I was talking about attitude towards non-religious donations etc, not the corruption thing. Hence what I quoted.
Also, you didn’t answer my last point.
That would actually make more sense than worshipping God. The sun and the benefits it gives us are visible almost every day, which according to one of my favourite comedians “kind of helps the credibility along”.
In fact, as far as I know, most religious myths about an iconic figure being born on December 25th by a virgin maiden and later killed and ressurrected after 3 days are an astrologic metaphor for winter solstice. As can, for instance, be read here.
What point? The Catholic Church’s stance towards AIDS prevention sucks, but its not exactly an indictment of religious charities as a whole.
You said religions back charities and do good, so made a counter argument, it’s what we do. I didn’t say it was representative of all religions.
I picked out Catholicism as it’s one of the religions that has massive weight in the realm of charity, often in a negative way: one of the reasons why the US Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief excludes anyone involved with sex workers.
I see exactly what you did - like I just said, it isn’t an indictment of religious-backed charities as a whole. The majority of the largest charities being either explicitly religious or founded by the religious community is a fact that supports religion being a force for good, the faults of the Catholic position on sex notwithstanding.
I hate to admit it, but the Pope is right on this one. Surely AIDS can be prevented from spreading by use of condoms, but it will never disappear. And not every condom is entirely safe to use. Only a change in attitude towards with whom to have sex and under what circumstances can lead to a major blow against AIDS. People need to learn not to fuck around with just anybody, but to get to know their sex partners first, to earn their trust and find out if they are trustworthy - and, ultimately, to test their own and their partner’s health before indulging in sexual activities. That requires a massive rethinking of how to handle sexual relationships, and it requires it from everybody. Money and condoms alone can only try to keep the disease under control. But they will not achieve victory over AIDS.
Condom Advertisements in Germany follow the slogan: “No chance for AIDS”. But to give AIDS no chance means to not fuck around carelessly. Try to make that sound cool for teenagers in the middle of their puberty!
It’s not as simple as that, especially in places like Africa.
You also seem to have missed that part where he says condoms aggravate the problem.
Bad condoms do.
Also good condoms that are not used properly, do it as well.
Also: No matter whether you have good or bad condoms and know or don’t know how to use them properly, just the fact that you have condoms makes you care less about AIDS.
Sounds like aggravation of the problem to me, so yeah - seeing it from that point of view, the guy is right. (can you call the Pope a “guy”?)
What?!
Yeah, seeing from an unrealistic point of view he’s right: seeing it from a realistic point of view he’s causing the deaths of thousands.
People have sex. They will do it with or without condoms. With condoms, many, many people don’t get AIDS and live happy lives. Without, they all die excruciating deaths.
So, rounding this up because I don’t see me responding further to this thread (it’s gotten rather tangential):
- There’s no evidence for God because there can’t be.
- If God does interact with our reality, then there must be a mark extant in our reality; something that we can test. To date, no “mark” has ever been put forth*.
- Religion can be a good thing or a bad thing. It can make corrupt people more corrupt if they feel that they’re right and that God is on their side. It can make corrupt people less corrupt if they feel they might not be right and God will punish them for their misdeeds. It can make good people less good if their God says that they should involve themselves in places where they aren’t wanted (“But it’s for your own good!” is arrogant.) It can make good people even better…for obvious reasons. There is no evidence, however, that people that do not ascribe to your personal religion are necessarily “good” or “bad”. And…
- God is a slippery minx, isn’t he? When you can’t find him, just change his characteristics into something that has been shown to exist (Big Bang, light, love, etc).
If anyone wants to respond to this, I’ll be willing to converse. Otherwise, I’ll see you in the funny papers…er, I mean…another thread.
- No, the Bible isn’t a “mark” any more than “Star Wars” is evidence of the Force.[/SIZE]
Your experience of how religious people treat atheists is far different than mine. I’ve never asked for proof ( or if I did I misspoke ). What I’m looking for is any sort of REAL evidence that can be tangibly tied to any religion, which would lead a reasonable person that basis their beliefs off of logical method thinking to consider ANY religion more credible than any other imaginary/fictitious conjuring.
The problem with this analogy is that sports fans are not required to do act say or think anything. It’s an open personal choice that isn’t dictated by any set doctrine. At best you have social pressures. Social pressure is a different beast though when not backed up by concrete ‘rules of conduct’.
I prefer to respond with thought inducing comments, rather than outright angry comments. Try not to take this to indicate anything specifically, but religious wars have claimed countless lives. Because there is no demand for atheists to defend their beliefs in any way at all let alone a large offensive way, I doubt we would see any atheist war on religion.
