you will, to find its way in one of these days.  I do believe that God is a being of total righteousness - but also a being of total mercy.  How those two work together and balance each other out is part of the divine mystery of things.  But I haven't given you up for lost, and somehow I doubt God has either.  Keep that mind open and let's keep having these conversations.

  One note - when the Bible talks about God being a "jealous God,"  I don't think they are referring to human jealousy.  On a much grander scale, it is somewhat similar, I would say, to a teacher who is presenting a very important truth, or concept, to his students.  He gets angry when they don't pay attention - not because he is some egomaniac who wants to be the center of their universe, but because the truth he is explaining is, well, IMPORTANT!!  I can see God's frustration when people want to burn incense or sacrifice their children to something that is not even real, when they could be tuned in to the Creator of the universe.

  At any rate, this is still a very fun thread.

On a brief note, RC as he has described himself is an agnostic atheist.  One who believes it can't be known for sure but doesn't actually believe either.  This also describes my own beliefs.

I have been open to our Creator for a long time, my friend. It's already made it's way in. I understand that ultimately you are trying to save my soul. As that is an act of compassion, I certainly can't get angry or offended over it. I'm not lost, however, or in any case no more lost than you may be, as life is indeed a divine mystery that the Bible or any other religious text written thousands of years ago by men of questionable motives can't even begin to touch.

The meaning of a jealous God can mean what you think it does, or it certainly can refer to human jealousy. You seem very unaccepting of the idea that humans could have projected human tendencies and emotions onto their deification of our Creator. This seems a perfectly reasonable likelihood given the history of the human condition. Human behavior has been attributed to our Creator throughout all the monotheistic and polytheistic religions since antiquity, yet somehow it's not possible with Christianity? Why? The Ten Commandments demonstrate not a merciful or compassionate God, but an insanely jealous and vindictive one. Five of them are reasonable advice for any civilization: don't kill, don't lie, don't commit adultery, don't covet, don't steal. Fine, I didn't need a "prophet" to go up on a mountain, by himself as usual, and come back to tell me that. The other five are angry warnings that we must worship only Him, and no other Gods (wait, there are other Gods?), or He will punish not just us but our children's children's children. Yet, somehow if I love him and keep the commandments, then a thousand of my generations will have his steadfast love. This is positively psychotic, and according to my beliefs and convictions a very insulting thing to attribute to the Creator of a thing so vast as the universe, against which we are far less than a speck of dust. I understand what you think "jealous God" means, and it would be nice it that's what it meant, but the story of the Ten Commandments, which I assume is still supposed relate to Christians today, suggests differently.

I know you disagree with this, but I continue to hold the conviction that I have a much higher opinion of and reverence for God than Christianity or Islam or any other supposedly revealed faith even allows. I don't dictate God's behavior or intentions. How can I? How can anyone? One of my biggest beefs with prophetic religions is that none of these revelations ever seem to have any system of verification. They always happen to some guy in isolation. The only exception to this are the miracles of Jesus to the Apostles, but even then you can't find any record of them anywhere but in biblical scripture, and having recently reread all the gospels pertaining to the resurrection, there is so much confusion and so many holes in the different accounts that it's a mess. And unless you can point me to any recorded history that speaks differently, there's no reasonable evidence that anybody outside the Apostles recorded any such miracles.

My convictions tell me that God gave me my reason. My God-given reason tells me that belief in the questionable revelations claimed by men is shaky at best. So instead I choose to observe the laws of nature and the Universe, and so far my Creator has revealed himself to me in the most satisfying and miraculous of ways. I don't need the Bible. I don't need the Quran. But I appreciate immensely the compassion that motivates you.   

Aw, shucks, bud, you're making me blush!! :teddyr:

There are a couple of ancient references to Jesus being a "worker of wonders," found both in the Talmud (admittedly hard to find, because during the Medieval era nearly all specific references to Jesus were replaced with euphemisms like "such a one" because of Church persecution) and in Josephus.

As far as the Resurrection accounts go, I see what you mean about discrepancies there, however, they strike me as the kind of discrepancies that are evident in real eyewitness testimony.  One gospel refers to some women by name, another lists a slightly different group. Were there two groups of women who went to the tomb?  Or did a few names get left off by each writer?   Did Jesus appear to them all at once, or did Mary see him separately, after the other had already fled the scene?  To me, the discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts are what give them the air of authenticity.

At any rate, I appreciate your respect for my beliefs, and I do try to show respect for yours as well.  It is still an interesting discussion.

You see, that'd be a huge issue for me if I were a Christian.  Having read quite a bit about eyewitness testimony, I'm well aware of how huge divergences from reality can be (even mere minutes after an event, let alone decades), and you've admitted there could be problems with what the witnesses saw and heard.  It would be difficult for me, personally, to try to follow teachings and ideas that I knew could possibly vary significantly from what actually was said by the man.  Maybe a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but this would be irreconcilable for me. 

I guess that's where faith comes in, eh?   :smile:

I should start by saying that the following is not meant to apply to present company or this thread in particular.

It's these kinds of discussions that have convinced me that there is very little difference between those with very strong beliefs that would seem on the surface to be opposite each other. The most outspoken and inflexible Christians and Atheists I've encountered think very much alike. Both insist for something to be true, it must also be fact. Both are hung up on specific details of scripture, as opposed to the larger picture, and argue like lawyers about wording, rather than deeper meaning. Both see religion as an all-or-nothing proposition, where it's either all good, true and valuable, or it's all crap. Both seem to place too much importance on specific stories, rather than the lessons in them. It's not enough that there might be something to learn from the story of Noah's Ark, neither side seems to think the story has any value unless an old man really did build a boat and save all the animals. They argue opposite sides of the issue, but the mentality is the same.

That's exactly where faith comes in. Indy has Christian faith. He feels confident in it and as far as I can see cannot be shaken in it. Indy is also an intelligent person and I respect him a great deal. Now, I agree with you Jim H in that I cannot reconcile the same things.

In the grand scheme of things for me it's not about that, that I agree with you and disagree with Indy. Ultimately what matters to me is that one is a decent person. I'm jaded somewhat because I've been witness to some downright shady and hypocritical behavior in Christians I have known, to include my experiences as a former Christian. But then so I have with non-Christians, just in different ways. Indy has proven himself to be a very decent person, and so despite disagreements over religious matters, I ultimately regard him in light of the former rather than the latter. Sorry Indy for talking about you in the third person like that.

Hey, fi you are gonna be that nice, you can 3rd person me all day long!

WRT the comment on the Resurrection narratives - they all agree on the central elements of the story.  The tomb was empty.  Men in white told them Christ was risen.  They turned back to tell the disciples, and then they saw Jesus himself.  No contradictions there.  But everyone told the story slightly differently, just as you or I would do.

  I think an attorney would find such testimony more believable than four tales that were carbon copies of each other.

(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/Walknuk/atheistvader.jpg)

Atheism is the only way a person can truly be free. You aren't bound by stupid worthless rules which aren't written in your country's law, you can do anything you want (if it is legal) without being afraid something not proven to exist will kill you. You have a better understanding of the universe, and are more of an open-minded person (because religious people defend their beliefs at ANY cost). You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any). 

You sure you're not confusing atheisim with anarchism?  There are all sorts of 'rules' that are not legislated as law: social understandings as to what is and is not acceptable behaviour.  Going strictly by what is "your country's law" is not going to fly anywhere.  :lookingup:

But if breaking those laws won't get you to jail, then I see no reason to strictly follow them. And there are lwas concerning social behavior, for instance, a person can sue you for harassing them. But there are lots of rules that religion makes that aren't in law. It isn't in the law that you shouldn't masturbate, have sex before marriage, watch violence or sex on tv, use profanity, talk bad things about religion, etc. And it isn't important to follow these rules if youre an atheist because you don't believe in them, it is only a matter of taste, whether you want to have sex before marriage or not.

Social 'rules' are far, far more basic and all-pervasive than simply mores about premarital sex.   :lookingup:  Most people have NO idea of just how thoroughly their behaviour is 'regulated' by social restraints.  A person would have a great deal of difficulty separating out every bit of social law/conditioning from their daily behaviour: barring pathological conditions, most would find it impossible.  And not all transgressions are subject to legal charges: get real!

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" won't get you very far unless you are a self-sufficient hermit in a remote location.

Excuse me!

The bible and religion in general has nothing to do with that. Religion makes stupid rules that have no objective or logical significance, and thus obeying those rules just because the religion tells you to is retarded. I'm not talking about basic social rules that nobody even likes breaking. Catholicism says that people shouldn't use condoms. You think this rule is good?? It has no objective basis, because I don't see how I destroy another person's rights by putting a rubber on my penis.

Catholicism says priests cannot have sex. Does this have an objective basis? He has male genitalia and thus he can have consentual sex like everyone else.

Islam says women should cover their bodies. Does this have an objective basis?? A woman doesn't destroy another person's rights if she wears clothes that she wants (unless it breaks public indecency laws, or unless she stole the clothes).

Oh, and did I mention that many things from the bible that people believe happened couldn't have happened because they contradict with physics and biology.

HOW is this restricted to religion?  Religion may be what you intended to address, vukxfiles, but it came off much broader.  "You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any)" is downright chilling in a social context.  I, for one, do not want to meet or have to interact with any children/persons raised to believe there are no rules.

Well I was referring to religious rules which have no reason to exist. I wasn't referring to rules in the law or basic moral rules. Sorry, I wasn't thinking how others might interpret what I wrote.

And the first quote is true, you can do what you want if it isn't illegal, and I think everything that shouldn't be done is illegal, except some things like cheating on one's partner, but still that has a reason for not being illegal because it has no objective basis, polygamy exists everywhere in the animal kingdom, and humans are nothing more than animals with an advanced brain.

vukxfiles,

I don't believe in any organized religion, as my previous posts in this thread will readily indicate, but I don't discredit religious texts as having absolutely no merit. At least 4 of the 10 commandments are useful for any civilization. I'm not meaning to make any assumptions or put words in your mouth, but your position and general posture make you appear no less closed-minded that the most vehement and provincial of Christian Coalition members.

I agree that religion has placed numerous limits on the progress of the human mind, but if one is truly open-minded one cannot deny that these institutions have also assisted human development in some ways. Religious faith, despite it's many faults and fumblings, gave humanity a means of abstract thought, the same means of thought that make scientific inquiry possible. I agree that religion does not preemt morality, but one also cannot deny that religion has assisted humanity throughout history in developing a moral compass.

I reject religion, but I don't blame religion for the evils of humanity. I blame humanity.

I don't mean you any disrespect, vukxfiles, and I don't mind if you feel the need to call me out on anything I'm mistaken about, it's just a vibe I get from your posts. I certainly don't agree that atheism makes one more open-minded.

Yes, religion helped mankind before, and thus has no use or reason to still exist, because humanity and civilisation has become more complex. It can only slow us down. It became a burden, a burden that still does a lot of evil in the world.

Think of religion as those training wheels children's bikes have. It is useful at a young age, but later after you get the hang of riding the bike, those wheels aren't useful anymore. They become a burden and limit the way you drive your bike, and in some situations can trip over something and break your neck.

Have you understood the metaphores in that??

Yes.

Ulthar gave me negative karma because he says that I am narrow minded. He thinks everyone who has a negative view of religion is narrow-minded, when in fact religion is negative and useless. It should be discarded to make way for civilization's avancement.

And just so you guys know, religion has done too much evil in the world, and it always beats its enemies by bigotry. I say it is enough of atheists trying to quietly and peacefully expose religion, I say we should do to them the same thing they have been doing to us since it began. Use their weapon to fight against them.

I said you are presenting yourself as narrow minded. Think about the difference.

If I thought everyone with a negative view of religion is narrow minded, how come you are the only person in in this thread I boo'd?

Think about that before you mischaracterize what I think.

