On March 06 2011 05:32 Nemesis wrote: Karliath, as I used to be a christian myself, and I know plenty of christians, let me just explain it a bit. The only real "requirement" for being a Christian is that "Jesus is the Son of God." There are plenty of Christian branches, but that is pretty much the only thing they all have in common. In fact, that is the main belief that really seperates Christianity from Islam and Judaism who all believe in the same God.
There are christians that I know that believe that the Bible is utter garbage that is just a children's story, and that there is no such thing as hell.
Ah okay. Where do they get the idea that Jesus is the Son of God then? Do they go through the Bible, and then decide everything else is garbage other than that one idea?
It just seems kind of odd to me, you know? Being able to throw away everything else about a religion, but still calling yourself a part of that religion.
I don't want to be antagonistic here, but as an example, if I believed that Jesus is the Son of God, that when people die they get reincarnated, that God sports an Afro and kills people he find annoying, that the Christian sense of morals are all wrong, can I still call myself a Christian?
I would say that I can call myself anything I want, but society would not accept me as Christian. In the same sense, I wouldn't accept how you define the requirement for being Christian as "Jesus being the Son of God."
What do you think?
Also, I know it's frowned upon to repost something, but I would really like a religious person to answer my following ideas.
As a side note, what I find truly exasperating is that there will always be someone religious who contradicts my idea. Say for example I say, "all people go to Hell." Someone will pop up and say, "Well many Christians believe in Hell, but I don't." I've accepted that there are many branches of Christian belief, so my post is aimed towards those who actually fit my descriptions. Thanks.
I have a problem with people who 100% seriously believe that I will end up in Hell, in eternal suffering and despair, just because I am a non-believer. It doesn't mean I will act antagonistically towards Christians, but it definitely bothers me.
Even if the subject is avoided in a conversation, if I know that you're Christian, I know that that is what you believe. You should believe it, at least, if you accept the words of the Bible. As such, it feels very condescending, you know what I mean? Not only because you are 'naturally forced' to believe you are better than me, but also because of the fact that I'm being judged by something I don't believe in, and honestly don't care about.
Now, you may say, "No no, we're all God's children," but if you think about it, that's a pretty lame excuse. If I'm going to Hell and you're going to Heaven, which are complete opposites, how can I not be inferior if God is going to put me through eternal suffering while you get eternal whatever in Heaven? Your words would become empty.
Now, many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe that people should just stick to their own beliefs and tolerate/accept others'. Live and let live, if you will. If you believe in the view, then it can be assumed that you don't preach to people who don't believe in your religion. I have huge problems with this, which I will now present through 2 questions.
1. Am I going to Hell if I'm not Christian? 2. If I am, why aren't you trying to convert me? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
See if it were reversed, and I believed that you were going to endure eternal suffering, I would do whatever it takes to help you avoid that situation. If the only solution is to become Christian, then I would preach like crazy trying to convince you to convert. An eternity without suffering outweighs whatever belief system you may hold to, so I wouldn't care if I offended you or whatnot to get you to convert.
But you don't do that, because you don't preach. Ostensibly, that's a good thing. But from a different perspective, it's really just mean.
Say for example a bomb is going to explode in a small town. You know this, but the people are ignorant of it. Why would you think it's a good idea for them to live in their ignorance? It's almost as if you're thinking, "Pfft okay, if they don't want to believe me, that's their problem."
You see how this goes back to my point on condescension?
I may not believe in Christianity, and I sure may be glad that people don't come to my door to preach to me, but I find that it is bad for Christians, if they really believe in their faith, not to preach.
Honestly, I feel like Christians have changed many ideals just to fit in better with modern society.
In fact, that is the main belief that really seperates Christianity from Islam and Judaism who all believe in the same God.
One feels compelled to add that the doctrine of the trinity as well as the story of the gospels are not merely cosmetic differences. It produces profound differences in theological outlook. As Simone Weil once said, the genius of Christianity lies in rather than teaching to avoid suffering, it makes a use of it.
