Badmovies.org Forum

Yer thoughts on the concept of GOD.
I'm an atheist-so why do you believe-if you do?
I think its flat out a crazy.

Don't mean I'm right-there may be a old f**ker running our lives.  :lookingup:

I think that this gorgeous world is a little bit too fine-tuned for life for it to have all happened by accident.
I think that the order and harmony of the cosmos are the fingerprints of its Creator.
I think that the historical evidence, carefully considered, proves that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed rise from the dead.
I think Christianity (as outline in the New Testament, although not always as practiced) makes more sense, ethically and historically, than any other faith out there.
And my faith makes me a better, kinder, and more decent person.

Ergo, I believe.  :smile:

Why do you post stuff that you're going to regret?


***Think of this****

Our point of view is from a fish living inside a fishbowl. Sure we can make science out of everything inside that fishbowl, but it don't answer questions for what we see and we have noway to access...



This is all you have to say... Sure we don't agree politically... but I do agree with you on this :)

I don't regret this-I'm happy that you have such faith. Thats a GOOD thing.I wish I had such faith-but I dont. I envy you

the whole concept is just plain crazy-I just dont get it. Ive seen ufos-4 times-I KNOW that they exist. I have NEVER seen god

Thank you for starting a non-controversial topic to get all the attention off the presidential election!

(Seriously, I think in today's America people are more able to talk reasonably about differences of religious beliefs than they are political differences).

I can totally get agnosticism, but atheism seems to me to be based largely on an internal compass, rather like faith itself.

Like faith, atheism can call on some evidence to support itself, true, terminally sick children being a darn fine argument against a benevolent higher power, but ultimately it comes down to a matter of personal conviction, so it is just as lacking, and, I have to add, rather pessimistic at heart. Given a choice I'd much rather say something is possible than conclude it isn't.

One day about a decade ago I was watching a show on archaeology, and the woman in charge of the excavation at a Mesoamerican site held up a stone ball and said, "We know this is proof of one-time human occupation, because nature could never produce a sphere this perfect."

It suddenly hit me that nature, given eons of time, could not make a humble sphere, something a small child could construct with clay, and yet we're supposed to fall in line to the idea that given that same amount of time nature randomly and with blind chance produced something as complex as a human being?

Almost against my stubborn will something in me clicked and I thought, "....huh...."

But to say a creator exists is not necessarily to take one more leap and say human religions necessarily get it right either.

RC, ever read a book called The Case For Christ? At the very least you might find it interesting.

Sigh... I overestimated our ability to keep things non-controversial.

What about a voluntary ban on using the words "Trump," "Clinton" or "Obama" in this thread? After all, RCs topic was about the philosophical concept of God.

I admit I was wrong when I said people were able to talk reasonably about religious differences. I'm out of the thread, have fun.

I listened to the bible voter to audio cover last year when I was unemployed. It was OK  :wink:

OK, OK Skull!

We get your point.  Islam is bad and Trump is the savior of the universe.

Now how about you take that stuff back to the Presidential thread and let us have a philosophical debate, as Ronnie suggested, on whether or not God exists?  PLEASE? :question:

I agree, except I think you should have a DISCUSSION, not a DEBATE. Debates are about winners and losers and proving yourself right. Discussions occur between friends and are about expanding your knowledge.

Not to call you out, Indy, you are always a great discusser!

Well said, Reverend, and I stand corrected. 

(Although I did call it a "philosophical" debate, which by definition can have no winners!)

Looks like Skull deleted everything you had quoted.    :question:   :lookingup:

Yes, and he asked me to delete where I had quoted him. He requests everyone do the same. I would not interpret that as him backing down on his statements, but rather that he acknowledges they were off topic. I respect that he accepts that.  :thumbup:

I hope he's not ticked - such stuff was fine on the other thread, IMO.  Just didn't belong here.

(http://new1.fjcdn.com/gifs/Toilet_f2fe44_397406.gif)

Perhaps I should read it-I'm not against the idea-I'm just not for it. I just don't KNOW.
I'm a big fan of Charles Fort-he didn't beleive in anything-but he didn't disbelieve  either.
Im open to all thoughts on the matter-anything is possible,I suppose-it's a strange,fantastic universe-and there are things no one may ever understand-I know I won't. I reckon Im not a atheist-an agnostic-I suppose-I love mysteries-and ufos,God,sea monsters,anomalies-all fascinate me.
I was NOT trying to start a religious debate-I was thinking of the idea of concepts that seem impossible-but may be real-or not!

I'm not ticked. I decided to delete my posts because I could use them in the other thread ::)

I was actually sent both Case For books after debating someone on a message board a number of years ago.  They have some interesting people in them, but the main overriding thought I had on it is how intellectually dishonest it was to frame it as a "journalist looking into these things" book, then ONLY talk to one side.  That's essentially sham journalism.  Call it what it is - Christian apologetics, pure and simple.  Strobel is clearly already convinced and presents a very poor opponent to the apologetic people.  It belies his supposed journalistic angle.

As you may guess from someone sending me those books, I'm not religious.  I'll say the books had discussions with some pretty knowledgeable and interesting people (I remember faith more than Christ, honestly), so they may be worth a look if you go in knowing there is minimal real challenge to Jesus' historicity (something, by the way, I wouldn't dispute) or faith itself.