I would never give you negative karma over such a thing. I don't begrudge you your views in any way whatsoever. You are perfectly entitled to your attempts to expose religion, and in many of those points I would be in agreement with you. However, your general posture is confrontational, absolute, and in that way you come across as intolerant and closed-minded. In that way you make yourself responsible for the same kind of provincial thinking you accuse people of faith of having. You clearly want to make it a war. That's fine, but I guarantee you that you will fail miserably in winning any significant number of hearts and minds.

Atheism, by it's very definition, allows for no spiritual belief whatsoever, and is so absolute and stifling in that endeavor that to say it makes one more open-minded is a self-imposed contradiction. Open-minded implies tolerance and the allowance for ideas outside that which one ideology represents. Atheism allows neither.   

You're suggesting a far more narrow view of atheism than what it really is.  Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more.  It's unlikely perhaps, but an atheist might very well believe in other supernatural phenomena.  There are also a few arguably atheistic religions, like some versions of buddhism.  There is also nothing in atheism to suggest open minded or close mindedness - that's to the individual entirely.  You're ascribing a trait to it that would require a philosophical system, which atheism is not at all. 

As an analogy, if I were to say theists worship Jesus I'd be making a comparable error.

Could you be more insulting and condescending?  :bouncegiggle:

And in English it is "metaphors" - no 'e'.

That's true. I certainly wouldn't attribute anything philosophical to atheism.

All possible misrepresentations of atheism aside, most of my experiences with atheists bear me out. vukxfiles, in what he has posted thus far, typifies the obstinacy of atheist thought that I have run into time and time again. In this way they behave just like the most intolerant and vehement of religious zealots, whom I despise more so than atheists, by the way. I'm talking about a posture, here, not an encyclopedia definition of atheism.

Like I said before, I don't begrudge the man his opinions of religion, and if anybody takes the time to look at my posts in this thread, they will see that I clearly agree with them, just not to such caustic extent. I'm also not an atheist. His posture is one that suggests that atheists are open-minded and that non-atheists are ignorant, bigoted, and intolerant. He seems to have a seething hatred of religion and would like to see it wiped off the face of the earth. I would like that as well, but through time, with humanity rejecting religion on it's own. Many atheists seem to think it's a war where people must be stripped of their religious views even if against their will, and would readily sign on to outlaw religious thought of any kind. This kind of thinking certainly cannot be equated with open-mindedness and tolerance. The problem with this way of thinking about religion is that it won't work. Human beings will forever reach out for something bigger than themselves, forever seek out that which is spiritual. It is an inescapable yearning that is as real to the human condition as breathing.

And to vukxfile directly. I'm not trying to confront you here. I simply don't agree with your approach. We both reject religion, we both know that many of history's injustices are directly the result of religious intolerance. What I'm saying is that if you seem to want to degrade and humiliate people for their faith, and I'm telling you that it simply won't work. Why? Because people will forever be able to turn around and point out good things that religion, churches, people of faith, etc. have done. Indy has said, for example, that the Protestant uprising of several hundred years ago was responsible for the system of Western civilization that we enjoy today. I disagree. It was a factor, but one of many and certainly not primary. However, I do not discount that it was a factor. You seem to want to denounce it as a factor altogether, because religion and people of faith seem to be incapable of anything but evil and bigotry and intolerance. That is how you come across. If that is how you feel, then fine. All I'm trying to do is suggest is that the peaceful exposure of the flaws of religion that you say is no longer called for, is, well, exactly what is called for.

I don't necessarily agree with giving you negative karma, but I agree with the others that you're being narrow-minded.  To flatly say "religion is negative and useless" could hardly be described as open-minded.  In fact, the irony contained in that second sentence kind of bowls me over; it's almost like you're deliberately refuting yourself. 

Being open-minded involves trying to see things from the perspective of people with whom you may ultimately disagree. 

To say that religion and the social rules that have come from it have no purpose whatsoever is to be narrow-minded. Looking at it from a secular point of view, religious rituals can help create a sense of community, can provide a sense of purpose, and can help regulate social behavior (some cases are definitely good, such as discouraging greed, while others have decidedly negative effects, such as the caste system). There are some religious rituals that provide a context that allows members of the community to mock and call their leaders out on poor behavior without fear of reprimand (some African tribes practise this by donning masks and taking on the personas of spirits).

To me, calling religion evil is kind of like calling a gun evil. Have they caused great harm? Yes...but only when people used them to cause harm.

And for the record, I do value logical, rational thought. It disappoints me when I see opinions that were not backed up with logic or reason being used as arguments from both sides.

I kind of hate to see this thread take a negative turn when the discussion has been almost entirely civil and thoughtful throughout.  As the board's resident Christian - or at least as the most loudmouthed believer here - all I would add to this discussion is that, before rejecting religion as entirely negative, you should consider that mankind's greatest achievements in music, architecture, philanthropy, literature, and education have been done in the name of religion for most of mankind's history - for almost all of it, in fact, if you leave out the last 100 years or so.
  So, if you abolish religion, you have no crusades, no jihad, no inquisition.  But you also have no pyramids, no Sistine Chapel, no Handel, no Beethoven, no Gothic Cathedrals, no Salvation Army, nor any of the other thousand and one endeavors men have made in countless fields in their ongoing effort to honor their Creator, however they perceive Him.

What I wonder is... if Jesus excreted,  :question: could these holy turds still be found in the earth, like, arrowheads or fossilized bone??  :question:

Don't you guys understand. Atheists go nowhere by debating about religion in a civilized way, because religious people don't. Why let them bash us, and we are not allowed to bash them? They deserve all the bashing we could give them.

Also, what the heck are you guys talking about pyramids and chapels? So people need to believe in something that doesn't exist, be bound by illogical rules, so they can have pyramids?? I say to hell with the pyramids, I'd rather have my liberties.

I will agree with you that atheism is fairly demonized in quite a few communities. It often seems that consensus says that belief in any religion is more socially acceptable than not believing any of them. But you're promoting a them or us worldview, and I think if you looked at it, you would find it a bit more complicated than that.

An eye for an eye is not a healthy way to live. If you lose sight of the fact that all of us, no matter our beliefs, are humans worthy of respect, you start down a very dangerous path. Dehumanization is the first step towards atrocity. You can cite countless examples of the horrors committed in the name of religion, but atheism doesn't have anything like a better track record. Look at communism in the last century, the grand idealism that never quite worked out.

Take Cuba. It amazes me that people fetishize the spirit of rebellion Che Guevara has come to symbolize, while conveniently side-stepping the fact that he was instrumental in setting up one of the most brutally repressive governments in recent history. The communist government there promoted atheism, and if you think liberty is alive and strong there, you are very mistaken.

I think everybody here does understand. This isn't an us or them situation, it's a timeless discussion. I am on the atheist side of the discussion, but I can't see any sense in attacking people who believe in their religion by a reduction in argument and personal vehemence.

Also, "bound by illogical rules?" There isn't a human being alive who can say they're free of those. Casting off religious arguments doesn't free you from the assumptions about life you live by every day.

GROAN . . . . . . . :bluesad: :bluesad: :bluesad:

     The point I was trying to make is that most of mankind's greatest achievements through the centuries have been a product of religious devotion.  Kill religion and you kill something precious and creative in the human soul.  Also, your whole premise that "religion is worthless" is based on the presupposition that God does not exist.    If God does exist, it only makes sense that we should try to reach out and understand Him - and it even makes some sense that He might try to reveal Himself to us.  Your life's philosophy seems to be based on the logical impossibility that something that cannot be measured cannot therefore exist.
   And, while I don't demonize atheists in general - most of the atheists I know are very decent people, and a couple of them are very close friends - I will enlarge on Mofo's comment.  Atheistic regimes in the 20th century killed more people than have died in all the religious wars in history, combined.  So who's hands are stained with the most blood?

 Mankind is an inherently bloodthirsty beast, regardless of what he believes about his creator.

here's what I believe- I believe that there's no such thing as a superior religion, since most religions doesn't believe that all other Religions are false and that theirs the best. Hell, If I were to be baptized, it would only be fore Hinduism, since Hinduism believes that All other Religions is real along with Hinduism! :teddyr:

The evil regimes you mention weren't in the name of atheism. Hitler's and Stalin's regimes weren't in the name of atheism. But every holy war, witch burning, inquisition, catholic child abuse was in the name of religion. So I don't understand how you believers can always try to defend yourselves by saying Hitler was an atheist. So what?? The things he did were not to preserve atheism.

Nobody can accuse you of debating in a civilized way.

I discussed the issue of religion with Indy for quite a while, with he as a defender of Christianity and myself as a deist with a good amount of disdain for religion. He behaved in a far more civilized, tolerant, and open-minded manner than you seem to even be capable of. I despise religion in general, vukxfiles, but you continue to act in a way far more intolerant and hateful than anything I've seen from religious people in my life through 43 years on this planet, and that's saying alot if you really know how I feel about religion. You've demonstrated yourself to be little more than a hatemonger, and I have yet to see a thoughtful or remotely moving argument from you. What's more you've destroyed what was a meaningful discussion. Such a shame. I would have been you ally if you had an ounce of civility. As it is I'll be bowing out of this thread.

That's not true.  This thread refutes your theory that religious people can't debate in a civilized way. 


We're having an adult discussion here.  No one was bashing anyone. 

What I'm finding hard to accept here is vukxfiles' description of religious people and religious belief in general, as some single thing resembling extreme Evangelical Christianity crossed with old-school Catholicism and Islamic Fundamentalism, as these faiths are practiced by their most boneheaded members.

That is a very broad brush to be painting with. There are plenty of belief systems, including mainstream Christian ones, that are nothing like that. Unfortunately, part of respecting the beliefs of others is not getting up in everybody's face with your own beliefs, so you might have to actively seek them out. This is why people who base their opinions of religion on their experience with one church, what they passively observe in the media, or what they glean from history hundreds of years old, get a really warped picture of what it's about. And if they've written off the whole idea of religion as worthless, they'll never be motivated to take a balanced look at what people really do believe and practice, and why.

I do find that people who are aggressively against religion in general - at least those I've encountered - had a bad experience with it growing up.  I used to say similar things for reasons no more noble than wanting to watch cartoons on Sunday morning, and resenting being pulled away from the TV for a couple of hours and forced to change into nice clothes. These views often get established at an age where our viewpoint is narrow and the relative importance of things is not always clear to us. For some people, it's about much more than that, but it's still personal. By the time they grow up, they've had some practice justifying themselves, and their personal beef has become about the good of mankind against dangerous superstitions that cause untold harm. They've built up this hatred that they direct against all religion, in a manner so dismissive and disdainful that they never gain any further understanding of the subject they profess to know so much about. It is very easy to write off others as deluded, misguided, self-serving or downright evil, and never have to trust their knowledge or give any serious thought to anything they might have to say. A person`s viewpoint can thus remain frozen at that childhood level.

It's a lot like the people who make sweeping pronouncements about politicians as justification for not participating in politics or at least staying informed. "I know nothing about the candidates, but they're all the same, democracy is a sham, and all you suckers are wasting your time." It justifies being both opinionated and ignorant at the same time, and makes a virtue of being self-absorbed and lazy.

I'm not saying this is true of all atheists, but it is true of the most aggressive ones I've encountered. They can be as inflexible and dogmatic in their own way as the worst bible-thumping Christian fundamentalist.

OK, so you are saying that we should be open to other beliefs and consider them to be good in a way. So why do religious people automatically dismiss the idea of evolution? Why aren't they more open-minded? So it is bad that us atheists are ignorant, and never consider the good in religion, but it is OK for religious people to be ignorant of science, even though science is right.

Yes it is, because a lot of basic things we are familiar with today, religion was wrong about it. Thanks to science we know it is impossible to create a woman out of a man's rib (even if you'd consider cloning, it wouldn't work because men have XY chromosomes and women have XX), it is impossible for matter to be created out of nothing, it is impossible for a virgin to give birth (unless the embryo is implanted or unless sperm got into her vagina without penetration).