I’m not sure how that would be a way to deal with a reasonable person, but rather a person of weak mind willing to take persuasive sweet talk as truth. Reasonable people should demand evidence not readings from some book that offer up stories and messages. The only benefit such things would have would be to get a person thinking about their conduct as a person. Personally I see all religious texts as fictitious works that only serve as morality tales.
You can’t prove ANYTHING about a god figure. You can’t even, by the very nature of a ( in the case of the current context ) christian god, provide any real tangible evidence of a god.
You can believe what you like of course. I wish you wouldn’t believe things that contradict your very perception of the world around you. I am interested to know WHY you believe if you claim to be a reasonable person. What is is that convinces you that of all religions out there, that yours is right, and WHY you belive. If I am to be expected to believe anything about religion, which almost all religions believe I should, I am going to need some sort of reason it’s not just a group of people asking me to believe nonsense.
What confuses me is why religious texts can be totally ignored in some of the critical areas, while it’s still okay to accept the whole as something to base a faith system on. In Genesis of the christian text the god figure shows himself to be a liar ( or at best a deceiver ) and an unjust deity. This image in the later texts totally changes this. How can that happen? Is THIS what I’m supposed to accept as the word of an infallible being?
Does this ever make you question yourself? Maybe that you work so hard to accept there being a god because you want there to be? That is an honest question.
I don’t assume anything. I have to say though, that in my life religion hasn’t done a very good job of seeming to be anything but flight of fancy.
exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. I don’t make any claims about anything beyond what I know, or can come up with evidence for. Can you make that claim?
Not if you really know what it means. It’s an every day challenge to question, and strive to understand the world around you.
I don’t see children working all that hard to believe in things that aren’t real. It actually seems to be a natural function of the human brain.
Maybe if a convincing argument inciting a different method of thinking can be created, then he can be persuaded to base his beliefs of evidence instead of…???
That’s a pretty hard question to answer, and anything I write here will inevitably fall short of doing it justice. The short answer is that I personally don’t know why I believe in God. However, whether it is due to twisting of logic or beliefs or not, science and religion can coexist. There’s nothing that I’ve learnt that disproves the existence of God and there will never be. As I said before, I find it hard to believe in an all-powerful being, but the teachings of religion I find very easy to believe and support. I suppose my belief in God, however small, stems from the concept of morality.
Personally, and as far as I know this isn’t a religious teaching, I like to think that morality is something that has been given to humanity through evolution. Our concepts of right and wrong are what make our lives worth living. For me, there seems to be a reason why acts of spontaneous generosity and kindness leave you feeling good. If you give money to charity or do something kind to a complete stranger, even just smiling at them, you feel good about yourself. It sounds soppy, sentimental and naive perhaps, but if a complete stranger smiles at you it is something you’ll remember for a long time. Why is it that humans feel such strong emotions and have such a powerful and overriding awareness of right and wrong, even in situations we couldn’t possibly predict?
The answer is that we were taught it, but that is only part of it. What Jesus taught and the things that he spoke of (the first will be last and the last will be first, whoever is humble shall be raised up, love your enemies, forgive not just seven times but seventy times seventy seven) were illogical, almost paradoxical, but make perfect sense when looked closely at. The Jewish laws of an eye for an eye are really just human nature, and in the words of Ghandi make everyone blind. Jesus said that he didn’t come to rewrite the law but to complete it, implying that human logic is flawed. What he taught makes sense to us in hindsight, but it doesn’t make sense naturally - if you love your enemy and forgive endlessly then you’re inevitably going to be screwed over several times, but that’s simply looking at yourself and on a very small scale.
Where human logic is flawed is that we simply look out for ourselves and those we love - that’s the logical and sound solution. There are a lot of dangerous people in the world and why should we risk our health and happiness to please them when we have our friends and loved ones to look out for? However, the illogical teaching of Jesus is that we should lead by example and love our neighbours as ourselves, thinking of humanity as a whole rather than on a personal level, and I respect that.
For me, part of the reason why I believe that Jesus was from God is that his teachings were completely and utterly illogical superficially, but also revolutionary. Ultimately, even if there is no God and Jesus was merely a philosopher, his teachings still make sense and I am happy to do my best to follow them. I’ll fail countless times, but going to church reminds me of them and keeps my morale up. There’s a lot I don’t understand and don’t agree with, but that’s life - you learn.
I’m sure this won’t satisfy you, but that’s my own personal opinion.
The analogy was used to illustrate that not all religious followers are the same, nor do they know everything about the religion and nor are they anywhere near perfect. They’re people above anything else.