All that said - no god for me.  That said, I don't think faith is a destructive force, but I don't think it's inherently positive either.  Just depends on how it is applied, like anything with people. 

Hmmm.  You could say I'm a non-practicing Catholic of the past 18 or so years.  I don't go to church, unless it's for a wedding or funeral and even then, that doesn't count. 

I agree with most findings found through science, but I think there's a ton of things I've seen/experienced that science doesn't explain. 

I can see taking comfort in believing in a God/afterlife.  If that's what gets one through a rough situation/death of a loved one, etc.

I can't say I'm an atheist, but I'm far from a believer. 

But, I respect anyone who is religious, whatever they believe in.  Unless they're particularly preachy and just comes off as hatred (I say this without attempting to start an argument, but I bring this up as I've seen some Christians be downright hateful to say, homosexuals, as 'it isn't HIS way.)  Last I read the Bible, Jesus was accepting and loving towards everyone, including thieves and hookers so, I'm sure he'd want us to treat gay people with respect and not excommunicate them. :wink:

That's a very good point, HG!  It is worth noting, though, that after forgiving the adulterous woman, Christ said "Go and sin no more," not, "Go and hook up all you want!"

That being said, if more Christians followed the example of Christ, Christianity would not have the negative reputation that it does.

You don't have to be religious to gather some understanding of the human race from the bible. at it's core a history of Israel: They come out of Mesopatamia and go to Canaan (King Melchizedek and the Canaanites are there already) and they go to Egypt and come back and yadda yadda. In the last chapter Jesus arrives and is kind of the Romney esque private equity guy stripping Judaism of it's weak components like why sacrifice animals to God when he made the animals? Why perform all these rituals and hyperventilate about all this stuff it doesn't serve any purpose and there are bigger to fry. Revelation ends it out by saying basically "we got this", the old systems are dead, Jesus lives.

Was Jesus God? did Jesus even exist or my favorite: does it even matter? Maybe "Jesus" was a codeword of sorts for people who hated Rome, hated the pharisees and wanted to live in a healthy positive way with dignity that other ways of life didnt afford them. We dont know. maybe Jesus was Robin Hood, a legend with political connotations maybe he was God, maybe he was a Steve Jobs type innovator. The true measure of his influence really can only be measured in the lives of his followers and those who came soon after he left the planet: 100% of whom were converts from other faiths initially and most still soon afterwards like Justin Martyr here about 100 years later

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3JHeWfIMAAOcxc.png)

Jesus may have been loving but Jesus condemned many things and was critical of many people. Jesus could be fire and brimstone, and in fact spoke more of Hell than anyone else recorded in the Bible, Hell being absent from Jewish teachings and rarely mentioned by, say, Paul. The idea that Jesus was easy-going and tolerated everything is contrary to the records we have of him. It's a misrepresentation.

Well, in fairness, the title of the book does give away its thesis.  It's the case FOR Christ, not the case for and against.  He does assume you've heard all the naysayers.

I think Strobel has gotten better as he's gone along - while THE CASE OF CHRIST is a minor classic, his more recent THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS trumps it altogether.  One thing I do like about him is that each chapter examines the question or issue on a fairly basic level, but then he lists the books written by the scholars he's interviewed on that particular aspect of apologetics, and that way you can get a much more detailed, in-depth look at the issues.  I've actually downloaded and read two of the works cited in THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS, and was highly impressed with both.  Also, his THE CASE FOR A CREATOR is a very handy summation of all the arguments in favor of our world being a work of design rather than chance.  I think it may be my favorite out of the whole set.

This is all very interesting-I'm not against Jesus Christ. I AM against organized relgion-I think more harm than good has come from"my god is better than yours" kinda thought. Be it Christian,Muslim,or wtf ever.

I think it falls into the old "one plane crashes, it's news, ten thousand planes land safely, it's not" category.  The good that is done by churches and synagogues all across America rarely shows up on TV at six and ten except maybe around the holidays, whereas the damage done by the nutjobs and bullies gets played on every news channel.

Just for example - a couple of weeks ago one of my church members died without any insurance.  The VA covered most of his burial expenses, but the family still needed to come up with $3000 for a coffin.  My tiny little church of 30 people, half of them little kids, raised $1100 in a single day to help that family.  Next time you hear about Westboro Baptist picketing some funeral or doing something stupid, remember there are a lot more churches like mine than there are like them.

Massachusetts where I live was the epicenter of the priest sexual abuse scandal. Bernard Law saw what was going on and did nothing, in fact he facilitated it by moving the guys around from parish to parish. He is still employed by the Catholic church. Many Catholics did a lot of soul searching about that but the church itself 's response left a lot to be desired. Some people value "the church" more than actual human beings.

You're so right, lester, especially your last sentence. What has been revealed about the misconduct of a majority of past Catholic Bishops, their protecting the reputation of the Church by shielding a minority of despicable priests, is as criminal as it is disgusting to anyone with a shred of decency.

Anyone in the clergy alive now who undertook abuse or covered it up should face prosecution, and any now deceased who participated should be posthumously exposed as the vile collaborators they were, no matter how big their reputation or extensive their one-time power. 

For years Cardinal Bernardin, our former Archbishop, a man I grew up hearing stories about that made him sound saintly, was cheered for actually being innocent of an allegation of sexual abuse made against him, and now we learn twenty years after his death that while he may have been personally not guilty of abusing anyone, the growing evidence shows even he shielded the guilty, and it makes me sick.