Oh yeah, and might i mention again the stupid rules. Is it necessary that a priest can't have sex? Why the hell not, it is the most important characteristic of every living thing on the planet. And there is no objective reason for that rule. The same goes with LOTS of other rules in religion.

*facepalm*

Most religious people are not Christian (it is the largest single religious group in the world, however, with around a third of the population following it. A  THIRD. The other 2/3 are of various), and many Christians are perfectly okay with the theory of evolution and other scientific findings. It's a vocal minority that have a problem with science. There are also branches of Christianity that allow their religious leaders to have families.

It sounds like you have a problem with Catholicism, but even then some of your arguments fall flat. Yes, the priests are not allowed to sex, yes, the Vatican rejects the theory of evolution, but it's inaccurate to say that they don't support science. The Vatican donates ever year to medical research, and members of the Catholic faith are free to donate their money if they so choose as they see fit.

To top that off, the Vatican can't speak for all its members. As much it likes to think it does, every member is free to decide for themselves exactly what the believe in since the Church doesn't have the means to monitor their thoughts and every day actions. Actual beliefs in Catholicism range from the orthodox "the Bible is right, science is wrong" stance all the way to the idea that there is a God and the Bible didn't get everything right/is a book of metaphors and fables.

Nope. Not saying that at all. I'm not open to religious beliefs either. I'm very confident in my deist beliefs. My open-mindedness comes from accepting others for who they are and not being guilty of the same judgmental attitudes that I find deplorable in many religious people. End of story. You seem even MORE judgmental than most people of faith I run into, and, like I said, that's saying alot, because I've known some very judgemental "fire and brimstone" types. My beef was with you referring to yourself as an open-minded person when you so clearly appear not to be.


They don't. Some dismiss evolutionary theory altogether, and some have incorporated it into their beliefs. Your blanket assumption is again an indication of your narrow-minded view. Incidentally, I would love more people of faith to be more open-minded than they are, but that's not my decision to make, nor my judgment to make, oh ye of libertine inclinations.


Science is right? Few people respect science more than I, but the statement "science is right" would seem to suggest you think that what was deemed scientifically true 200 years ago is true now. Do you really believe that? Science makes discoveries that disprove previous held "truths of science" on a regular basis. Some refer to it as the "scientific half-life," the period of time it takes for half of what was considered scientifically proven to be disproven or replaced by newer evidence. Science fumbles less than religion, in my own personal opinion, but certainly fumbles. "Science is right" is the intellectual equivalent of "the Bible is the Word of God."


Fine. That still doesn't prove the validity of atheism. I certainly hope you will come to this conclusion on your own sooner or later, but you can't validate your own beliefs simply by pointing out what you think is silly or ignorant in another's. I think that's a stupid dogmatic system as well. But what does that prove? That humans are guilty of being stupid? You seem to be laboring under the assumption that removing religion from society will magically cure it of it's ills. The problem with humanity's faults is humanity's faults. Remove religion and they're still there. Embracing reason was what helped pull humanity out of the Dark Ages, a time dominated by supersticion and ignorance. Embracing reason is how humanity will devolop, not through bashing people for their beliefs.

Again, attributing the beliefs of certain branches of Christianity to all religions. Many, many Christians and adherents of other religions do not subscribe to creationism, and consider the anti-evolution people to be extreme in their beliefs.


Whether you're for or against religion, nitpicking the plausibility of various accounts in scripture misses the point entirely. Again, plenty of people who study the Bible do not see it as something to be taken as a 100% literal, factual account. Context is very important in understanding scripture. And as far as I'm concerned, religious beliefs should grow and change with our knowledge. I assure you, I'm not the only one who thinks so.



Celibacy is one thing, specific to Catholicism and maybe a few other religions. Rabbis marry, Protestant ministers marry, Anglican priests marry, Episcopal priests marry, and I believe Orthodox priests can be married, and that's just off the top of my head. And if one is willing to look for reasons, celibacy does serve a purpose, if only to ensure that a priest's number one priority is the parishioners. I don't agree with it, but I understand the reasoning behind it, and that somebody didn't just pull it out of his ass without thinking about it. Whether the rule still makes sense is another matter. And there are a lot of Catholics trying to change that rule, because they don't agree with it.

As for the "lots of other rules in religion" perhaps you'd care to make a list.

I did not say Atheists were ignorant. I said YOU personally are ignorant on the specific subject of religious beliefs and practices. You don't even know who believes what. If you want to argue something I disagree with, that's fine with me, but I do ask that you do your homework and actually know what you're talking about.

I like the idea of this, I guess, but I find it baffling when people of the book, that is religions with what is essentially a text book they follow, can continuously reinvent what was literally set in stone to suit more modern sensibilities.  Well, I guess I don't find it so much as baffling, as  evidence of the man made nature of said books.  I'm glad people do it though, as I feel the morality of much of the bible (and most other ancient religious texts) is repugnant.  

The obvious prevalence of this attitude (I'd say 95% of Christians couldn't quote either variant of the Ten Commandments, and look more to society and culture for their beliefs and mores than the bible), not to mention the the high degree of syncretism in modern America with other quasi-religious and religious beliefs, is going to be a huge factor in the future of religious thought here.  I don't think traditional Christianity is going to die off or anything, but I do think its importance is going to continue to decline.

So how can you win the debate by being civilised? The other side is gonna pretend like they understand you, but they will still think you are wrong. I could have joined the debate peacefully, and wrote that I understand and admire religious belief, but I would still hate it "from the bottom of my heart". Both sides do their best to win the debate, and the main focus of the atheist/religious side is to prove they are right.

Welcome to life. Glad you've joined us.

Besides, neither one is going to prove to the other that they are right. It will never happen. Why? Because neither side is "right."

I AM!

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Then what is the point of "peaceful" conversation if everyone already knows we won't get anywhere with it?

Ask the folks who love to debate politics.  Sometimes I don't understand it myself.  If you're truly set and unalterable in your opinions, and not willing to learn from people who hold different beliefs, then you get nowhere through either friendly conversation or confrontation.

Still, it's much more pleasant than unpeaceful conversation. 

Hows this for a potential benefit from peaceful conversation: you can learn from the other guy and adjust your own beliefs? 

Who said anything about you admiring religious belief? I just ask that you make the effort to know something about the thing you're hating.

As for the main focus being to "win" the debate and be right, what can I say about that? First, the idea that it's a simple, two-sided argument is a gross oversimplification. Second, you can't win a debate with faulty information you pulled out of your butt, no matter how forcefully you shout it at people. And most importantly, a philosophical discussion (which is what we're trying to have here), is not about winning, it's about sharing viewpoints and understanding one another, and maybe coming away a little wiser for the sharing. Nobody's right, there's no winner, everybody is treated with respect - even you, although you might not see it that way.

If there is something humanity really needs to outgrow, it's this childish habit we have of reducing important and complex issues to an Us-vs-Them p!ssing contest. But the case can be made that we've benefited a great deal from that too.

And no matter what you might think of something, hating it from the bottom of your heart does nothing but add a lot of unnecessary stress to your life. You're the one who suffers most for it.

Sorry to walk in on your discussion unannounced like this but I am just interested and curious in this line of thinking.  

Doesn't god have a plan for humanity, an perfect, objective plan which all true believers should follow which decides if you can go to heaven or not? If religion should adapt and change itself to newfound knowledge then doesn't that clash with a definitive, objective truth set by god? If god is almighty and has a purpose for humanity then how can religious people have the courage to change their definition and perspective on him? Aren´t you worried that this new view on him might be wrong? Or that if you are right, aren't you sad that you won´t see your parents in heaven if their definition of gods intentions were different from yours?  

Also, how do religious people deal with their friends different believes and the afterlife anyway? I recently had a Muslim friend express concern over my lack of faith since it means when I die I would be sent to hell (Althrough he diden´t frase it like that of course). Doesn't that bother you immensely? The fact that your non believing friends won´t be with you in paradise?  


Had a major hard time getting these thoughts down to text so I hope you can understand them. :smile:

Personally, I enjoy religious and political debate.  Once upon a time I thought I could actually convince people of stuff, but I know now that was a foolish fantasy.  Change almost always comes from within, at best you can plant a seed which grows slowly.  Just don't expect anyone to ever change their opinions, even objectively wrong ones.  And just enjoy the ride of these conversations.  If you can not, best to stay out of it.

I'm again seeing the assumption that certain specific beliefs are universal. There are mainstream Christian churches that have pretty much rejected the whole idea of Hell.

The greatest assumption, however, is that we already have all the answers. God has revealed his perfect plan and there's nothing more. I find that hard to believe, personally. If there is a perfect plan for humanity, an ultimate purpose, we have to work out what it is. Religion is in large part a search for truth, or at least it should be, and knowledge brings us closer to the truth. I don't suggest religious beliefs should go whichever way the wind blows. One of the strengths of religion is its continuity, its stability. Being slow to change, it is a valuable common ground for old and young, and a stabilizing influence on society. However, it should not stagnate, nor should it deny what has been thoroughly proven and known for generations.

We might have to reconsider some of our assumptions about things like an afterlife (personally, I find traditional ideas of Heaven to be rather scary) and what it means to be a believer, particularly in a time when different cultures interact to an unprecedented degree. It's arrogant for any one group to assert that their way is the only way, and that all others, in spite of having belief systems just as old and embracing much the same values, are damned just because they don't do things in exactly the same way.

There is also the common assumption that religions don't already change. We assume all the beliefs are original, but ideas find their way in over the centuries and take root, and then are defended as if they were always there. Whole new beliefs have arisen just to reconcile bits of the Bible that seem contradictory when taken literally. Whether those beliefs (the Trinity, for example) are even valid is a matter for scholarly debate. My point here is that there's room for things like evolution and quantum theory and an Earth that wasn't constructed as-is a few thousand years ago. And it's much easier to incorporate new knowledge into religious beliefs than it is to concoct elaborate (and sometimes downright ridiculous) explanations for why the world around us doesn't fit with what Grandpa was taught in Sunday school.

So RC, you're an atheist, eh? Well, I'm not very religious to Christianity. I would be a follower for Hinduism, since there isn't ONE GOD, but over 300! see, people say that God has an unimaginable power, but can he control them all at once? Over the past few years, there has been some natural disasters from Mother Nature and Father Time. But If God could save us, then why didn't he? Is There even a God to believe in for all of our problems? I say that God's powers should be divided up, so there's one specific element to His power that another God-figure could control. It's all about control.

This is a fascinating thread that continues to generate interest and commentary.
First of all, to VucXfiles, you'll notice my avatar is a dinosaur skull - a mosasaur, to be precise.  I dug that critter myself.  I have no problem with the idea of evolution as a tool that God used to diversify the life he created on this earth.  So you can't say "All religious people reject evolution."  Most religious people accept it at some level, while reserving doubts as to its purely random nature.

You also have a fondness for saying that this or that is "scientifically impossible".  Are you claiming that man has now learned all that is knowable?  Every year science discovers that long-held assumptions are inaccurate.  Until mankind learns the solution to ALL the mysteries of the universe, we cannot categorically state that certain kinds of events are impossible, or that certain entities cannot exist.  The most we can do is say that their existence cannot be proven.

Anonymous, I guess you would say I am the closest thing to a fundamentalist on this board.  I believe in the God of the Bible, and the Jesus Christ was His Son, and that He came to show us the Way to the Father's presence in heaven.  Yes, it does bother me that many of my friends may not be there with me in the hereafter.  But, by trying to explain my beliefs carefully and politely, without screaming or flame wars or coercion, I feel I have done all I can to put the truth out there.  I'm certainly not likely to win anyone over to my way of thinking by screaming and hollering and threatening them with damnation and hellfire.  The best way to win people is to start by loving them for who they are, and that is what I generally try to do.

  That being said, I also recognize that the Bible is a very ancient book in which God spoke to people who did not have the understanding of the world that we have today.  So he explained things in simple terms that they could understand, and I do think you can not take everything literally (i.e., the six days of creation as 24 hour days) without fundamentally contradicting the idea that the Universe has a Grand Designer who created it to run according to His laws.