I didn’t mean to imply that you personally were being aggressive, but often that seems the case on the internet - that people know there’s no way you can respond with violence so words are the only tool available. They say what’s on their mind, but they can do it overly aggressively and often without meaning to. I agree with you about religious wars - religion is a powerful tool and can be used dispicably. There have been countless cases of unanswerable evil done in the name of religion in the world’s history. I won’t defend it, but who’s to say that those sorts of things wouldn’t have happened, or what the world would have turned out like without religion? There’s always going to be a cause worth fighting and dying for, and people will inevitably be deceived and taken advantage of. If it wasn’t for a God that they fought for then it would have been for a king or out of fear of something.
I agree, but then you have faith. If there was unrefutable evidence somewhere, then there would be no point in faith at all. It’s a catch 22 I know. Some people say that they encounter God when they feel overwhelming joy in praise or being kind to people - I personally haven’t felt that sort of joy in a long time, nor do I feel comfortable praising something I can’t see, but I’ve certainly encountered it. The problem is that whatever ‘evidence’ that people give for their belief in God can also be explained as coincidence. Catch 22 again.
I know, I was the one who stated that in my post.
I don’t mean to sound sarcastic or haughty, but how is anything I believe in contradicting my own perception of the world around me?
That’s a very good question and something which I can’t reply to as I’m looking for the same answer. Some people will try and defend God, but that’s something I can’t agree with because, by the very nature of itself, God’s ways are not ours. Perhaps it’s simply a metaphor, perhaps not. Out of curiosity, which example were you thinking of when God shows himself to be a liar or deceiver? This is probably where most people find it impossible to follow God - they get hung up on the Bible which is something that I don’t entirely agree with or understand, nor do I pretend to.
Of course, every day. I question myself a lot, wondering whether the reason I follow a religion is because I’m too scared to give it up? It’s still a possibility. However, I went for three years without going to church, where I might not have rejected God per se, as I still agree with Jesus’ teachings, but I certainly didn’t count myself as a Christian and I didn’t follow any teaching. The experience was inconclusive to be honest - I slept around and drank a lot in my first year of uni, but that didn’t make me happy. I’m not saying that only God can bring happiness or that happiness can’t come from leading a normal life without God, but I simply find that I’m a moral person.
No, I can’t. Is that what you wanted from this topic? If it is then you already knew that, as I’ve been saying that throughout, that there is no proof for religion.
I would argue that they don’t understand - they believe in Father Christmas because they want to and because their brains haven’t developed fully to look at the evidence for and against and come to a conclusion. The exact same can be said of religious believers I know, but perhaps their belief comes from something altogether more philosophical and human, through emotions they feel and the kindness they encounter in others. A child will believe in a mythical being who comes down chimneys because they find presents in the morning and because their parents say so, but they’re basing that off different things to what a Muslim might or a Christian.
There you have physical evidence and strong support from a more knowledgable person than yourself. A religious belief is based on more intangible proof - evidence that will only be evidence to the person themselves - catch 22 again. It’s strong proof to the individual though, hence why two thirds of our world’s population follow a religion.
[/QUOTE]
You won’t find one. I don’t like the idea of religion being based on something that isn’t evidence. As I said before, my belief is more in the human spirit and our concepts of morality. The lack of physical evidence of God is something that makes me uncomfortable, but the whole basis for this topic is that believers believe something that you can’t comprehend. I’m not saying they are more intelligent that you or me (I can’t comprehend it either), but it is impossible for you to understand the sort of emotion that goes with religion at the moment. If you have ever felt it, then you would most likely dismiss it with a psychological reason that could never have come from God - I see it as a psychological reason as well, but I also see no fault with God’s ways being interpreted by science. If it has a scientific explanation it doesn’t immediately make it man-made or anonymous, just as evolution can be seen as God’s detailed construction - catch 22. You’ll just say that I’m on the other camp, refusing to think of anything as not being from God - but that’s where you and I differ. You need an explanation. I do too, but I can accept one without physical evidence.
Yesterday, someone locked a much more calmer thread “Ask a Christian”, so I’d like to post my answer to certain questions here.If it doesn’t make sense, please look the questions in the original thread. This is mainly for Keresh and Danson.
It doesn’t really matter. Bible is not a requisite of salvation. You don’t need to know the Ten Commandments or anything else by heart, and you can still be saved. People before Moses/Jesus still saw the Miracle of life all around them, and they could still choose to live a good life, help the poor, protect the helpless, feed the hungry etc. Some of them did, some of them didn’t.
See above. Commandments, Bible, Psalms… they are all just guidelines, explicit advice how to live. But many can achieve that kind of understanding of “good life” even without being told.
Keresh, I haven’t said they are wrong. If you prepare a hamburger for me, I’ll eat it and probably say “This was a good meal.” But if you prepare Cordon Bleu (or whatever it’s spelled like), I’ll probably say “This is a great meal.”