The abuse of children was an institution in the Catholic Church, and all I can say is I do think FINALLY things have gotten better.

One believer carrying on shamefully does more harm to the reputation of Christianity than a thousand doubters attacking it from the outside.

To answer the original question of the thread I personally consider myself agnostic.  Years ago I would've answered "born-again Christian" how I got from there to here is a story that would take way to too long for the simple post to get into.  For the record, yeah I'd *like* to believe there's loving God out there who created us and watches over us and there's a Heaven and/or some kind of Karmic balance to the world where good is rewarded and evil punished etc but I just don't see any concrete evidence of it.  And I can NOT just shut off my brain and accept beliefs which don't correspond with the facts as I know them.

What I really find disturbing (and forgive me if I step on toes here) are all those people that say I need to believe the same thing they do or else I'm going to go to hell and burn for all eternity.  Oh, really? I mean, first up, never mind that's pretty much spiritual terrorism, but how do you know that?  The ONLY people who can truly tell us what happens when we die aren't talking.  Second, what about the millions (maybe billions) of people through time who've died without even having heard of your particular belief system?  Does God/fate/the universe or whatever send them to hell just because they were born at the wrong time? 

And finally, there is and has been THOUSANDS of religious and spiritual viewpoints and beliefs throughout time and you're gonna tell me you somehow won the spiritual lottery and found the ONLY true path?  Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Anyway, I haven't dismissed the concept completely, I'm still searching for a belief system that makes since to me. 

That's a very valid question that Paul explored in the first two chapters of the Book of Romans. 
I don't remember the exact verse, but the gist of it is this:
"When those who do not have the law instinctively do the things of the law, they become  a law unto themselves, and God Himself with judge them." 
That's not exactly it, but it's late and I'm too tired to look it up right now.  I know he also introduces the passage by talking about how God reveals Himself and His will through creation to all men. 

At any rate, it is a very good question.

     It's really hard to explain, but I don't "believe"; I know.

There's a saying about Mormons that is something like: their beliefs are pretty bizarre but as people they are by and large really nice. Nassim Taleb, of whom I'm a fan, has noted that polytheistic faiths tend to be less strident. Islam is the most straightforward religion and also the most violent one. Basically, the more embarrassing your belief system, the less likely you are to be an a hole about it.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Dagon1.jpg)

http://youtu.be/jknynk5vny8 (http://youtu.be/jknynk5vny8)

I do believe it takes more faith to argue against the existence of a creator than it takes to believe there is one. 

It's really not arguable, in my opinion, that even an organelle in our cells would have arisen by chance.  (The concept of "irreducible complexity.")     So if  you just look at what all there is, and how complex it is.. how do you argue against some kind of creator, something that intelligently designed it all?        Working as a physician repeatedly makes this hit home for me.   Over and over, I see how impossibly well designed lifeforms are, humans and others.   And ecosystems.

Others find this kind of faith in, say, mathematics, or music.

Once you believe that there's a creator, then you have to struggle with what the creator is, and whose description of this creator is accurate (if any of them are).    That's a lot of muck to wade through, given that humanity doesn't represent even itself well, much less represent a being that is capable of creating everything we see (and everything we don't see).   

My, my... what was RC's original question again?  Why? Why do I believe?

The short version is that in high school I was exposed to the Catholic church, and I decided that I definitely am not going to be Catholic.    I was living in a podunk little place in southern Michigan (Edwardsburg, MI!   Hi, RC!).  I had moved away from all my friends where I grew up (in Mason) and was in a new high school sophomore year.  I was depressed and lonely as I've ever been, and I was not good at making friends.  I was not Catholic, and I was in a Catholic, college prep high school.  I wasn't fitting in, and my parents'  marriage wasn't doing so great, and my two older brothers were out of the house, and I was pretty close to becoming one of those disenfranchised kids who goes south in some way.   I tried to find solace in the liturgy of Catholicism, but I wasn't buying it.

But... one night.  One of those stiflingly sticky hot summer nights, lying in my upstairs room by myself, God answered my prayer by making me feel him in the room with me.   Don't know how to describe it to you all, exactly.  I didn't see anything, but I could feel the presence of God in the room with me.  Absolutely certainly, someone powerful and imposing filled the air around me, and it was someone who was there with me in my hardest time.   I got through, and although I didn't start saying rosaries and going to mass, I did become a Christian and I still am to this day (non-denominational).          I've been part of a very great church indeed, and I've seen that same church crumble and become nothing.    But God is the same, always.  I've not felt His presence again like I did that one night, but I've seen His work, both outside of myself and inside myself.   That, that's too much to post.   :)

Thanks for reading, RC.  I've lurked and posted and watched for years on this board.  I'm very, very glad you're still with us.

I'm on a 'we're just living in a simulation' bandwagon myself.  :twirl:

Thats the whole thing-relgion and God helps some folks-but-like all things-it can be twisted.You had an honest relgious experiance-lotsa folks just use it as an excuse for predjuce. So I choose NOT to choose-and if you think thats a cop out-no-it isnt-choosing NOT to choose from popular thought is a CHOICE-and not a popular one. I respect folks who use religion for good-the rest can go to their respective hells.

To me, that immediately begs the question of what created god.  If he always existed, created himself, exists outside our universe, or whatever, it's just "irreducible complexity" by a different name and is essentially the same problem.  If that makes more sense to you, I can't argue further with you about it, but for me it's actually an extra degree of complexity, and thus is actually harder to believe.