  What I treasure the most about this forum is that we can discuss anything with a minimum of hostility and a great deal of respect . . . AHD's obsession with Biblical excreta notwithstanding. :teddyr:

I don't want to hijack this thread to evolution, because the canard that evolution=atheism is tired indeed.

I would like to point out, though, that the Vatican does not reject the theory of evolution. They actually have a fairly nuanced viewpoint. Evolution does explain the mechanism by which life arose on this planet. However, they still, naturally, believe that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. They also hold that the flowering of human consciousness and the appearance of the human soul is a "special creation" by God. That is, the human soul was directly created by God, and cannot be explained through the mechanisms of evolution.

In fact, Catholic schools teach evolution unabashedly, which is more than can be said for many public schools these days.

The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution) (I know, I know), sums it up rather well.

What you are talking about isn't evolution, it is creationism, and the church uses creationism to pretend they are into science, when in fact creationism isn't science at all, it is pseudo-science, just like ghost busters.

for indianasmith, how can you prove the Bible is god's words? How can you prove at all who wrote it? And how can you prove Jesus was the son of god? Is it because it was stated in an old book that nobody knows who wrote?

I'm sorry, I don't generally wish to offend people with fundamentalist opinions but Ghostbusters is real.  FACT.  The TV told me so...   :thumbup:

But aside from that silliness, I liked Mofo's point; that certain religious groups have accepted evolution as part of 'gods plan' and I quite liked the comment made that evolution doesn't explain the idea of a soul, and that perhaps that is the true creation [I'm paraphrasing badly here mind you]. 

People have been debating about the existence of a soul for as long as we came across the concept.  I'm pretty sure that argument is still sitting at an inconclusive crossroad.  I'm pretty interested in accepting the legitimacy either argument until somebody delivers the knock-out punch.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you've reached the point of incoherent knee-jerk attacks on every point someone tries to make, particularly factual ones from people who know something of what people believe, as opposed to sweeping pronouncements about "the church" and "religious people," it's time to take a break from this thread. At the rate things are going, it's going to get locked, which would be a shame when all but one person have managed to exercise some self-control.


Indy can't prove it, but he believes it. That's what faith means, and it's no skin off your nose. Grow up.

I'm a historian by trade.  No past event can be scientifically proven to have happened before the age of photography.  All we have go on for most historical events is that ""it was stated in an old book."  However, if you apply the test of history to the New Testament narratives, they hold up pretty well.  They were written a short time after the events happened, the historical framework is highly accurate, there is no historical evidence that directly contradicts the central claims of the narrative, the accounts are remarkable consistent with each other.  Obviously, I can't "prove" it to be 100% true - but neither can you "prove" God doesn't exist, no matter how loudly or rudely you state it.
  As for the "no one knows who wrote" statement, authorship of nearly all the works of the New Testament is pretty well established (the Book of Hebrews is anonymous, and some of Paul's letters are disputed by some scholars,although I think he wrote them all).  One thing to remember is that in the second and third century there were numerous forgeries written in the name of the Apostles of Jesus - The Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Judas Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas - and the church rejected ALL of them.  Why?  Because they knew which books had been written by the Apostles and had been passing them around as Scripture for a century or more at that point.  So when someone popped up with a "Gospel of Thomas" over 100 years after Thomas died, most of the church simply ignored it or rejected it as the obvious forgery that it was.  The Anti-Marcionite prologue, written barely a century after the crucifixion of Christ, listed 22 of the 27 New Testament books as being apostolic in authorship and universally recognized by the church.  It's a shame the manuscript was damaged, because the Prologue not only listed authorship but gave a short history of each work. 
  Not everyone agrees with my interpretation of events - Flick and I have debated back and forth on this thread and elsewhere regarding the historical accuracy and authenticity of the New Testament documents.  But the fact that close to a billion people share my beliefs to some degree should at least give one pause before dismissing them so cavalierly.
  Vuk, why is it so important to you that religion be nonsense and there not be a God?  You have been so vehement in this thread it truly seems that there is something very personal at stake in it for you.  Why do you hate the idea of God so much?

As a man who also rejects religion, I'm still waiting for a response from you that indicates a valid argument. I really want you to get there, so you can be a better atheist. Your arguments for atheism, that is, the belief that there is no God or intelligent Creator, all come down to:

"Religion is responsible to so much evil in the world." Yawn. Great. Wonderful. Yes, we all know religious intolerance has wrought loads of suffering throughout history. It has also contributed to positive advancements and postive people. I mean, do you refuse to acknowledge Albert Schweitzer? Neither of these items proves or disproves the existence of God, only the follies and achievements of the institution of religion, which has been my point all along.

"You can't prove the existence of God/Jesus as the Son of God/authenticity of the Bible/etc." You're going to have to do better than that. You also can't disprove the existence of God. That argument means nothing and achieves nothing. Many scientists believe in chaos, yet the existence of chaos cannot be proven. Invalid argument.

"Science is right." Right about what? Is this an argument? If you are an atheist, then great, but you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Creator. I'm sure you would like to believe that the purpose of science is to disprove the existence of God, and that all scientists are somehow default atheists, but that's absurd.

Again, your refusal to believe or accept anything contrary to what your flawed and repetitive arguments state is no less narrow-minded than a Westboro Baptist Church member.

I still don't get atheism. vukxfiles just typifies my experience with atheists. They exhibit such a vehement insistence that atheism is right. Isn't that what fundamentalist people of religion do?

So, my question to you would be, what can possibly be gained from viscious attacks of people's faith? Is it supposed to sway minds? Is it supposed to make more atheists? I assure you, it does just the opposite. It polarizes people even further. I suspect you don't really have any motivation to sway minds OR make the world a better place. No, I believe wholeheartedly your primary aim is to demean and humiliate.  

Yes, my primary aim is to demean and humiliate, that's the only way of fighting agaist something aggressively without real war.

And to answer the question of why I hate the idea of god so much, because it destroys liberty and individualism. If god exists then we are just peons on a chessboard. If god exists then I go to some hell for doing things that aren't illegal in the first place, and I'd rather rot under groung than go to a place where I obey an entity that means nothing to me. I am not an individual if God exists.

BTW, I'm not really an atheist, I am an antitheist. Antitheism is actuve opposition to theism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism)

And even if there was a god and i believed in him, I'd like to spit in his face. I'm nobody's chained dog.

Beg to differ: you are clearly chained to this 'battle' by this attitude (and whatever in your personal history that gave rise to it).  It determines your behaviour and thereby how people react to and treat you.  You are effectively a prisoner: chained and barking.

Really? Here's a quote from you from when you first entered the thread:



So, first you're an atheist and now suddenly you're an antitheist? Looks like once your arguments started getting invalidated you jumped ship, went to wikipedia, and found something else to call yourself. At least it's progress.

Actually I was always an antitheist AND an atheist. I don't believe in god (atheist) and am opposed to god (antitheist). And I am not trolling here, these are my actual views of religion. Don't worry, i found "antitheism" on wikipedia a very long time ago. But someone can be an antitheist and still be lieve in god, but I don't.

Okay. You're an atheist. You're not really an atheist but and antitheist. You're an antheist AND and antitheist. You've completely lost my interest. I'm glad you've admitted that you are really out to degrade and humiliate, so thanks for that. You're one of the least liberated people I've ever come across. Good luck in your humiliation. When you realize that it contributes nothing to human progress come see me.

The assertion that religion destroys liberty is complete hogwash. As I've said, not every religion believes in a Hell, or that otherwise good people will be punished because they didn't follow certain procedures. The idea of free will is important to many, many religions. Humans have reason, we have free will, we make our own choices, and we are responsible for them. Even the fire-and-brimstone people believe that, or they wouldn't be so strict. Some religions aim to control through fear, but many others simply offer a value system that their members embrace of their own free will because they believe it is the right way to live, that it is good for them, that it is the best way for them to interact with those around them.

I personally agree with you, vukxfiles, that if God created us just to worship and obey him, keep him company and earn rewards or punishment, that does make us pets, and it is a very pathetic and pointless reason for sentient, free-willed beings to exist. But not every adherent of every religion believes that. I would say most believe we're meant for more than that. And even among Christians, not everyone necessarily believes in an anthropomorphic God who takes a direct interest in our affairs or reasons the way we do. And that's where many antireligious arguments fall flat. They attack specific beliefs that aren't universally held, and are not essential to spiritual belief. At best, they are arguments against certain religious institutions, but not against religion itself. Human spirituality can take many forms.

I don't think your problem is with religion so much as it is with anyone trying to tell you what to do, and possibly some deep-seated feelings of powerlessness and low self-esteem. Sorry, but unwritten moral and ethical rules are the way of things, even in a secular society. The idea that laws are the only rules that should matter is about as shortsighted as it is selfish. The world is a much better place when people are motivated by more than fear of prosecution or lawsuits, when they do something simply because it's the right thing to do, and avoid doing something that might well be legal because they believe it's wrong. Look at the worst practices of the corporate world, and you'll see a culture limited only by what the law will allow.

You guys should know that I'm from Bosnia so my english isnt as perfect as yours. So sometimes I don't articulate my thoughts correctly, thats why I said "I'm not an atheist, but antitheist" when I wanted to say "I'm not so much of an atheist as I am an antitheist".

Anyway, I am fully aware that spirituality is very diverse and most of it has nothing to do with what i hate about religion, but just the thought of obeying something and worshipping it and prayer is to me bulls**t. I hate it because it requires yourself to put your individuality on a lesser level than the thing that is being worshipped, and I am the most important thing in my life. I am the center of my life, not some spiritual deity that has nothing to do with ME. And I am not narcissistic, but I don't want to be submissive. Submission and letting someone manipulate with you instead of listening to yourself is the most evil thing in the world.

All discussion of religion aside, I don't know whether to be disgusted or saddened by that. I'm done with this thread. Please, get some help.

Why be disgusted, is it a bad thing to care about your own life, and hate everything that tries to stop you from being yourself?

I'm late to the discussion, so I'll just say this.

I think "agnostic" is where I fall as well.  I've gone from being an atheist interesting in the mystical and the paranormal, to a devout Charismatic Christian to agnostic.  It's quite an interesting story, I suppose, but I won't get into the details here.

I personally would love to believe there's an afterlife and/or some sort of balancing system to the universe like karma or something, where good is rewarded and evil punished (even if not in a clear cut, hammer you on the head way), but I just don't know, and so many of the things I've read about seen cast a lot of doubt the whole concept.  

On the one hand, I really don't care for people of ANY religion who seem to arrogantly (and gleefully) claim that, "Hey, you don't believe the way I do, you're going to hell!" On the other, I'm not out to destroy the faith of others or declare the concept of religion to be a bad idea.  People want to site things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, and various wars and stuff as "proof" that religion, but I'd say such things happen not because of religion but because of man's desire to control man, and people like that will use ANY tool at their disposal to achieve that goal.

Anyway.. back to the regular broadcast.

And those individuals that use religion as a tool aren't to blame, stupid sheep masses are to blame because they let themselves be manipulated. I actually congradulate the peron who succeeds in manipulating a lot of people, because he shows just how stupid and irrational people are when they are in a mass.

vukxfiles,

If you're so concerned about distancing yourself from people with views contrary to your own, then why are you even entering into the discussion? There are people here that want to have a meaningful discussion where some form of understanding can be gained. You are contributing NOTHING to that endeavor. And so, from what I can see, virtually everybody involved would like you to stop. But clearly you don't respect that. So really? What are you hoping to gain from persisting with this vitriolic bulls**t?

I have no problem with your beliefs, vukxfiles. I never have. My problem is that you have repeatedly demonstrated a seething hatred that suggests some serious issues. You've attempted to portray youself as open-minded and enlightened, when that's the last thing you have demonstrated. Despite that, and I'm not being sarcastic in any way, I do really hope you are able to find some peace in your life.