Both can satisfy hunger, both are OK as meal. It’s just that the C.B. is better.
It’s common sense, really. You may have 20 different candidates to fill the position of Teacher. The first one has 2 years of theory education and no practice. The next one has 5 years of theory and 2 years of practice. The 20th has 20 years of practice and 30 years of theory, and is the author of a fundamental thesis on how to Teach properly. Whom would you prefer? And how much MORE would you be willing to pay the best available teacher to get him?
Christianity simply asks of us certain things, that some other religions don’t. And it simply provides answers or guidance for things that some other religions don’t. Many are not willing to pay the price Christianity asks for, many don’t need the extra answers the Christianity provides, or maybe they don’t like those answers. They rather blind themselves from the truth so that they can continue their comfortable lifestyles, perhaps, or perhaps they want to continue accumulating wealth they should share (in the “Overpopulation discussion” thread, I’ve pointed out that 90% of world wealth is exploited by 10% of population. We know this, we can measure it, but we still don’t do anything about it, still exploit the poor regions of the planet for our own “satisfaction/comfort/perversions”).
Sure. The million dollar question is: How would you know if you’re leading a good life, without spiritual guidance? We’ve become so detached from nature that we have trouble dealing with things as natural as death. The bible tells you you should not fear Death, while Pharmaceutical companies live off the fear of aging and death they help create in people. And people have lost touch with nature/God, and spend enormous sums to postpone old age and death. 15 years old girls damage their facial skin by make-up, which results in their skin being old at the age of 25, forcing them to keep applying more and more make-up every day, undergo plastic surgery etc. That’s just one example how not having a spiritual guidance can result in activities that are against the will of God. But if you are able to keep living a good life, then you’ve “multiplied the money God has given you”, and God will be happy with you.
They are not automatically a better person. It’s still the same concept: Masses, prayers, confessions, Bible… they are all here mainly to remind you WHAT you SHOULD be DOING, and what you should be AVOIDING. It doesn’t give you a “carte blanche” (as some see it), in the sense “I sin, and then go to mass/confession, and I’m OK! Hooray!”. It doesn’t work like that. I’ve seen people go to Sunday morning mass, still so drunk they fell asleep there. God saw it and will undoubtedly ask the sinner “Why were you destroying your body with alcohol, when I told you to keep your body in honor and to use it for good?”
You can pray at home, you can have your own house masses, the thing once again is that during the ages, the “protocol” of Mass has been polished to have a high chance of successfully invoking the spiritual stuff in humans. To cleanse their minds of stress or anger, to let them forgive others, to enlighten them with reading from the Bible, and so on…
And then there’s the Eucharistia (sorry for misspelling) as well, the greatest miracle of the Church, probably.
You are speaking about your sins not for God to hear it, but for yourself to hear it. To “bring the skeletons out of the closets”. The priest is an educated person who specializes in “spiritual psychology”, sort of. Not everyone is a psychologist, and also, we often have trouble to admitting the true reasons of our actions, we may try to portray our sins as lesser or “partially justified” to feel better, and the priest can help us see the real extent of our behavior.
I don’t know about USA, but in my country, Jehovists are a sect, not a registered church. I am not here to judge anyone. Maybe they will realize their wrongdoings early enough, maybe they will repent and god will forgive them just as he forgave the murderer on the cross next to Jesus… But once again – we don’t know everything, maybe the murderer was a simple person that got under wrong influence and was convinced that killing some people is OK, and only when he saw Jesus’s behavior and love even for those who crucified him, he realised how wrong he has been. I’m not so sure Jehovists who persuade old ladies to take a mortgage on their houses so that they can donate money to their “church”, are so simple… Just like scientologic church is basically a brainwash money tunnel from rich pockets, Jehovists do something similar (in my country at least).
Yes, they did. I’m not justifying crusades or witch hunts or anything, I’m just saying that you may go to war for a multitude of reasons – to protect your beloved, to protect your country, to protect someone else, or because you listen to someone persuasive, or because you want to conquer some area/people and become wealthy… God knows the motivation of every single combatant and he will judge them.
And that’s the point, Keresh! Because of free will, no-one, not even God, knows whether or not I will now get up from my computer and go kill my wife. God knows that the probability of me doing something so horrible is 0.000000000001%, and he knows what would happen if I did (he knows what would be the probability that I would be escaping for 1 day, 2 days, 3 days… that I would commit suicide right after that crime…), but I was given free will and God created this World so that there are quite a few incentives why I shouldn’t do it – I was raised by loving people, I saw the suffering of violently dying creatures, and I am convinced that killing is wrong.