To say God cannot exist since it cannot be explained how God had a beginning is like saying the universe cannot exist because we cannot explain its beginning either. How can the universe, the "all that is" have a pre-existing state if it is the "all that is" is really the same puzzle that arises in any deep contemplation of God. Aquinas's "uncreated creator" comes closest to providing the only logical explanation that can co-exist with the notion of there being a God. He argued God had no beginning and has always existed. Ultimately that s the same conclusion science draws about the universe, that its matter had no beginning. To chase a thread of logic is a fine pursuit, but at some point we have to be willing to concede that "we don't know" is where we are destined to end up.

I wasn't arguing against God's existence wholesale nor did I say he cannot exist, I argued against the specific argument of "So if  you just look at what all there is, and how complex it is.. how do you argue against some kind of creator, something that intelligently designed it all?" in regards to irreducible complexity.  Basically, I think that's circular as god himself is, obviously, complex - begging the same questions as the complex world does.  That's not an argument against god's existence, just that specific line of thought.  I agree with you otherwise.

Plato said, "That which has a beginning has a cause."  If God has no beginning, He requires no cause.

I was raised Christian but as I've grown older I've begun to question my beliefs more and more.  Nowadays, I'm an agnostic.  

There are two types of agnostic: Strong and Weak.

A strong agnostic thinks: "The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

A weak agnostic thinks: "The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

I consider myself a weak agnostic.
I also have some belief in Intelligent Design.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

RC's question was why do I believe...  That is what I answered.

Then there is nature.  The natural world is amazing, perplexing.  It is all we know, yet, is that the only way of knowing, and, is there more to know? 

I think religion in general is for the weak to be honest. Atheists unite!
EDIT: I recall some eastern religions basic belief if that "once you have found yourself you have found god". That was interesting to me.

I cannot imagine how sad it must be to have nothing higher than human nature to believe in.
Seriously - I remember Dennis Prager (an observant Jew) having this conversation with an atheist Jew on the radio once:
Caller:  "I lost faith in God because of the Holocaust."
Prager: "Did you gain faith in humanity because of the Holocaust?"

Let's be honest:  if we are all there is, the world is screwed.

I understand the idea behind this sentiment, but it doesn't really work that way. Throughout history, religious people have been persecuted (yes, often by other religious people) and martyred for their beliefs without caving to the persecutors. In the early days of Christianity,  most of the original apostles were martyred in horrible ways, and yet not one of them recanted his assertion that Jesus was dead and rose again, conquering death in the process. If they were weak, I would love to see a strong person. The same can be said of members of other religions as well. Of course their are weak people that seek solace in religion, just as there are weak people who cannot muster the strength to admit God's existence.  To generalize to that degree does no justice to anyone. If this comes across harshly, and I see how it might, it is not the way I intended. I just wanted to add my two cents worth.

For the record, yes I know that God exists.

Good points, Derf. I think it is interesting that the apostles went so quickly from frightened self-preserving sorts who fled when Jesus was arrested, denied in at least one case they even knew who Jesus was, to men willing to die for their cause. I find that telling. Clearly something changed their minds and granted them the strength of newfound convictions. Their profound rebirth of faith is one the many points of evidence that Jesus came back from the dead, exactly as claimed in the historical records.

That comes across quite condescending, deliberate or not. 


Why?  The human world is better off in most ways than at any other point in around 5000 years of human history. 


Jesus also had a supposed younger brother who thousands died fighting for, earnestly believing this.  He arose from nothing and amassed a great many followers.  There's a heck of a lot of historical record to back this up too.  Yet I doubt you'd consider this man a legitimate expansion on Christianity.  From a a non-believer's perspective, I find the evidence for the younger brother's existence and fate of his followers much more compelling than that of Jesus and his apostles, and I don't doubt the legitimacy of the beliefs of the man or most of his worshipers; needless to say though, I'm unlikely to convert to either version. 

Citation on the brother, please, Jim?

"Jesus also had a supposed younger brother who thousands died fighting for, earnestly believing this.  He arose from nothing and amassed a great many followers.  There's a heck of a lot of historical record to back this up too.  Yet I doubt you'd consider this man a legitimate expansion on Christianity.  From a a non-believer's perspective, I find the evidence for the younger brother's existence and fate of his followers much more compelling than that of Jesus and his apostles, and I don't doubt the legitimacy of the beliefs of the man or most of his worshipers; needless to say though, I'm unlikely to convert to either version." 

I've spent most of my life researching the origins of Christianity and never found a shred of evidence for this, Jesus' brother James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church and was killed during the first phase of the Jewish revolt in 64 AD.  He authored the Biblical book of James and was known as a man of prayer and faith - but he also said that Jesus was the Son of God and never tried to start a rival movement, much less a military one.  According to one account, he was murdered by the Pharisees for denouncing military revolt against Rome.  But he was never worshipped or had 'thousands die fighting for' him that I ever heard of.  Got a source for that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Xiuquan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Xiuquan)

His movement led to the second most lethal war in human history.

Living 1800 years later, there is no way this man was a brother of Jesus any more than David Korsh was His "reincarnation."  Just another revolutionary cashing in on the name.

To quote a fellow who shares my birthday-

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

-H.P.Lovecraft

He uses some nice long flowing sentences-befitting a writer-to say: "It's bulls**t!"