No matter how hard you might try or want it to be so, you cannot dictate to others what to believe. That is the choice of the individual. If one doesn't believe in God, I can't see why he/she should be so concerned that others choose to do so (unless one wants to create some form of dictactorship and sees religion as a threat to control). Why should someone who doesn't even believe in a deity want to go to war with one?! or others who do? For what, to enforce or exercise control over others that deep down no one can ever truly fully possess?

Well, Vuk, thanks for answering my question.  I find you to be a rather sad person.  You see, I know my own limits.  I know my capacity for evil and hypocrisy, and while I try to overcome those things in my daily life, in the end I find it very comforting to know that there is One out there who is perfect.  And I can love and worship Him  for achieving that perfection which forever eludes me.

If I understand you right, you believe there is nothing greater than yourself.  And, by your own admission, you are a person filled with hatred and rage for everyone who believes as I do.  Therefore, in your world, there is nothing greater than hatred and rage.

Regardless of whether you ever accept any form of deity, I cannot help but feel pity for someone who inhabits such a miserable, hate-filled world.  I hope you find some form of peace and love eventually.

I came across this crazy idea a while ago while catching up on the buzz among my pagan community, and I think it's an idea that holds true no matter what your beliefs or lack thereof: To be hateful is to build your own prison. Over time, hate can come to restrict you from seeing new opportunities and ideas, and can come to define how others identify you. Hate just isn't healthy.

"Love makes you crazy, hate makes you impotent.  Somewhere between the two, you can survive."

Somebody should hit you with a frying pan for that cheesy reference, Cousin Paddy. :teddyr:

Seems an odd thing for an archeologist to say.

I see what you mean, Newt - events leave physical traces, sometimes.  But many do not.  The limits of archeology can be frustrating at times.  Archeologically speaking, we can prove that the battle of Gettysburg happened, but just going by the traces in the ground, we cannot prove who won.  And the Gettysburg address?  From the archeological perspective, it might as well have never happened.  Iknow in my field of Native American archeology, where there is NO written language to go from, once you go past the actual historic record, you cannot prove something as basic as tribal names, heroes, religion, or even what language they spoke.  The further back some event is, the harder it is to prove by archeology alone.  So I'll stand by my original statement - for many ancient historical events, all we can cite to prove it is descriptions found in ancient books.

Indy, I studied Anthropology with Archaeology as my major.  There is a great deal of information to be gained from the analysis of material culture remains and their contexts.  We know a great deal about native culture here in North America from what has been systematically excavated and studied.  Written accounts certainly can be useful assistance, but are not the be-all-and-end-all: written records are also subject to interpretation and questions of bias and reliability.
 
And technically: 'history' is what has been recorded.  Anything coming from the time before records (writing) is by definition pre-historic.   :wink: 

I think this is where the phrase 'History is written by the winners' comes in.

 :smile:

Absolutely!  Ideally, you'd be able to study both physical traces and written documents, but antiquity is rarely that kind.  It is true we have been able to deduce a lot about Native American culture and lifeways from systematic excavation, but specific details are still impossible to discover without some form of written language.  For example, we know a great deal about the status and importance of the kings that were buried in Cahokia mounds - but we don't know any of their names!
   Your comment about prehistory is spot on - and what makes it confusing to most is that prehistory lasted much longer in some places than in others!  Russia's prehistory lasted till about 1000 AD, and North America's till 1492!  Whereas the history of Sumeria goes back nearly 5000 years.  I would love to talk archeology with you sometime!
  And yes, the winners do write the history books - sometimes.  The South has written a lot about the Civil War, though!

I would love to be a part of an actual history/archeology/anthropology discussion with Newt and Indy. What would be so great about that is that you both have scholarship in that area, and both have varying perspectives in your analyses. That would be fascinating for me to be a part of or at least be a fly on the wall. There is much to be gained from sharing both information and perspective. At least I think so.

The South has written a lot about the Civil War War of Northern Aggression, though!

There, now.

That's better.

Vuxflicks-I can understand your anger-you live in Bosnia for Bela's sake! I will not-could not-say anything about your beliefs. The only advice I have to you-relax.Wait. You live in Bosnia? OK. But respect people.Were your freinds.

A friend of mine posted this on another forum tonight, and I thought it might make interesting reading for this thread:

"Return," by Brion Toss (http://www.briontoss.com/education/archive/miscmay02.htm)


(On Toss, lest he be hastily labeled a nut...he is perhaps the most widely known rigger of our generation.  I'd wager no human alive has APPLIED more rigging engineering than he...click here for a brief bio (http://www.strictlysailpacific.com/shows/seminars_detail.asp?page=3&show_id=pa&mode=seminars_detail&id=1788))

I had to read that twice. Didn't see "rigger" the first time, and it startled me. :bouncegiggle:

Great read, thanks for posting!

I'm Agnostic myself. I prefer taking the middle road. -shrugs-

Right up my alley. One would think a deist wrote that piece. Talk of the Universe and Creation, but not one mention of God.

Seriously, though, it seems nearly impossible to all but the most obstinate to escape spirituality. The mind and the soul yearn for it. Despite my disdain for religion, I believe firmly in the full free exercise of it by all people, because such a freedom transcends mere religion and makes possible all manner of contemplations of the Creation, without fear of retribution by a society claiming to speak for God, be on God's side, or that God is on it's side. Rubbish.

I think most people embrace spirituality in one form or another. It is part of the human condition, the human spirit, if you will. I am of the firm belief that people on the extremes of atheism and piousness have plenty of arrogance, obstinance, and ignorance, but neither spirit nor substance. They are empty. I say they are arrogant because they have the audacity to claim to know the Universe. I say they are obstinate because they refuse to open their hearts. I say they are ignorant because only people of such extreme can see things in the world around them that are contrary to their stolid "belief," yet refuse to believe they exist, let alone be touched by them.

What I find interesting is that I find I have something in common with both atheists AND people of faith. For example, vukxfiles, if he and I discussed our mutual disdain of religion, would find we agree far more than our debate earlier would suggest. Yet, although I disagree drastically with Indy on the issue of faith, I share with him a belief in a meaningful force greater than ourselves and a admiration for Western civilization, however much we may disagree on what makes it great.
  

It's interesting (and perhaps timely for this discussion) that one of the most "religious" friends I have just within the past week told me that he is basically done with 'church' and 'organized religion.'  I'm not sure what prompted that, but there you go.

He said that his is still strongly Christian, but that he and his family will now pursue 'self-study' at home and that sort of thing.

Our church is probably splitting up - we are having a vote next month whether or not to stay with the national organization or leave it (to possibly join a new one that was just founded last year), and the congregation is basically split along some line not too far from 50-50. 

All this drama within the church is certainly distracting from the 'mission' of the church in the community.  And it's so unnecessary.

One of the problems that I see with 'organized church' is what I call an 'external focus.'  They DO become very focused on what they tell others, and how they do that telling, whereas I think a BIG part of the action should be internal - within ME (not in a selfish "I'm all that matters" sense, but in a "I'm at my best in the community when I have my own ducks in order" sense).  I've had a number of conversations with pastors about this over the years - that my fight is my own struggle to be what I perceive God wants me to be.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of your own position here? 

I believe "job one" for any church is maintaining a healthy community. Regardless of your specific beliefs, worshipping as a community is very valuable for bringing people together, creating connection, and providing opportunities for personal growth in addition to spiritual growth. That is something that does get lost if you choose to go in your own direction.

What messes up a church, for me, is pride, politics and pettiness. That, and status - the focus on keeping up appearances, having all the facilities, programs and whatnot that people think a church should have, even if they aren't particularly wanted or needed. And inflexibility when it comes to changing or trying anything new. I think it's mostly this crap that leads people of faith to give up organized religion.

To me, a church should strive to be a community that is welcoming and something people like to be part of (within the bounds of its particular denomination; it shouldn't try to be everything to everyone). A church's next priority is looking to the larger community, not for the purpose of spreading a message or showing off or drawing people in with guilt or gimmicks, but to be a valuable part of the community outside its doors.

I believe it, and I think it might be the only option. These days, a church has to be relevant to its members and its community. There was a time when a church could just be what it is, and people would attend the church they grew up in because they were supposed to. That's not true anymore. If people feel that church isn't relevant to them, that it isn't enjoyable, or that their presence means nothing more than a bum in a seat and money in the plate, they won't go. And even if they are determined church-goers, people are more mobile and far more likely to shop around than they were in the past, and jump denominations if necessary.

No. Would you point it out please?

hy·poc·ri·sy 

1.  the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety 
2.  an act or instance of this 

At what point was I guilty of that?

You said people are arrogant because they have the audacity to claim to know the Universe, then two sentences later made such claims yourself as you say extreme atheists and extreme religious people see things that are contrary to their beliefs yet deny they exist.

What, exactly, would a hardline atheist deny exists that is contrary to their beliefs except something that requires rather audacious claims about the nature of the universe?

Okay, fair enough, but assuming I am lumping all atheists and all people of faith under a single presumptious banner (which I am not) then I would be guilty of contradiction or a lack of integrity, not hypocrisy.

You may want to acknowledge that I was qualifying my statement a bit by referring to people on the far extremes of either side, not all atheists and not all people of faith. Surely you can recongize a difference between a hardline atheist who rejects all forms of spritual belief or higher order as not possible (such atheists exist) and one who simply rejects religion and the notion of a "God." Yes? Just as I'm sure you can distinquish between a person of moderate and fairly open-minded faith in God and a hardline fundamentalist who advocates killing in the name of God. In that respect, I do not find much difference between those two extremes. The extreme atheist I refer to is certain there is no higher order, no force that guided existence or the Universe, and is more akin to a nihilist than a reasonable person. Such a person will have a similar knee-jerk reaction to any mention of anything contrary to that claim as a fundamentalist Christian would have to any evidence suggesting that the Bible is anything short of the literal and perfect Word of God.

Did that clarify things a bit more? If you've got a problem with my position, then fine, I can respect that. But let's refrain from name-calling, shall we? Or at least find a word that is appropriate. A hypocrite I am not.

I dunno. I shouldnt have started this thread. Politics and religion-you know the saying. The reason I started it because I lost faith in an ancient belief that seems to do more harm then good. I just dont mean Christianity. I dont just mean Muslim. I mean ALL religions. I feel its better to just treat people like human beings and f**k the big book of rules and rituals. Use common sense. Use your heart-or soul-or whatever. I dont claim-CANT-claim to know the mysteries of life-and any relgion that claims to be the "only" one are arrogant and only feed into the polariztion of the world.

Sorry to jump into this...but I felt I started this thread-I should say someting. WHO CARES???? Lets just love each other-no matter what your religion is-isnt that the bottom line?  :question:

(Unless your a Satanist,of course.... :tongueout:)

EDIT: What I said does not mean to imply that your religion is wrong. If it works for you-GREAT-just dont push it on others. You like Christian-I like Nothing. You like Adam Sandler-I like Lugosi. WE CAN LIVE TOGETHER.

It's predjudice-like racism.

Okay.  Don't worry 'bout it.  Yet no one will answer my question.  Here 'tis:


What I wonder is... if Jesus excreted,  :question: could these holy turds still be found in the earth, like, arrowheads or fossilized bone??  :question:  Where are these holy excretions?   :question:

To answer your last question-bout turds-
Turds dont fossilize.They act as fertilizer-or dogs eat it.
I get yer point. God s**ts? Naw. Gods dont eat.Gods dont s**t. Gods.....dont. There are no gods.


Except for Lugosi.....but Im leaning to the Flying Spagetti Monster. Eh. Im gonna make my own little "god" universe. Have prophets and...and...stuff.