What you're experiencing is a cognitive dissonance with your self-schema suddenly being confronted by a world of people who think religion doesn't make sense.
It's not really the internet vs religion, so much as it is your own internal battle with your identity. Are they right? Have I been believing something completely illogical for most of my life? How can I reconcile something that has been a part of my identity so long in the face of a large number of people who do not agree with me, who were not indoctrinated like me?
You can either stick to your guns and try to avoid the topic as much as possible, or you can submit to logic and change the part of yourself that is threatened by it.
On March 06 2011 05:32 Nemesis wrote: Karliath, as I used to be a christian myself, and I know plenty of christians, let me just explain it a bit. The only real "requirement" for being a Christian is that "Jesus is the Son of God." There are plenty of Christian branches, but that is pretty much the only thing they all have in common. In fact, that is the main belief that really seperates Christianity from Islam and Judaism who all believe in the same God.
There are christians that I know that believe that the Bible is utter garbage that is just a children's story, and that there is no such thing as hell.
Ah okay. Where do they get the idea that Jesus is the Son of God then? Do they go through the Bible, and then decide everything else is garbage other than that one idea?
It just seems kind of odd to me, you know? Being able to throw away everything else about a religion, but still calling yourself a part of that religion.
I don't want to be antagonistic here, but as an example, if I believed that Jesus is the Son of God, that when people die they get reincarnated, that God sports an Afro and kills people he find annoying, that the Christian sense of morals are all wrong, can I still call myself a Christian?
I would say that I can call myself anything I want, but society would not accept me as Christian. In the same sense, I wouldn't accept how you define the requirement for being Christian as "Jesus being the Son of God."
What do you think?
I agree with this. You can't pick and choose what you like about it and still call yourself apart of it. If you sincerely believe in what Christianity states, then how could you dilute that truth, even if it doesn't suit you?
Also, I know it's frowned upon to repost something, but I would really like a religious person to answer my following ideas.
Now, many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe that people should just stick to their own beliefs and tolerate/accept others'. Live and let live, if you will. If you believe in the view, then it can be assumed that you don't preach to people who don't believe in your religion. I have huge problems with this, which I will now present through 2 questions.
1. Am I going to Hell if I'm not Christian? 2. If I am, why aren't you trying to convert me? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
You've said a lot so I tried to cut it down to the essentials. I hope I didn't misquote or take anything out of context.
1. If by Christian, you mean you believe that Jesus, being the Son of God, died on the cross for you because you are spiritually dead (not even talking about morality here), and now have a personal relationship with him, then yes. 2. Yes, you are completely right, and that is one of the major problems with Christianity today. We are so comfortable in our only little in-groups that there is little motivation to go out and tell others about this apparent 'good gift' you have received. If Christians truly believed that they have something worth sharing about, and believe that those who do not follow Christ will go to hell (which I believe is the predominant and correct view), then they should go and tell others about it. AND, if people say, 'no, I don't agree, off with you!' then so be it. The Christian's imperative is not to convert everyone, but to tell everyone. If you come to your logical conclusion that this is true or false, then that's fine.
The view present here is indeed narrow-minded and exclusive, but that's what truth is (by definition, I'm not presenting an open and shut case that Christianity is true).
I would also like to point out these discussions often become Science vs. Religion (not a big fan of this word, but it will have to do), they are not even equivalent. If so, then why are there religious people who are scientists, or why did many religious people found universities? Introducing science into the discussion is just a smokescreen to hide discussion of much more important points regarding actual core beliefs of each side.
Deaths caused by Religion (specifically Christianity, not sure about others) is also another example I don't like. For sure, wars were fought in the name of religion, but not IN LINE with their religion. However the wars in the past under the guise of Christianity have been out of greed and selfishness of humanity.
However you could say that deaths caused by people like Hitler or Stalin, were completely IN LINE with Atheistic beliefs (regardless of whether they expressed them openly): that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, and that there are no moral absolutes to govern their actions as right or wrong.