Why not? The Father is still alive, right? If he can have one son, in whatever incarnation, he can have another. I am aware of the gospel issues with that, but it's easy to hand wave it away just like other spinoff religions do - and as the church itself did with books they didn't accept as canon.

My point isn't that I actually believe this story, just that if converting non-believers to die for you is evidence, Hong certainly has the same thing going for him - as does Koresh. And Mohammed. Brigham Young for that matter. There's also much better historical evidence of the fates of these followers than the Apostles. Li Hongzhi for that matter - he's still alive, had a sudden strong rebirth of practitioners, and people are currently dying for the religous practices he partly created.  

Alright, I'm being a bit belligerent, but if people are going to argue for a specific faith in specific ways on an open thread like this, I feel it's invited.

Actually what you're saying is even steven. If I am expected to believe all this fantastic stuff-Christ rising from the grave-a giant invisible enity who KNOWS ALL-(but really does nothing)-its not so far fetched.
I aint against religion-it's a superstition invented by man to help us cope with things we can't figure out.
I'm against trying to force it onto folks-by bloodshed! It's more dividing the people on your God's green earth than uniting it.

I would garner to say I'm anti-Religion only in the aspect that it's led to more senseless violence in the names of beings we can't even see.  The Crusades, countless wars, etc.  ISIS/Muslims, whomever, and the dozens of videos where they're beheading people.

There's no Atheist who's beheaded someone, on camera, while shouting "All praise to NOTHING." 

That's another issue entirely, I suppose.

If anything-my starting posts about religion and politics has done the thing I wanted to-it gave some life to this dying board.  :wink:
Cuz I really love this board-and it was getting mundane.

Oh yeah-my new avatar is Bela as Christ giving the world an eyeroll.  :lookingup:
Cuz if ya cant deal with this big ball of mud without a sense of humor- :lookingup:

Ten Commandments--George Carlin.
http://youtu.be/CE8ooMBIyC8 (http://youtu.be/CE8ooMBIyC8)

Ok-I aint an atheist-Carlin is my Jesus. :cheers:
Yea-though I walk through the valley of morons,I will not be afraid-because-well-I'm dealing with morons.

Carlin, I grew up with, saw him on HBO as a young kid.  Shaped my ways of thinking.

Yer alright RC.  :cheers:

OK, Jim, I get your point.  But I will say this:  Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and every other religious leader in the history of the world save one - STAYED DEAD when they died.

Mine didn't.

That's why I believe.

"There's no Atheist who's beheaded someone, on camera, while shouting "All praise to NOTHING."  



Perhaps not, but in the Soviet Union millions were persecuted, jailed, killed, for the cause of atheism. Churches, mosques, temples, were destroyed, believers tormented, tortured. I think given sufficient numbers and a chance to be in authority, atheists are as capable as anyone of being tyrants who kill for their beliefs. Some of the rudest and most closed-minded people I've known have been atheists. And some of the most selfish.

There is a tribalism in humankind that brings with it an us and them mentality, a need to bring others into the fold or else subjugate them, and no group has a monopoly on that intolerance. If people would live and let live and adopt the golden rule, this world would go a long way toward becoming paradise.

I don't think that was in the name of atheism,I think it was more in the name of Stalinism. Stalin didn't want the Catholic church to influence the masses-not so much as he really was an atheist. He was a maniac.
As for the golden rule-thats a nice platitude-but it will never happen with relegious fanatics trying to force their "golden rules" on every one else. It just aint never gonna happen.Religion is the major cause of most wars-thats a fact-not a theory.History has proven it time and again.Everyone living under one Golden Rule is a nice fantasy,though-and thats it-a fantasy.

As far as atheists being rude and close minded-well-that can apply with anyone with a belief system. It's not the belief-it's the person. Me sweetie Tiana believes in God-and I don't try to shove my beliefs down her throat-or her's down mine. And we love each other.

It's a nice idea to think when you have no one to turn to-when life just seems to be collapsing around you-that their is someone on your side upstairs.
Praying to God-I think-is just a way of looking into yourself to find the strength to push on. Isn't in the Bible somewhere-that to find God-look into your heart? I think thats what it means. We ALL have God in ourselves-and that is YOU. YOU make the choice-not God-it says that in the Bible-I know that much. We are the masters of our own Destiny. The Bible is a great book-it's teachings have just been distorted. God is not a real being-it's YOU.

"Me sweetie Tiana believes in God-and I don't try to shove my beliefs down her throat-or her's down mine. And we love each other."

In other words you two are living by the Golden Rule, eh, RC? ;-)

"Beloved, love one another, for he who loves is born of God, and knows God."  - I John

Yes! I think the Golden Rule is a GOOD THING-I'm not trying to say it isn't-but if you try to force it on others-you broke the rule.And there are always others who will try to "tempt" you-I don't need a "god" to know that thats just common decentsy. Decentsy-Decentsy-wtf? How-DESENTCY? Dagnabbit!

Y'all ever see that Rowan Atkinson special where he played the devil greeting new arrivals in Hell, and he had them line up according to what sent them there, and when he got to the atheists he looked up from his chart and goes, "Well, you lot must be feeling like a right bunch of nitwits about now...."

I hadn't, good stuff.

Sucks for the Christians too, heh.  Don't Jews not believe in hell? All good though.