Ah you take all the fun outta me bein' silly.   :wink: :drink:  

Oh!  And by the way, under the right conditions, turds will fossilize.  :teddyr:
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/06/25/gluing-oldest-fossilized-human-turd-back-together/ (http://www.neatorama.com/2007/06/25/gluing-oldest-fossilized-human-turd-back-together/)  
(http://static.neatorama.com/images/2007-06/viking-coprolite.jpg)  

OK-here it is-
Christ was human. His religion -and the fanatics who killed for it-was no different then the fanatics that kill for Charles Manson. If you try to tell me that the Christian-or Muslim is not a religion of intolerence-history says different. Manson killed for his beliefs-you kill for yours. DEAD IS DEAD. People can excuse murder any way they want. BUT DEAD IS DEAD. I aint saying I wouldnt kill some one. I could. I would. But I wont cloak it behind a religious or political ideoligy. I'll kill them cuz I want them dead. No regrets. No apoligizes to phony leaders or gods. Ill do it because some one f**ks with me.



Dam. I gotta rethink my whole outlook on life!

This is why I love talkin' wit choo on the phone.  Not.   :tongueout: :teddyr: :lookingup: :wink: :thumbup: :smile:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yGubABYThtk/TPtHNWS6TqI/AAAAAAAAC_M/hhq6CQeIiYc/s1600/southpark.jpg)

That image just floored me. I'm back to a quivering Puritan.

That's not what I was getting at.  You said, basically, that you thought it was bad/impossible to make such extreme claim(s) about the universe ("they are arrogant because they have the audacity to claim to know the Universe") , and did just that a scant while later ("they are ignorant because only people of such extreme can see things in the world around them that are contrary to their stolid "belief," yet refuse to believe they exist").  You're basically stating flat out you know there are things that exist that are contrary to hardline atheistic beliefs, which to me is an extreme claim about your own knowledge of the nature of the universe.  

I agree I shouldn't be throwing around a term like hypocrisy; for that I apologize.  Especially since in this case it may be just my own interpretation of your words, or it could have been accidental for that matter.  For what it's worth though, if I say something hypocritical, feel free to call me on it.  We all do it now and again.  

:cheers:

I'm sorry, but we can't live together in peace as long as you go around irresponsibly claiming that I like Adam Sandler! 

It's good to see diveresty in beliefs get a forum.....but sometimes it seems to do more harm than good. Discusion is good....but fanatics should...I dunno-quit being fanatics to the point that you have to make the other guy KNOWS YOUR RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG. If their religion entails that they get in my face-well-sure-Ill fight em. Dont force your s**t. Wanna fanatic? Im a fanatic agnostic.  Dont physically push yer s**t on me. I aint pushing

I would-NEVER say that ,Oh REVERAND! Forgive for sins I Know not Of!

Or Not or I know not If!
Or If i no knot!
And thats the most ridiculous thing I ever hoid!

Absolute belief is some scary stuff. It's easy to characterize in fundamentalism, but it pops up everywhere. It doesn't matter what map you're using (religion, politics, science), once you believe you have every unassailable answer you can start justifying some truly heinous actions. Fanatical belief is something I find truly troubling, and it seems as if it's built in to the human condition. Once somebody gets in their head that they are truly right, that's not the sort of person who will ever leave you alone.

I'm in sympathy with AndyC's view of religion and its role in forming communities. I don't believe in any of the major religions, but I can't deny their importance in forming communities. What other activity can replace a church as a central hub in large groups of people? The church, in America at least, is central to so many activities that people really care about and actually matter. Marriage, funerals, the church is a central lynch-pin to so many of the things that truly affect our lives. For better or worse, the church provides a guide point, and it gets large groups of people together and functioning as a block.

Without religion, which activity replaces this central function? I don't see any. It can't be business, which is almost completely immoral in its pursuit of profit. Politics? I don't think anybody could see that as a viable alternative (a callback to the unpleasantness of the Communist Party).

The church is the sole institution that speaks to all of these things. But they do so by calling upon rituals and beliefs that I have no faith in whatsoever. But there's nothing to replace it. Unless somebody creates something new, or points to something I haven't noticed, there's nothing out there.

Also, turds do fossilize, and there are many people out there who have made their career's by studying coprolites. Fascinating stuff, really.

VucX, I think you've made your positions clear.
AHD - I am so very sorry I ever made the "excretion" comment.  You're never going to let me live it down, are you?
RC - don't be sorry you started this thread - it's one of the best, most wide-ranging, and fascinating discussions we've ever had on here, and most of us have behaved pretty well.  If I may gently correct one comment you made above - whether he was God or not, there is one way in which Christ was NOTHING like Manson or Muhammad - Christ never told his followers to kill in the name of their faith.  NEVER.  Christians that later took up the sword in His name did so in violation of everything He ever taught.
To everyone else - kudos for a great discussion!

When did I ever claim to know the Universe? I've never done so. I've stated my beliefs throughout this thread on a number of occasions, I am humbled by the Universe, and I allow myself to be open to whatever the Universe shows me. At no point have I ever claimed to know God or know the Universe. Nobody can make that claim. That's my whole point. Hardline atheists claim they "know" there is no God or governing force in the Universe. Hardline fundamentalists claim they "know" there is a God and even go so far as to dictate his behaviors and plans for us. These are both extremist claims, and in my opinion both equally arrogant. I get into debates with people all the time from both extremes, and in my experience both have an almost rabid confrontational posture. My beliefs put me at odds with both. It's something I've lived with for a long time.

I certainly can't call you a hypocrite, Jim H, because you're not claiming a religious or moral stance that you don't possess. That's hyposcrisy. If I think there is a flaw in your reasoning, then I'll point it out. I expect the same out of anybody who chooses to engage. It's part of the stimulation of it for me. I just got a little upset with being called a hypocrite when I didn't demonstrate any hyposcrisy.

I've mentioned on this thread before that I'm a neopagan/wiccan. I won't go into my own beliefs, except to say they are probably closer to pantheism than anything. I will say that my own experience with ritual has never been empty or meaningless, in that its always served as a form of spiritual disipline, not unlike martial arts, rather than groveling before a (possibly non-existant) diety.

A few years ago, I began attending full moon circles at a Unitarian Universalist chuch. Many of the members of the circle were also members of the church. I resisted joining myself, as I was reluctant to go back to the same type of church that I'd been raised in (German Lutheran, not that there was anything wrong with it, I just didn't feel a connection to it). However, being curious, I decided to attend a sunday service.

If you've never been to a UU church before, I should mention that calling it a Christian church is misleading - although it started as an offshoot of protestantism, it includes Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, Pagans, and even Secular Humanists (ie, Athiests) as part of its congregation. I was shocked at how open minded everyone was. The church is devoted to a "discovery of personal truth through art, science, philosophy and the teachings of the world's great religions." Despite their differences, everyone got along, and are very much a tight-knit community.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on the UU church (this particular branch of the church happens to be particularly liberal - Indy, you'd hate it - so your mileage may vary in reguards to UUism in your area) . What I am saying is that it isnt impossible for people of radically differing faiths, or even no faith at all, to get along along and learn from each other without prostelytizing. I've seen it, it can work.

UU is interesting. It's fairly common for deists like myself who are looking for some form of fellowship to join UU churches. You may find there are people of deistic leanings at the UU church you attend, and it's very likely that those who run the church organization are at least familiar with deism.

I've never been to one, and probably never will, as church and I don't really get along, but I have been intrigued.

Hey Flick, what is there that is contrary to hardline atheistic belief that they refuse to believe exists? 

If you're genuinely interested in clarification of my beliefs or position I'll be happy to oblige. I really hope you're not out to get nasty, Jim, I really do.

There are hardline atheists (not ALL atheists, mind you) who hold there is no evidence of spiritual existence whatsoever. They tend to hold the idea that the Universe was pure accident, and that science explains everything. I'm not attributing these characteristics to you, because I don't know you. I am also not refuting anything you have ever said simply because we've yet to get into anything. I'm saying that such atheists exist, and in my exchanges with them they tend to be highly confrontational and if anything is said or offered that is contrary to those ideas that they see as absolute fact, they tend to have a similar knee-jerk rejection that I find very similar to extreme fundamentalists. That's my experience, and again, I'm not saying anything about you.

Now, I tend to believe that religion IS largely fantasy and mythology. You will find no argument with me on that notion at all. I am also skeptical of claims of the supernatural. This is not because I don't believe in the supernatural, but because I am skeptical of human honesty, and find that it is a part of human nature to invent and embellish one's experiences, and even more so when dealing with anything supernatural. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'm sure you and I will be in perfect agreement on that. Those that claim the Bible is the Word of God, or that Jesus performed miracles, or that God spoke to Moses or Mohammed, or that they saw ghosts, have the burden of proof, and certainly have no reason to be upset if one demands it.

When it comes to extreme and resolute atheists, I find a similar phenomenon occurs. Evolution is fact, science is right, and even tend to have an almost nihilistic idea that everything was an accident and that EVERYTHING that was born of religion is absolute poppycock. Again, I'm not saying this is you, you do understand that, right? I believe there is sufficient evidence of human evolution from previous life forms, at least, there is far more scientific evidence of that than there is of Biblical Creationism. That having been said, there are enough holes in the evolutionary record, gaps that fail to connect we humans with our ancestors, that the jury is not exactly in just yet. I happen to believe in evolution, but this doesn't disprove the existence of a higher power or an intelligent creation of the Universe. Hardline atheists I have engaged with seem to hold that evolutionary evidence proves the non-existence of God. No it doesn't. I simply supports that the religious texts in regard to the nature and beginning of existence are incorrect. Science has failed to explain fully the observable order that exists in nature and the Universe. Science is constantly changing and what was held as true by science 100 years ago has significantly changed.

I reject religion, but I don't discredit EVERTHING that religion has produced as being useless as many hardline atheists I have encountered tend to lean. Religion served a very important role in the development of human intellect over many thousands of years. Religion allowed humanity to think in abstract ways that really didn't happen otherwise, in contemplation of things greater than themselves that they did not yet understand. The same form of abstract thought is necessary for scientific inquiry, and had religion not taught humanity to yearn to understand those mysteries, science would not have been born. Religion predates science, and in some ways religion lead to science. I agree with atheists that religion is a major limiting factor in humanity's progress, but when I submit that religion has also served an important purpose in humanity's "intellectual" evolution, most atheists I encounter reject this notion altogether. While religion has a history of getting many things dead wrong, it has also contributed to humanity's development of laws and systems of morality. I ran into an atheist once that said morality was a purely religious invention and therefore had no merit. I'm not making that up. Again, I reject religion, but I don't hold that religion has given us nothing of any worth. Hardline atheists tend to hold that idea, and will reject immediately any notion that religion has produced ANYTHING otherwise.

This is the kind of rejection that I am referring to. I'm not talking claims of pseudo-science that desperately try to prove that the Bible is accurate. I have the same disdain for that as I suspect you do.

I think your question deserved an answer, Jim. There's my answer. My position is based on a series of experiences. That's the best I can offer you. It is no more an endictment of all atheists than it is an endictment of all people of faith. It is my sincere hope that you will see that.

For a good part of my life I thought that I was an athesist but as I got older realized that I was actually agnostic. My family members are all hardcore christians and not a day goes by that they don't mention being "worried" about me being agnostic. I don't think that they know what the word agnostic actually means. Ha!

But but but...butt...
(http://static.neatorama.com/images/2007-06/viking-coprolite.jpg) 

(Facepalm)

I . . . have created . . . a MONSTER!!!!!

I used to think I was agnostic, but now I don't know.  :teddyr:

I am both an atheist and an agnostic. You can be both. They are mutually exclusive terms.

Atheism/Theism deals with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. I am an atheist because I lack the belief in a deity but I am also an agnostic because I don't know with absolute certainty that my belief is correct.

Even though this conservation is winding down, I'd like to point out that aspects of atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive. It is more than possible to keep one's roots in religious belief and to subject those same beliefs to basic logic and reasoning without discounting them entirely. If an aspect of one's beliefs fly in the face of all evidence (and no, there is no definitive evidence for or against gods, nor how life came to be on this planet; evolution studies how life diversified, not how it started), perhaps it's time to review that aspect. But then, I'm a druid; we're encouraged to do this from day one and to keep submitting what beliefs we pick up over the years and discover for ourselves to reality checks. Does it fail to stand up? Review it; the real world is the inspiration for all religion, and is correct no matter what us humans think.