Because of this, I am going to raise my children so that they avoid violence as long as possible, I am going to teach them to reason instead of to bully, to help instead of to exploit, to love instead of to hate. By doing that, I will be increasing the chances that they will not murder anyone, that they will respect others and try to help them if they can. But even my children will have free will and it may, sadly, happen that they will do something really bad, which will make both me and God very sad.
Consider the guidance system of a tactical missile such as Trident. It has the precision of 5 meters (let’s say). So, if you want to destroy Saddam Hussein’s palace, you aim at the center of it, and you can, at the moment of launching the missile, say that you are certain you will hit, simply because no matter in what direction the missile deviates (within its precision), the building will be hit. If you ask such guidance system where it’s gonna hit, it will tell you “Saddam’s Palace”. You wouldn’t be told which exact square inch will be hit first, but it doesn’t really matter to you.
God knows all possible outcomes of all events that are subject to the free will of all his creation. Every future that can happen - God knows it. And in his endless graces, he let us, his Creation, to determine which of those futures will actually happen. He hopes it will be one of those that will honor him, he hopes that we are not going to destroy ourselves, and he sees that many of the possible futures contain violent wars, mass hysteria, and even some Uwe Boll’s movies 
But he loves us so much that he will not interfere and instead let us learn from our mistakes.
Some Info about atheism, for those who are sincerely interested and open-minded enough to indulge in watching through it. There is much more available, but you will no doubt be able to find it for yourself after watching these:
Atheist Nations more peaceful?
(Only part 1 - subsequent parts are linked with this video)
Richard Dawkins - The Root of all Evil: The God Delusion
(same as above)
(same as above)
You know, we might actually be better off without religion, we don’t need to be afraid of eternal damnation to be good, and we don’t need to be selfishly trying to work towards eternal happiness either. Doing that would be doing the right things for the wrong reasons, I’m sure if we all learned to be nice to each other just because it’s a good thing to do, then I think we wouldn’t need a series of beliefs that can be easily be used (if you are in the right position) for good or bad because a large sum of the people who believe it would do as it said without question.
I don’t feel that emotions count as much in the way of evidence. However, the ability to feel emotion, or the endorphins released when we do something good is simply a function of our brain. It’s how our minds deal with a world it is essentially detached from. If you damage the lower frontal lobe, all sense of right and wrong go out the window. Priests become immoral and violent. If emotion comes from god, then why is it so easily lost when there is small damage to a certain part of the brain?
The concept of ‘eye for an eye’ isn’t a limitation of human logic. It’s not beyond human logic to see the benefits of avoiding violent conflict or reprisal. This isn’t something that needs to be taught, or gleaned from some sort of prophet or deity. We, as humans, are pack creatures. It is actually in our nature to accept others as part of our behavior. Violent creatures will remain in a group despite internal violence because their nature has told them that is the best chance for survival as a species. Humans still bend to this primal instinct. We moralize it based on our inherent love for our own kind. It’s not really all that mystical.
All of this seems to be relating to morality. I don’t see morality as evidence or indicator of anything beyond our functions as intelligent and reasoning beings capable of free thought.
I know, it’s just that your comparing a group of people that have a set of ‘rules’ ( so to speak ) that are supposed to dictate their actions to people who really have none. Essentially we are all just people. But religion imposes doctrine that is supposed to dictate how we act.
While there will always be some cause to fight for religion is a barrier of difference. Differences cause conflict. It is one of the more complex and wide spread differences as well. I can’t say for sure, but evidence would suggest that removing such a conflict causing barrier would have a greatly beneficial effect on world conflict. The distribution of wealth and resources is a topic for another thread. This all doesn’t even take into account the negative effect religions can have in terms of progress as a species.
The thing about faith that makes me uncomfortable, is that it’s thrown around so lightly. You can have faith, but it is important to consider what you have faith in, and why. It’s a personal question one should ask themselves. Does your faith deserve your faith?
Your brain interprets input to define the world around it. This is true, you are human, so this can be taken as truth. By accepting something as true without any way for your brain to perceive it, counters the very basis of how you determine reality. Personally I like to hope that people who believe something beyond our own understanding of existence would do so based on evidence that we can relate to.
What I was referencing was the origin story. God says to Adam that he must not eat from the tree of knowledge. Adam is told that if he does he will die. Adam goes on to live for another 900 years after eating the apple. Now, you can say he didn’t lie because he did die eventually. God didn’t provide a basis for context, so it should be implied that he would die WHEN he ate the apple. Literally that moment. If it was otherwise, there needs to be context, or else it is deceptive. Some say it is because to god time is meaningless, but it’s not meaningless to Adam. I would presume god should know this. So god would still need to provide context. Some mention it being a death of spirit. However, there is no mention of this after the eating. The very concept is flawed. You tell two people who are so unaware of evil and good, that they don’t even realize they are naked ( again, I’m not sure why nudity is evil, but moving on ). How are these people being told not to eat an apple by god, but then being told by a serpent supposed to know what is right and wrong without any concept of it? Remember, before eating from the tree of knowledge they don’t even know of evil, so they wouldn’t even understand what they were doing is even wrong. What sort of cruel god punishes those who lack the capacity to understand him? That’s not really fair. We cannot please him in that sense. We still do not understand him, and by that he is always punishing us in everything we do? Damn.