Everyone is an atheist from a certain perspective, just a matter of precisely how many gods you don't believe in. Monotheists are far more atheistic than polytheists.   :wink:

http://livescripts.blogspot.com/2011/10/rowan-atkinson-as-devil.html?m=1 (http://livescripts.blogspot.com/2011/10/rowan-atkinson-as-devil.html?m=1)

We prefer to think of ourselves as more discriminating in our theistic tastes!  :teddyr:

"Don't Jews not believe in hell?"

Correct. There may be some but I don't think any I've ever met believe in Hell, no, but there isn't a lot of cohesion in Jewish thought. Some Jews believe that death is simply death, no afterlife. This includes most Chasidic sects, a lot of Orthodox. Some Jews seem to find reason to think the Messiah will usher in a sort of eternal Eden on this planet, in which the dead return to life, and the living never die. I once went to a Reform wedding in which this philosophy was mentioned in the rabbi's homily.

Many, being practical sorts as most Jews tend to be, will simply say, "We don't know, but we trust in G-d." There is probably a certain wisdom in that last view. All in all it's likely if you go to to a temple and ask twenty Jews the same question you'll get variations in the twenty answers.

I think there's a case to be made the the Christian concept of Hell, particularly Hell as a place of fire, began with Jesus. For humanists this is another black mark on Jesus, that he'd speak of an idea that has caused so much misery and worry across time. For believers it is something to keep in mind. If the man who came back from the dead said Hell is real, it doesn't do to lose sight of that.

Many years ago my cousin told me something scary. She almost (or more or less almost) died from substance abuse and said to me later that she had a feeling as she was losing consciousness of regretting wasting her life, and feeling a terrified certainty that she was going to have to spend "forever" in that state of endless miserable regret, and it was so sad that as she was passing out/away she screamed out to Jesus over and over in her mind.

When she told me that I was about fifteen and vocally anti-religious even though I went to Catholic school, and agnostical at best, and her words didn't inspire me to repent or go to confession, but they were chilling because she said that to me one on one and was utterly sincere and scared.

But my thought in bringing that up is, wouldn't it be terrible to go on and on after death stuck in the sadness of your own self-created misery? Maybe Hell has nothing to do with religion. Maybe it's just....there. A condition entered into sometimes at death. I still remember her words like it was yesterday. Creepy.

Also while it's certainly possible that all religions are equally false, it impossible that all religions are equally true. That is contrary to the simplest logic, and downright stupid.

For most of my life I felt a warring impulse to believe people were soul-less biological beings who were born and died, were reduced to our atoms (thinking this made me feel sophisticated), and our consciousness was lost, yet I also was moved to believe we lived many lives and there was some ultimate justice in our circumstances, whether we perceived it or not. I was comfortable thinking that and spent a lot of time contemplating a universe that worked that way, lifetime balancing lifetime, rebirth coming after death. I found some pathetic comfort in thinking maybe some of the pains I had in life had some reason behind them and weren't the result of random events colliding with other random events. Maybe, I thought, there was some sort of sane karma behind loving someone so completely and losing him so pointlessly, or my brothers dying when I was a child, or various things that came to pass in my own life, which, not to be self-pitying, has had its moments of sorrow and agony. (Not that I'd choose to be anyone else and I have much to be grateful for.)

Then oddly, even that solace went away, and I thought, wow, it's true, nothing has meaning, there is no plan to life, the dead are just gone, accidents are just accidents, chains of circumstances, there is no one at the helm, we are helpless and vulnerable and all too brief. Why not do whatever you want, since nothing matters? And what's odd is....for the longest time, especially when I was at my most grieving about sixteen years ago, I felt some peace in that. If nothing mattered then...nothing mattered.

That is how I felt for a long, long time.

Now, I have to tell you, if you can possibly believe otherwise, even if it turns out you're self-deluded and wrong and we all go to dust, and God is nothing but an imaginary friend, it makes for a more pleasant life to think that one day just maybe you'll meet your loved-ones again, and all the pains of this existence won't matter, everything will be okay. If you can possibly find a way to feel like that, you're doing yourself a favor.

Shrug. I know there's a lot that can be said against all this in counter-argument, but it's helped me.

Just laying my soul bare here.

Feeling that we'll get to see our long-lost loved ones gives us a good feeling, I'll agree with that, ER.

Can I say I believe that? No.  But it's weird.  I also believe in ghosts and the paranormal.  And religious folk write that off.  "No such thing as ghosts."  But, growing up Catholic, I've been taught of purgatory and 'spirits' stuck in a loop until they make it through...ghosts, essentially, roaming the earth, but that's another argument entirely. 

Let it all hang out,baby.  :thumbup:

Not always.  Many of them write it off by saying if it's supernatural and ain't from God, it's the Devil (or his demons) trying to trick you.

Believe me, I could go into a lot of loooong posts on this subject.  

Please do.

It's all interesting to me.

This talk of ghosts and religion reminds me, there is a church in Cincinnati, near the university, called Saint Monica-Saint George (oddly it has swastikas on the marble floor, they being some sort of Byzantine cross; the church pre-dates Nazisim by a healthy margin) and funnily enough I have spoken with three priests who pastored there, and every single one has said, "That church is haunted." In fact if you Bing'd/Googled the church there are probably stories about it being haunted.