Sometimes beliefs get modified or abandoned, but a number of them hang on because there is either no proof that they're completely false or, sometimes, scientific evidence supports them (eg- the healing power of plants; all medicine has a base somewhere in the natural world, so it stands to reason that some plants in their pure form can help with some ailments. Of course, just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good for you, so some personal research into herbal medicine and consultation with trained physicians is a must.)

I tend to think of myself as a Christian Agnostic. I observe Christian holidays, attend the United Church of Canada, and identify as a Christian based on culture and values. I do not take everything in scripture as literal fact, nor do I necessarily think traditional Christian ideas about the nature of the divine are correct. I do, however, believe there must be something of that nature, that we aren't capable of understanding - at least not yet. Really, that's not very different from Flick James' Agnostic Deist beliefs, except that I see value in church as a cultural institution and community focal point. I also see religion as more of a group exercise.

Regarding Flick's comments about things science can't explain, I see consciousness itself as a great mystery. We understand enough to imitate learning, reasoning, memory with technology, but how a collection of neurons becomes self-aware is a total mystery. Why consciousness even exists at all, what purpose it serves, is a mystery. And it doesn't make sense to me to have self-awareness that just snuffs out after 80 years or so, which from its own subjective point of view, is as if it had never existed at all. Then again, the prospect of eternal life, even in a pleasant place, is no less terrifying when you consider it.

I recently attended a lecture regarding consciousness and our perception of reality. Fascinating stuff, especially since it seems that our conscious perception of the world is an after-thought, so to speak. For example, if you flash something in front of someone for a just a frame or two, their eyes definitely saw it and their bodies can actually form the right hand shape to "pick it up" (next time you reach for something, take a look at your hand; unless you have a mental disability that impairs your dexterity, you hand makes the perfect shape to pick it up without any conscious manipulation from you), but they often can't tell you what they saw!

Where the brain stops and the mind begins is a major mystery. How does the physical input, output, processing and storage connect to the basic awareness of the self. That's where the existence of a soul, or something like it, seems plausible to me.

And the fact that everything we know, our whole sense of reality, is a matter of our own perception, there is no absolute certainty that the universe is at all as it appears to us. Objective reality might well be an illusion. Is matter, energy, time, space all in our minds? I don't believe it is, but I can't be 100% certain.

Philosophy is a love-hate thing for me. I find it fascinating, but also very disturbing at times.

Well, that's the point, NOBODY KNOWS! Thank you for defining your terms, something most people don't seem capable of doing. The people that I tend to bump heads with are people who deal in absolutes when it comes to the Universe. I may have painted a fairly broad stroke in regard to atheism in an earlier post, but sadly I feel that atheists have fallen into a trap of taking the road of absolutes. Where I get on board with atheism is when they are being rational, in particular the arguments of the problem of evil, inconsistent revelations, and argument from nonbelief. These arguments are valid criticisms of religion, but don't really prove anything. Where I get off the train is when, and more atheists do this than not, it becomes a shoving match where religion or people of faith are incapable of anything of any worth, something history does not bear out.

I credit atheism and deism, a belief held by some of our founding fathers, Thomas Paine directly and Thomas Jefferson loosely, as very useful tools in the development of humanity's reason. Through those types of divergent thought, religion has lost a great deal of it's stranglehold on the masses. For this I am very grateful. It is a good thing. On the negative side, atheism has contributed to polarizing people rather than attempting to find common ground. Atheists seem to believe that it's a simple matter of removing religion from the world and everything will be better. I don't believe that. Humanity is going to forever be yearning for something spiritual, and since humans have a need for ritual and structure, religion provides it and services a need. I don't have this need myself, but most people do. If this need is so widespread I must accept that it is a part of human nature to need such a thing. For me personally, deism works quite well. It has a basic belief system allowing for people to believe in something spiritual, yet doesn't suffer from the dogmatic quagmires of revealed religion. It doesn't dictate what God is or what God's behavior or plans for us are. Also, it embraces science and reason readily. In deism, reason and spiritual belief are not separate, they are happily united.

If it sounds like I'm promoting deism, well, I guess I am. I've never been remotely as happy or at peace with either atheism or Christianity, and I have been both. I've been happily deist for about 8 years now. And being happy is what it's all about. I am free of the seething hatred that I used to have. While I still have a strong disdain for religion, I'm not as angry about it anymore. I just don't care. I can't prevent people from believing in the Bible or the Quran or being a hardline atheist. I just enjoy the discussion, and try to gain as much as I can from the experience.

Oh, and post long messages about my beliefs and positions. Yikes.  :lookingup:  

I'd say consciousness is a fairly large survival advantage.  It allows you to place priority on a number of things, plan better for the future, etc.  It may also be a natural side effect of higher intelligence.  It might be worth noting by most definitions a number of other animals have it as well.


It is a fascinating question.  I'm of the opinion it is purely physical, of course.  Which is why people can have their personalities and beliefs greatly altered through brain damage.


It was an honest inquiry.  I don't know why you seem to think I've been offended by something you said, or that I'm upset with you.  I honestly didn't fully understand what you were getting at (which is why I asked the same question twice), and based on your response here it appears I misunderstood what you were getting at in your post a couple pages back.


Yeah, I know what you mean.  There are plenty of stupid atheists out there.


I think it's best to say science remains incomplete, personally (as, most likely, it always will).  But, I'd say that is semantics and not really important.


Ok, this is where I'll explain further why I was thinking you were making what you called an audacious claim about the nature of the universe - something I should have done earlier.  You see, a fairly typical definition of strong atheist, or a hardline atheist etc, means someone who claims, basically, "I am 100% positive that God(s) doesn't exist, I know it.".  Which is irrational.  But, still, there is nothing in the world that exists that is obviously true that flies in the face of this belief.  The only thing that would, of course, is hard proof of God's existence - and saying such exists is certainly an extreme claim about the nature of the universe.  Obviously though, this is not what you were saying.

I see now you're using a more specific definition of the term than I would.  You're referring to a subset of atheists we see online a good deal.  I feel like they need their own term, the atheists so frothing at the mouth there's no point in really even talking with them.  I honestly don't know what to call them though.

I will add that atheists like these are the Westboro Baptists of the atheist world.  They get out there and yell a lot, so they seem to be an extremely disproportionate percentage of the population.  But, they just yell the loudest and are actually a minority.  I'd hazard a guess and say most atheists have never had a serious discussion about this kind of thing (I'd say the same about most religious people) - they simply lapsed out of their respective faiths or never had one and have no interest in it further than that.

So, that said, now that I understand what you were getting at, I don't have any significant disagreements with you on anything at all.   :smile:

Yeah, I can't really find anything in your post that I would take exception to, Jim. I guess I misunderstood your intentions and for that I apologize.

Fundamentalist atheists?

Ive noticed that" fundamentalist" anything usually = narrow minded pinheads. So does that make me a Fundamentelist Agnostic? Or a Fundamentilist Sitting on the Fence Idiot Who Cant Decide Anything?  :question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9BlmWsdeyE

I thought it was pretty funny.  :bouncegiggle: :thumbup:

RC, you are just fundamentally cool.

Try to live with that!

God doesn't exist, please do be an atheist. Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, it's a very interesting book with great arguments in it.
(http://unrealityshout.com/files/images/god-delusion.medium.jpg) I've always been atheistic but the subject interests me. You should also watch a few of these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2QG4D64c20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vggXUcWaU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V81DpVJXzUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NviLvMRbGoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gAeYxgwuSo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Buv0YFj9e0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMqTEfeqvmM

There's another similarity between the very religious and the very atheistic. Proselytizing. Somebody's expressed an interest in our beliefs? Get him. Don't let him escape. Start shoving books and videos at him.

This is what I find most significant in the ongoing debate. Atheism is subject to the same human failings religion gets beaten up for. Atheists can be just as intolerant, just as pushy, just as insensitive, just as bent on converting others, and just as convinced that any harm they do is for the greater good, because they know better than everyone else.

I would even go as far as to classify Atheism as a religion. The only thing that distinguishes it is a lack of belief in anything that does not seem provable by science.

When you get down to it, the question really comes down to a belief in something supernatural, and all accusations of harm done become irrelevant. Both sides are capable of doing harm.

And since the real question can't be answered, the only solution is to agree to disagree, and everyone respect everyone else's beliefs (within reason, of course), without feeling a need to save them, whether that be from eternal damnation, or from primitive superstition.

My personal opinion of Richard Dawkins? He's an a$$hole. I have the same opinion of many extreme evangelical Christians. What people believe is not as important to me as how they treat others.

On Dawkins:

As a Ph.D. physical chemist, I can confidently and unequivocally state that in my professional scientific opinion, Richard Dawkins is an idiot. He is not one tenth as smart and logical as he thinks he is, and his brand of ontological naturalism is the worst kind of closed minded bigotry.

If Dawkins' moral weight results solely from his being a "scientist," then myself, or better yet, Hugh Ross, should be afforded the same courtesy.

Anyone putting all their philosophical eggs in Dawkins' basket is being sadly misled.

It's relevant to the topic, I can't share information because it might convince him to something? Then what's the point?
Also, who's an a$$hole and who isn't, or who is most friendly isn't relevant to me, truth is.

And worse yet, letting Dawkins speak for them. Believe what you want, but don't hand me a book or quote Dawkins at me to explain your own personal beliefs. And I don't think I would ever let some loser on YouTube speak for me either.

This is not unique to Atheists, of course. It bugs me when Christians can't do any better than point to some celebrity preacher or book of the week to make their case for them. Nothing wrong with quoting someone else, but use it to support your own arguments, don't keep quoting the same people, and please quote somebody who has real credentials.

I'm not saying Dawkins is some kind of a mega-genius and we should all believe whatever he says, I just think he came up with some interesting stuff. And who came up with the arguments doesn't matter either, what matters is that it's interesting information. I justed wanted to share that information.

I don't know If I am one because, if the Bible is God's words, then I am because I hate it how the saying Marriage is strictly between man and women. Bulls**t! Marriage between man and woman is okay, but what about man and man/ woman and woman. is it bad? No, it's their preference. also, anybody who argues about gay marriage with their reasoning is that because the Bible said so, then I'll burn it because that is the biggest Bulls**tting excuse! Look at the Scopes trial! a biology teacher was jailed because he was teaching evolution. now how do these two things have in common? Both have fundamentalist saying that the Bible is right and anything else is wrong. Bulls**t! Technology have proven that to be wrong, yet still, people still insist that no, The Bible is right. I got into an argument the other day about Gay marriage and I got so f**king mad because the guy said that the Bible is right. I so wanted to burn the Bible because, as I said, It's just one Bulls**tting Excuse! :hatred:

I'm just asking if you can add more to the discussion than "God doesn't exist; read this book."

And I'm asking you to keep in mind that nobody else here is trying to convert anyone else, and personal beliefs in this thread have been qualified as just that - personal beliefs. Starting out by bluntly stating your belief as fact and making a plea that others should believe the same is not exactly an appropriate way to join in the discussion. I'm assuming you've read the rest of the thread and not just jumped in with your two cents based on the first post.

That seems to be a common misunderstanding about agnostics; many of the ones I've met aren't undecided, they just don't think anyone knows the exact nature of the universe. Saying "I'm right, look at this" holds no more weight than if you started spouting off scripture. Why? Scientific knowledge is incomplete.  How can you claim to know the nature of the universe when we don't even know all the creatures living on our one little planet? When we don't know how something as essential to our lives as consciousness works? Anyone who says they know the full truth is, at best, ignorant of just how much they don't know.

Don't assume the Bible is all there is to religion. For many, it isn't even all there is to Judeo-Christian religion.

And what is attributed to the Bible as justification for human intolerance or stupidity is frequently either selectively quoted, taken out of its original context, misinterpreted either unintentionally or deliberately, mentioned so briefly that its meaning is far from clear, or just plain not in there.