Do you believe because I don’t think religious teachings are anything but fiction, that I am immoral. Immoral, I may be, but I don’t think it’s because I’m not religious. Happiness is something difficult. I find happiness in seeing my little girl. This has nothing to do with religion or beliefs. I just relish in the little person who is made from a part of me. Caring for her makes me happy. People find happiness in many different ways. I love my little girl, but that doesn’t mean she is relevant to people who don’t know her. In this way I’d say religion is unrelated to happiness. Is it impossible for you to be happy without religion? That is a very upsetting thought to me. I would feel very sorry for someone who can’t be happy without religion.
I’m not asking for proof. There isn’t proof for a lot of things in science. But there is evidence. I would at least hope there is some sort of evidence that is real. There must be. There simply must be some evidence or some key that religion isn’t just made up nonsense. The thought that there may be so little keeping a convincing person or group from just making up a religion that will incite wars that will kill millions, and make droning zealots of it’s legions of followers. If there isn’t even any evidence, I would find it unsettling that so many people can follow such things and do the things they do based on faith.
That’s not really the point though. the human mind allows there to belief of something without any prompting. Think of a child who you introduce to another person. Then that person leaves. That child will still believe that person is alive. Imagine that person dies. Without some sort of key, that child will continue to believe that person is alive. Belief without effort. This continues on in a child having imaginary friends, and making things up on their own without prompting. It’s our ability to imagine things that don’t exist without conscience effort that allows us to dominate this planet. It’s so easy it happens is we want to or not.
Emotion, sens of right and wrong, and even perception can be altered by small physical changes to a person. Locking a person in a closet for 3 days without input will cause them to lose sanity. Such tenuous basis for your fundamental beliefs seems to be a bit ill advised to me. repeatable, observable evidence seems more secure and logical to me.
Broke up post. That one was getting a little long.
Thous shalt no steal, thou shalt not kill…these were essentials of survival in the early days of human existence. They would have been unable to follow many essentials that seem to be on the path to righteousness.
The commandments, the seven deadly sins, the principal virtues. These ARE NOT guidelines for the followers of their teachings. These are concrete unavoidable preachings that must be followed. They are not guidelines.
Personally I would chose the teacher who seems most qualified. Experience doesn’t necessarily mean better. Similarly, older doesn’t mean correct. From how that reads you seem to be implying that people don’t accept Christianity because they aren’t willing to accept the inconvenience to their lives. I find that exceedingly pompous and self righteous. Many atheist dedicate their lives and expend great self sacrifice for the betterment of the human race. They don’t follow Christianity because they don’t feel it is right, not because they don’t want to go to church on Sundays. If this is the sort of attitude that christian ‘truth’ provides. I am glad to say I don’t see it.
How about the compassion of the people around me, paired with the respect of the people who disagree? Again, your presumptuousness about how people exist without spiritual guidance is offensive.
You are talking about cultural leanings here. Not beliefs. You don’t have to be christian, or religious to disagree with certain things about the culture you live in.
It has also succeeded in turning the catholic church into one of the more financially successful business enterprises in the world. I might mention that their donations are high, but not more per net worth ( accounting for various offshoot denominations ) than Microsoft. Once more you suggest that your beliefs are morally superior to others without cause.
That seems a rather weak reasoning to justify the need for such widespread and organized ritualistic worship. I don’t really see how that is better than on call guidance.
All this coming from a participant in the richest religious entity currently in existence.
The cold way you accept such deeds are frightening. So for all those during the crusades that did so because they believed it was gods will, you are okay with that, right? Just so long as it wasn’t for the love of killing?
You don’t seem to know the beliefs of the church you follow. The christian god is said to be omniscient. He knows all. Now and ever. He knows what you will do ( it’s part of being infallible ), but he doesn’t act to prevent you because it would inhibit your free will. According to christian belief you are guided so that you won’t do it, but evil exists, and humans sin. God won’t prevent it. God acts but not directly.
That is still counter to the fundamental teachings of the religion you subscribe to. Not god doesn’t see multiple outcomes. He KNOWS which outcome occurs. He knows what you will do. He can stop you but doesn’t. He simply act indirectly and lets your free will decide what to do. By the definition of the christian god he knows what your childrens childrens children will do with their lives.