I have a feeling many things might exist, ghosts, potentially other planes, perhaps spirits of the benign and malign sorts (Japanese kami, etc) the whole nine yards, and not mean one thing about whether there is a God or not, or have anything to do with human-created religion. I used to know a Rosecrucian (I may be misspelling that, holding a sleeping kid, typing one-handed and I'm not going to look up that spelling) who told me something I've remembered for years. There is no supernatural, only that within nature we do not understand.

(http://new1.fjcdn.com/gifs/Drunk_770789_544324.gif)

Can I say that I like this a LOT better than the "Who should be President?" thread?

Reminds me...  The closest thing I've ever felt to a spiritual connection to a place or idea was actually at a tiny Shinto shrine stuck in the middle of Tokyo.  Nothing really happened, just the low key natural beauty and vibe of the place, the way it was literally in the middle of a gigantic sprawling metropolis but was somehow quiet, the clear respect the nearby denizens paid to it, the look and feel of the purification fountains, just being there...  Approached magic somehow.  

I'm a massive geek, enjoy history, am a heavy movie and TV watcher, collect old video games and play new ones, and yet in Tokyo, Japan the strongest connection I felt to anything was to a 200 year old empty shrine.  I think that speaks to something.  I'm just not entirely sure what.

See, I agree with this. Pronoia is a useful skill for your personal life, just maybe not for making things better. This is powerful, and probably useful, just maybe not true.

Now, I count myself as agnostic. Not because I believe there is a God and any of the major religions have a handle on it. I choose agnostic because I think it's kind of a meaningless, unprovable hypothesis. That might seem harsh, but the religion I grew up with, Christianity, makes it a central tenet. Yes, I do know all about the mystery of faith and basic science. So I can't say I'm an atheist, but I will say that I think all major religions are full of beans. Fun, the way stuff works.

So that's what I believe, but I'm not some militant. You believe that, I don't. Almost all of my friends and family believe that, you are not a minority. In fact, I am, it's a conversational topic I avoid.

If we got right down to it, I'm interested in the pronoia aspects. Placebos work, and that's weird as hell.

Despite all my issues - sexual abuse as a child and also as an adolescent, abandonment, hurt, anger, etc - I do believe that there is a higher power.

Agreed: I would really like to give Dad a hug again.

Some people find recreational drugs give them a good feeling and help them get through the pains of this existence.  

"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." - Karl Marx

I find that what Mofo Rising said mostly applies for me, too.  There is something more, it is unproveable, belief takes faith and religions per se for all the good they may do, have a lot to answer for as well.  Live and let live - which is pretty much the message of the church I grew up in (The United Church of Canada: originally an amalgam of Methodist, Congregational, and Presbyterian).  And it is a conversational topic that I generally try to avoid.

 :thumbup: :thumbup:

I've had way more supernatural experiences than I'd care to.  What's it all mean? I dunno.  But if I can believe that, I can't NOT believe in God but I'm willing not to.  I dunno.

We can't prove the existence of either.   :cheers:

I consider mself to be a devout Christian. By some measures, I am conservative,  while by others, I am fairly liberal. On the subject of ghosts, I find it interesting when really conservative Christians deny their existence. If someone believes that everything in the Bible is a true account, then the existence of ghosts and communing with the dead is undeniable: in I Samuel, Saul gets a medium in En-Dor to call the ghost of Samuel, and she does it. It isn't a demon or the devil; it is the spirit of Samuel, who then proceeds to tell Saul he is going to die. Therefore, according to the biblical account, it is possible to communicate with the dead. God says we shouldn't,  but it is apparently possible.

As for the viability of the world's major religions, I would agree that none have it fully right. However, Christianity in its purest form seems to me to do it best, even if you consider God ultimately unknowable. The tenets of Christianity call for loving your fellow man and taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. I am unaware of any other religion that calls for this quite as stridently. I know that doesn't necessarily make Christianity true, but the doctrines, along with a long list of historical accounts, has convinced me that it is. At the very least, the philosophy of Christianity sets an example of a better, more peaceful and more beneficial way to live. Some say that you don't need a god to live that way, and there is some truth to that. But I am personally convinced that God exists and that he has been interacting with mankind from the beginning. He cannot be proven definitively to exist through scientific means, and I think in many ways,  that is a good thing. The whole idea of free will (which I know is another can of worms altogether) depends on God's mysteriousness. I would love to be able to convince everyone to join with me in my faith, but I am not naive enough to think that will ever happen. In the end, I can only say that I am doing my best to act on what I am convinced is true, and that I am living my life trying to be the best I can be, both for myself and for those around me.

Nicely said, Derf!

It's also interesting that the Bible doesn't seem to deny the existence of other gods, and even seems to show those other gods have power.

"Put no Gods before me."
But I regress -I have no problem with folks beliefs in a God-I have a problem with folks trying to force their beliefs on others.
What I believe-don't ever matter. But it's not the idea of God I'm against-I reckon-it's organized religion I'm against.-the Idea of God is swell! If it makes ya happy! You can believe in a rusty VW Van in yer backyard! I might even join yer prayer meetings if thats yer bag!  :wink:

Well, gosh, where to begin?  Again, I was once what most people would call a charismatic, born-again Christian.  Now, there's differences in opinions, of course, but basically charismatics believe that the bible is LITERAL truth (world was created in SIX days, Jesus did walk on water, perform miracles, etc, both Old and New Testament are true, Methuselah lived to be 969 and so forth.)  They also feel if you believe hard enough, that things like healing and other miracles can occur today. Some Christians even take this belief so far as to say that ANY medicine beyond prayer is not from God (thankfully, the people I hung out with were a bit more reasonable than that.)  I do, though, remember one incident when I was talking to my Pastor and I casually mentioned having trouble with my asthma recently, he asked, rather seriously, "By the way, how long are you going to keep that around?" Implying that it was my lack of belief that was preventing God from miraculous curing my asthma.  Neatly enough, our Pastor wore glasses, but I didn't think to point this out to him.