Not only are there many religions that do not use the Bible at all, those that do are not necessarily in agreement on what it means.

Truth is relevant?

That's a load of bulls**t.

What's truth? Define it.

Truth is relative to who's telling and who's receiving.

I frankly think that this whole damn thread is moronic. If it had been titled "I think I'm a christian", other than a few "at a boy"s, it would have dropped off the forum in short order. No, instead, someone professes they think they might be an atheist and you end up with a bunch of grown ups who still believe in things like the easter bunny and other fairy tales trying to dumb them down to their level.

Arguing against something with declaring your take to be the truth is nothing more than the flipside...so what's the difference one way or another? And what's the point...ladies?

Perhaps so.  But, I think it has been quite interesting.  Obviously, there is a very broad spectrum of personal, philosophical and spiritual beliefs represented on this forum.  It has been mostly a civil discussion among people who believe different things and I, for one, have learned quite a bit from reading it.

I have enjoyed most of it...so sue me.   :tongueout:

You do have to hand it to Menard though. He doesn't play favourites.

And I do agree, anybody who claims to have a monopoly on truth is either a liar or a fool. Or both, come to think of it.

I agree.One mans "truth" is another mans "bulls**t". I have said before-on this forum-that I believe that flying saucers are real. Real what-? Not sure. But they are there-they are a fact (in my opinion). What they are? I dunno...but no one has ever taken a photo of god,nor have witnessed god buzzing over a city....but ufos have. Yet Im thought of as a nut. Hmm.
Dont get me wrong. If a belief in a god makes you happy-go for it. It just dont work for me anymore.

I'm with Plato.  I believe truth is eternal and absolute.  Otherwise it would not be true.

 Idunno-one mans tuth is another mans reason to go onna jihaad. Personally-if it makes you feel good-fine. I got no problem with it. Unless you try to force your beliefs through murder-(jihaads,the Inquistion,Nazism-you get the picture-) well-any thinking human being should deny it. And organized religion seems to me to be a source of evil in the name of one god or another. No doubt good has been done. But-I dunno-good can be done without an ancient fear of Hell hanging over our heads. "My gods better than your god". Insane.

Ol' menard took things a bit further than I would, OK a LOT Further.  But Its amazing how much work a lot of atheists put into not believing.  Its almost belief in itself.
-Ed

I don't doubt the existence of truth, but whether people know it, understand it, and are completely honest about it is another question.

I also think we need to make a distinction between truth and fact. A fictional story, full of people, places and situations that don't exist, can still contain a great deal of truth. On the other hand, one can lie quite effectively using information that is entirely factual.

Very good point!!!
Facts are stubborn things, as John Adams said, but facts, while composed of small truths, can be combined, or parsed, to create massive falsehoods.

For example, an enormous amount of violent crime in America is committed by young, African-American males.  Far disproportionate to their percentage of the population. That is an undeniable demographic fact.  Much of this violence is black-on-black.  I have read, and have seen no evidence to the contrary, that nine out of ten times, when a black man is killed by a handgun in America, another black man pulls the trigger.   So what are we to do with this information?

A racist can use these statistics to conjure up arguments for all sorts of repressive, evil social policies - mass executions, forced abortion and sterilization, pre-emptive imprisonment, et cetera.

A liberal (or social progressive, if you prefer) can use those same statistics to justify massive Federal intervention, social spending,  and high taxes to "save" this disadvantaged group from destruction.

Odds are neither approach would solve the social problems at hand, since they stem from a complex series of causes to which there is no simple solution - certainly no solution imposed from the outside.

That's because a single set of facts does not necessarily comprise the Truth.  They can point the way to truth, but they can also lead you away from it.

Yes, let's compare the Racist with the "liberal".  The most wretched evil with those who don't agree with your politics.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Donkey_1_arp_750px.jpg)

He's not comparing a racist to a liberal.

He's saying that both sides can take the same set of facts and use it to rationalize their own actions.  Are you suggesting that that does not happen?

He's not?   :question: 

Gimme a break.  Don't be his apologist, you know right quick what he were up to.  "Both sides"?  "Both sides"?   :question:  A most perplexing characterization! 

What are you talking about?  I'm not being apologist.

He clearly stated a set of facts, then clearly stated how two different groups (or representatives of those groups) would use those facts to make their case that they are superior:

"A racist can use these statistics..."

"A liberal can use those same statistics..."

His point even holds if we take his set of facts as hypotheticals. It happens every day, especially in the news media, that the same fact(s) is represented differently by those with different agenda.  Do you deny this?

I think you are just trying to be provocative because he used the "L" word (or something...   :lookingup:   ).  Can't we just keep the discussion clean without (purposeful?) mis-characterization of what others are saying?

I do think Indy used the racist and the liberal as opposing viewpoints. Mind you, in Indy's example, both viewpoints are equally wrong, and he has, in a way, presented his own views as the middle ground. :lookingup:

I agree with what you're trying to say here, but the idea of "relativity" can end up being just as dogmatic as what you're arguing against. It's true that there are multiple frames of references by which life can be approached, and all of us have our own frames we argue with.

The central gist of this thread is to understand some "ultimate" truths about reality. Is it all just an accident, or is there a god at center of it all? The people who have bothered to put their input into this thread have spent quite a lot of time and thought into defining "truth" as they understand it.

The statement, "Well, it's all relative" is usually uttered by people who want the easy out of having to accept other's arguments. Why think and argue when you can just claim the whole argument pointless? Much easier, and you can feel good about yourself.

"Truth" is not relevant? Really?

AHD - note that I also used the term "social progressive" for those offended by the term "liberal."

And yes, I believe that BOTH interpretations of the data  that I mentioned above are faulty.  I was using that as just ONE example of how facts can be interpreted in a manner that is NOT truth.

You're the one offended by the word "liberal" man, not me.  Don't assume I'm a liberal, despite that label having been slapped on my arse more than once on this forum.  Racists and Liberals, like two sides of a coin, heads or tails.  "Both sides" as Ulthar put it.  Since when are these two opposite "sides"?  Unless of course we're comparing arch-liberals with arch-conservatives... "social progessive" on the left, "racist" on the right? 
Despite what Ulthar cares to assert, you compared racists with your conservative talking-points version of what you imagine a "liberal" to be, inserting sarcasm in the process.    My friend, you peddle your politics a lot on this forum.  :thumbdown: :bluesad:

Wow, now the dirty "liberal" word is getting tossed about. I almost surprised it took this long.

This is why I don't buy into these terms, "conservative," "liberal," "social progressive." To me, these are just words used as a means of rejecting the idea of "free thinker." What's absolutely hilarious to me is that most people who toss about such terms will then embrace the opposing term, instantly pigeon-holing both the person they're talking about and themselves. That's why you will NEVER see me referring to anyone as a liberal or a conservative or any other nomenclature intended to reduce people into stupid stereotypes. I could refer to Indy as a conservative, and he may not mind, but I would still consider it an insult because despite him perhaps leaning that way, it limits him from communicating things that I've see him post that actually demonstrate free thought and that avoid the "conservative" conventions. I could call Newt a liberal, and perhaps she may not mind much, but I would be offering the same limitation by doing so. And folks that refer to themselves proudly as either liberal or conservative I tend not to pay much attention to.

This is not to say that I haven't posted unfortunate things that I regret saying. Recently, for example, I lost composure and lumped all atheists into a boat that was perhaps a bit unfair. We all do it at some point or another in our lives.

The thing I appreciate most about your point, AHD, is that you are 100% correct about how these terms get tossed about, and it's really annoying to me. It's as if "free-thinker" is an unacceptable concept. People aren't allowed to be free thinkers anymore, are they? No, they must fall somehow into this 1-dimensional political spectrum that goes left and right. To me, that left/right scale serves no purpose but to polarize and limit people. I tend to favor those that show the ability to reason rather than identify themselves by a socio-political convention as their means of functioning intellectually.

I find that happens with most controversial topics. People have to put you in a category, because it saves them the trouble of listening to you, understanding what you have to say and weighing it against their own opinions. As soon as you've said enough to fit into a particular slot, they'll mentally stick you there and fall back on their stock arguments, based on whatever general knowledge they have.

I recall a while back, I'd gotten into a couple of heated arguments with Lester over economics. At one point, he said that he couldn't figure me out, and asked if I was a Keynesian. While I do think Keynesian economics make a good deal of sense, and I think my arguments reflected that, I wouldn't say Keynes was the be all and end all. But if I had said I subscribed in any way to Keynesian economics, or even mentioned Keynes by name, I suspect Lester would have stopped arguing with me, and started arguing directly with Keynes, with me as proxy.

I've noticed the same thing in this thread. Those who profess to some sort of spiritual belief have been asked to answer for policies and practices of evangelical Christians, Islamic fundamentalists or the Catholic Church, because they've been pigeonholed as "religious" people. Vukxfiles was the clearest example of this. I don't know if he directed a single argument directly at anything one of us actually said. It was all aimed elsewhere through us.

While the discussion has mainly been about our personal beliefs, there have been plenty of arguments leveled at religion in general, and atheism in general. In some cases, it has been fairly examining a broad idea, but in others, it has unfairly lumped people into the same broad category.

Discussing politics and religion seems an almost surefire way to lead to arguments...perhaps why my parents always told me to never argue about them. One believes what one believes. Someone else believes something else. Some people are capable of rethinking, perhaps reevalutlating, their ideas based on discussion with others but some will staunchly defend their beliefs even without even bothering to listen to or hear what others have to say...takes all kinds...

I LIKE the arguments. Arguments have a bad connotation. Arguments are an intellectual process, and if one values their development as a rational human being, one will usually gain from the experience.

I don't know that this thread has really degenerated to the "argument" level, overall - although there has been the occasional tense moment.  It is a freewheeling, enjoyable discussion between friends that have very different views. To me, NOT to allow this kind of exchange - provided everyone concerned is acting civil - would be to stifle the diversity that makes this forum the fun place it is.

This is one of the reasons you and I are friends.  We accept we disagree, yet, we remain civil to one another.  You know I have a special affection for you, Indy... even if you are a du-donkey.  :teddyr: :thumbup: :wink:

And I like you, even if you are a bit thin-skinned on occasion.

I really was NOT trying to turn this into a passionate debate over politics.

It is a much more fun thread as a passionate debate about religion.

Speaking of which:  I think I am a Christian.  Actually . . . . I know it.

Where oh where has my little dog gone?  Oh where oh where can he be??   :question:   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ths6KjYpNHc

I am in complete agreement with Flick James here. Arguments can be unpleasant, and confrontation is always a bit of a harrowing experience if you haven't inured yourself to it. The idea that we should never discuss religion or politics is a sound idea when we're trying to remain civil. It will always lead to an argument, which isn't usually the best way to spend a cocktail party.

But this is the stuff we really care about. Not being able to argue about it reduces all of our points of view, no matter which end of the spectrum we fall on. Arguing in a public forum is the best way to discover what you really think about such-and-such.

If your beliefs can't stand up to a good argument, you're selling them short.

That's one of the reasons I like this forum. Civility. If you go back and reread this entire thread, you can read passionate arguments. And except for a few wingnuts here and there, it has been very civil. But the central arguments are still there, and very vocally argued.

Don't be afraid to disagree and voice your opinion. You may have to defend it in a viciously unpleasant manner, but you'll be better for it when you make it out the other end.

Hey, that's my shtick!

Oh I have nothing against civil argument...I've done more than my share of that in my day albeit usually with someone absolutely immovable with regards to their opinion..it's when it becomes uncivil and unpleasant I don't like it which this thread for the most part has been not to the credit of those posting here.... just wanted to throw that out there...

I get what you mean. However, Indy and I for example, have argued/debated a lot, well, in regard to religion anyway. Despite such a volatile topic, and despite the fact that our exchange has come to an "irresistable force meets the immovable object" point, we still seem to gain from the experience. He's a rare one in that regard, however, and usually it ends up like you say: uncivil and unpleasant.