I think we’re at loggerheads here.
“If you have ever felt it, then you would most likely dismiss it with a psychological reason that could never have come from God - I see it as a psychological reason as well, but I also see no fault with God’s ways being interpreted by science.”
I never said there is evidence. You’re the one who is looking for it, and so you should - indeed, the problems that you face with being able to look at everything in terms of fact and fiction are the very problems that I face with logic and religion. I don’t have the answers to your questions, but for me I do see emotion, especially heightened emotion that I have felt myself and seen in others, as some form of evidence of God. It’s not concrete and by no means infallible, but it’s a start for me. I’ll say again - because something has a scientific explanation or can be explained as coincidence doesn’t go to say that it is false or no longer from God. As for being damaged so easily, I see that as a side-effect of a world which isn’t perfect. I see no reason for humans to be invincible, and emotions are no different. It’s no one’s fault if you get cancer.
Again, I never said that an ‘eye for an eye’ was the limitation of human logic, or even implied that. I used that as an example of typical human logic. We would have probably been able to rise above that eventually, but religion teaches those morals on a basic level. Jesus’ teachings were also very illogical, and I very much doubt whether you would get other teachers who would preach something that was so illogical and revolutionary.
No evidence as such, but I see it as part of the argument for me. As I said before, faith is something that is different for everyone. Religion is a deeply personal thing. Just as people have different ways of reading, working out problems etc. so they have different reasons for believing. What counts as evidence or a reason for someone won’t be the same for someone else. I don’t see much point in asking for evidence or proof from people when it’s such an ambiguous subject. That will, I’m sure, be frustrating but it’s true.
This is really just a hypothecy - religion has always been a part of our evolution as a species, perhaps even essential. I think it’s impossible to say what the world would have been like without it. Of course it’s easy to say it would be better without when you see things such as 9/11, but what is much harder to see is how much religion really mattered in those issues. How much of it say, was looking to destroy the West and humiliate them? What is even harder to see is what the world would have been like without religion. Religion causes conflict, but I see the world as full of conflict - people will pick on anyone, simply because they are a different colour, of a different country, have a funny walk, have different customs and cultures, have a strange voice. There is no reason to think that conflict is limited to religion.
As far as I’m aware, religions teach kindness and generosity, but they also warn us of the dangers of prejudice and racism. They keep these teachings at the forefront of our minds - who’s to say what the world wouldn’t be like without it? All the small, tiny, insignificant acts that people have done in the name of religion would far outweigh any atrocities done by a 100th of a fraction of the world’s population.
I think so, yes, when it is morally sound.
Give an example. If you’re referring to God, taking something as true implies that you believe it. I’ve said this before - belief is something that you can’t quantify. Even something as simple as saying you believe something is metal, can you really believe it beyond any doubt? I don’t play with belief and faith, at a whim saying I believe this and that. Some might, but that’s their choice. It doesn’t make them wrong. I don’t think that believing in something beyond our own understanding of existence is wrong, even without concrete evidence. Besides, if you had some sort of evidence that we can relate to, wouldn’t that something beyond our existence and understanding then serve no purpose, or at best a lesser purpose? I find it hard to think that anyone would go to their deaths believing absolutely in God. I think at some point or other in people’s lives there has to be a gap there that they have to jump. For some people, who might think along more superstitious and less logical lines that gap might come early on in their lives and they can believe in God quite early. For others, like you and me, our logic would prevent us from making that leap, and therefore it would come at our deaths, if it comes at all. You want evidence, but you probably won’t find it to your satisfaction. There are countless others in the same boat who find it hard to follow or believe in a god. For them, I suppose the answer is that they have to follow the teachings, which make sense and are logical, and the things that they cannot follow come after you die.
That’s pretty melodramatic. I’m not entirely sure what the Church teaches about Adam and Eve. Some might say it’s real and others that it’s a metaphor. I like the latter myself, simply because the Bible is full of metaphors and you come to a lot of nonsensical conclusions if you take things literally. Basically we’re imperfect beings - we sin, whether we know it or call it sin or not. The point isn’t that God deceived us into being sinful (deceived is a pretty strong word, since all he could be accused of would be not telling the whole truth), but that we were sinful to begin with. I agree, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when you take it literally, but I don’t see how God is punishing us now. How?
I don’t want you to go twisting my words or jumping to conclusions. I never said that anyone who doesn’t follow religion is immoral or that only religion can bring happiness or that I can’t be happy without religion. I don’t know you, I can’t call you immoral. And I doubt you are immoral. An immoral act is easy to do, but to be immoral is something else.