Back on subject, they also tended to believe that God sends the Holy Spirit to endow people with gifts, like healing, seeing visions, getting supernatural insights into people, and praying in tongues.  

Now, again, all these are hotly debated without various denominations, but I'm just focusing on the group I'm most familiar with.  The church I went alot of the people could "speak in the Spirit" which was, either speaking in another language, or speaking in a language only Angelic beings can understand, or, as I believe now, just babbling incoherently.  They also believe that just as there's God, the Holy Spirit, and angels, there's also devils.  And they're primary goal is to lead us away from God.  Again, how much power they actually have is up to debate, but my group tended to believe that ANYTHING supernatural that occurred that the practitioner didn't directly attribute to God was from the Devil or one of his minions.  As such, they weren't too big on stuff to do with say, New Age materials, magic, the Pagan elements of Easter/Christmas or Halloween.  Now, some are more reasonable than others, but I know Christian couples who literally won't let their kids watch any shows that have anything to do with magic, irregardless of the content because, you know, magic's of the devil. Even if it's something seemingly cute and innocent like Care Bears or Disney fairy tales.

And as I said, before, Ghosts, in their world, do not exist.  A "ghost" (if it's real and not just some kind of hoax or effect) is actually just a demon masquerading as a ghost so they can fool people.  Psychics?  Again, if they're real (as in, they have real talent and not just frauds making generalizations) then they're also demonically influenced (maybe even full out possessed if they go into a "trance" state).  They get this belief from such verses as Leviticus 19:31 "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God." In fact, in Acts 16:16 it says, "One day as we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl with a spirit of clairvoyance, who earned a large income for her masters by fortune-telling." (Some translations say, "Demon" instead of Spirit, dunno off-hand what the original Greek word is.)

It's actually kind of an interesting theory if you think about it.  I mean, imagine you have all these thousands (or maybe millions) of invisible, immortal creatures (demons) who, we presume, have perfect memories and some of them hang around people all day, just watching them.  Getting to know them, their actions, what they say and do.  I'd say someone like that would get to know you pretty well after a short period, huh?  They could probably even predict what you'd do in a given situation.  So, among other things, one of them could play "telephone tag" with another demon and the second demon could whisper stuff into, say, a "psychics" ear and viola!  You think you're talking to someone who can REALLY see the future.  Because, after all, how could they know so much about you, a person they've never meet?

Now, of course, the question might arise, why?  Why in the world would demons spend all their time doing all this crazy stuff?  Why all the elaborate ruses and hoaxes?  Well, to get you away from God, of course!  The world is some big spiritual game of chess according to some Christians.

BTW, side note on the whole using psychics/ghosts thing, someone else pointed out the verse in the Old Testament where King Saul (the guy who was in charge before David took the throne, NOT the Saul/Paul of the New Testament) went to see the witch of Endor and, at his urging, she apparently manages to summon the spirit of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel, chapter 28:3–25).  Supposedly, the prophet appears, gripes about being "woke up" and reaffirms that Samuel is screwed. EDIT: (But again, Samuel's situation with God is yet another thread I could go into but I won't for now.)

So, the debate from this goes, what really happened?  Some believe that God allowed Samuel to appear in this instance just so he could give Saul one last rebuke.  Others says it was actually a demon masquerading as Saul.  Another theory (which I hadn't heard before, just read it on Wikipedia) is that the witch was actually a ventriloquist and she faked the whole thing. There's an interesting source on this in Wikipedia  "Hans-Josef Klauck, Brian McNeil Magic and paganism in early Christianity: the world of the Acts of the Apostles p66 2003 "A classical example is King Saul's visit to the 'witch' of Endor. The Septuagint says once that the seer engages in 'soothsaying' and three times that she engages in 'ventriloquism' (1 Sam 28:6–9)."

But again, based on all the various other verses in the bible against spiritualists and the fact that Saul only did this act out of desperation and STILL got told off it's considered by many Christians to be proof God doesn't endorse trying to talk to the dead.

So, anyway... what do I think?  I dunno.  I've heard some stories from Christians over the years about encountering people who were supposedly demonically possessed.  They'd show signs like being able to bend their bodies into unusual (and normal circumstances unobtainable positions), supernatural strength, speaking in languages they don't know, etc (yes, pretty much everything you've seen on pretty much every "Exorcism" movie ever.)  Of course, even if any of those "signs" are true, they each also have medical explanations.  Like with most everything now, while I find it interesting to read/discuss about, I reserve belief for what I can actually verify for myself.

This man speaks for me-


http://youtu.be/8r-e2NDSTuE (http://youtu.be/8r-e2NDSTuE)

The whole concept is either-
1.Ancient folks worshipping aliens-and I think that stupid TV show ancient aliens takes it too far-but I do think it's possible.
2. Made Up s**t-so you will obey rules. We got cops-they had God.

-