Sorry, getting the definitions of proof and evidence mixed. I’m not sure I’m the one to answer this question though, as I said that people’s reasons for believing are different. If you look at every reason that people give and just explain it logically then I very much doubt you’re looking for religion. Perhaps all this is pointless, since I think that someone will find religion only if they look for it. If they can’t believe in God, fine, neither do I if I really think hard about it, but you can believe in the teachings. If you’re looking only for a scientific explanation then I doubt that anything said here will satisfy you. You’ll only come away disappointed. You can’t expect a belief or faith to fall ready-made into your lap.
It’s secure and logical, yes, but that doesn’t make it right. Needless to say you’re not looking for religion but you want answers about why people believe in it when there’s no evidence. I’ve done my best to explain what religion is to me and really I can offer nothing more than that. I’m not believing in something that I can’t see or understand - I believe in the moral teachings with which I agree entirely and I can understand. I question them repeatedly to further understand them and I do my best to go to church in order to see friends who can help me with that. I base my beliefs in the teachings rather than on God alone, who is but an idea. I don’t think that’s ill-advised. The concept of God can come later if I can make that leap.
I think we’re going around in circles. I’ve done my best to present my argument but I think if you’re not looking for religion then my answers won’t satisfy your questions. I’m not sure you’re ever going to find the answer to the question of evidence.
I may snip some parts that don’t seem to be going anywhere. these posts are taking way too long. If you want to continue something I snip, just re-do them.
The point I was not really explaining well was that human emotions are very sensitive to our current state. Because you feel something now, doesn’t mean it can’t be changed by something physical. Everything else about you can remain the same, but your beliefs can change by even the smallest physical change. Though I do agree life ( supposedly gods first gift to man ) can be taken away rather easily, it cannot be changed. Through physical change man cannot become demon. Can he?
It’s just when you said this:
and then followed it with this:
It seemed you were trying to imply the concept of ‘eye for an eye’ was a limitation of flawed human logic. It seem to be more of an emotional reaction to me. Personally I think it’s our nature as intelligent beings to rise above our emotions for the greater good of ourselves, our families, and our species when needed.
Very much as it’s all I ever ask for. 
It’s even more frustrating when I ask for evidence and what I get back is readings from the bible…that’s not evidence, it’s actually the opposite of the truth to someone like me.
I wouldn’t say it is at all universal that religion teaches kindness, and generosity. I know for a fact it’s not universal in teaching racial sensitivity, and a non prejudiced view. You can argue modern Christianity does, but not much beyond that.
Is it worth being part of a religion when you find it morally reprehensible at times?
a human without literature or external influence would define his world through stimulus. The stimulus that humans are able to perceive include: smell, taste, touch, see and hear. Since god is not directly perceptible as a being/entity using these stimuli, to the uninfluenced and untainted human ‘god’ wouldn’t exist in the universe as he perceives it. Even as our tools to further experience our existence mature, we have only limited ability to to theorize about objects/forces that aren’t ‘real’ in the strictest sense.
I wouldn’t say melodramatic. I would say…direct. If that bit of christian mythology were to be taken as a metaphor, what could we glean from it? God is spiteful - Why else would he punish man for something beyond his comprehension?
Knowledge is evil - The serpent is depicted as evil. All the serpent promises is knowledge. That is what is gained.
God does not want humans to be good - Asking humans to be good but fail to give them the ability to know what that means? Stacking the deck, I would say.
Man is still not immortal, and still doesn’t exist in eden. I could sure use eternal bliss.
Sorry, that first sentence was supposed to be a question. None, of my questions are sarcastic, or rhetorical. They are asked to be answered. If you can find happiness elsewhere, why would you not chose a way less fraught with logical paradox?
I define my existence through what I perceive. I can create warmth through friction, I can measure energy through it manifestations, I can look through an electron microscope and view the building blocks of our world. I would love to find something indicating god ( not religion, I’m not looking for that ) is something that relates to humanity. I imagine there would be a great feeling of hope for me and humanity if such a thing could be done. But it doesn’t seem likely at this point.
The more I read here, it seems your not religious at all though. It seems your not even overly spiritual. It seems like you are some kind of…moralist. Questioning the morals of our species, and the guidelines we use to conduct ourselves. Since you’ve looked so much into the moral teachings of gods teachings, have you also looked into the moral theology of the great human thinkers? I think you might find that some of gods teachings can also be found in human theology born from creatures capable of love and compassion.
If this were true, what of god, religion, and spiritualism would remain? What use for it would you have?
You know what I hate about debating religion?
It’s so gosh-darn convenient for people: you can excuse murder, rape, anything with it, you can’t prove it at all because that’s “how god works”, any illogical fallacies that are pointed out can all be excused with some convenient thing from the bible.
And it’s so god-damn convenient for whoever is in charge.