The fact that this discussion is even being had is proof that not all religious people (even from the same group) share similar mindsets or beliefs. I think Zeal. hit it pretty much on the head, reasonable religious people are so unobserved. It's like turning on the news and seeing "murder, rape, robbery..." but missing all the people that prevented a car accident or gave a homeless person a meal. Society focuses far too much on the negative, and so that's what non-religious people take away from religion. Really bigoted individuals.
And what does that generate? Well then you get really bigoted non-religious individuals. People that are so frustrated with the religious people they see like the Westboro Church members that they become vessels of hatred towards religious groups. People remember moments like protesting the "ground zero mosque," and not moments of Christians protecting Muslims in Egypt so they can pray. Hatred begets hatred unfortunately.
As for me, I'm Catholic and I love what religion has to give me. Do I believe in Hell? Actually no. We also forget that the Bible is man's interpretation of the word of God. Do I think anyone is inferior to anyone else based on what they believe in? Fuck no, and "we're all the children of God" is not a bullshit excuse. To God we are all equal, he loves us all unconditionally. How can I rationalize judging anyone as a mere human? It's God who judges us, for me to judge another is playing God. No, we're all brothers and sisters, and thanks to what God has taught me I can love anyone and everyone unconditionally.
God doesn't want us to be mindless slaves. In the eyes of a religious individual, he created us in this world with our own free will for a reason. A reason humans may never truly understand. But nonetheless he gave us the gift of reason so we can come to understand one another, so we can love one another.
On March 06 2011 05:41 Karliath wrote: I may not believe in Christianity, and I sure may be glad that people don't come to my door to preach to me, but I find that it is bad for Christians, if they really believe in their faith, not to preach.
What would you like religious people to do then? You both dislike how we try to spread our word, but dislike that when we don't. If someone is willing to accept the word of God, then they can be approached. If someone is shut off, then the more they're approached the more agitated they'll become. It's like telling a colorblind person that the sky is blue. If they're receptive, they may believe you and listen. If they're not, they'll just disregard what you say. There's nothing more you can do.
On March 06 2011 07:27 dudeman001 wrote: As for me, I'm Catholic and I love what religion has to give me. Do I believe in Hell? Actually no. We also forget that the Bible is man's interpretation of the word of God. Do I think anyone is inferior to anyone else based on what they believe in? Fuck no, and "we're all the children of God" is not a bullshit excuse. To God we are all equal, he loves us all unconditionally. How can I rationalize judging anyone as a mere human? It's God who judges us, for me to judge another is playing God. No, we're all brothers and sisters, and thanks to what God has taught me I can love anyone and everyone unconditionally.
God doesn't want us to be mindless slaves. In the eyes of a religious individual, he created us in this world with our own free will for a reason. A reason humans may never truly understand. But nonetheless he gave us the gift of reason so we can come to understand one another, so we can love one another.
On March 06 2011 05:41 Karliath wrote: I may not believe in Christianity, and I sure may be glad that people don't come to my door to preach to me, but I find that it is bad for Christians, if they really believe in their faith, not to preach.
What would you like religious people to do then? You both dislike how we try to spread our word, but dislike that when we don't. If someone is willing to accept the word of God, then they can be approached. If someone is shut off, then the more they're approached the more agitated they'll become. It's like telling a colorblind person that the sky is blue. If they're receptive, they may believe you and listen. If they're not, they'll just disregard what you say. There's nothing more you can do.
Thank you for your response.
Concerning the first paragraph I quoted, my point about inferiority has no basis if you don't believe in Hell. My point was that, if God judges that you can go to Heaven and I have to go to Hell, the inferiority is clear. If someone still wants to say that the soul in Heaven is equal to the one in Hell, then I have nothing to say to that person. BUT, since you don't believe in Hell, between you and me then, that argument can be disregarded.
You say that the Bible, which includes Hell, is only man's interpretation of the word of God. May I ask then, where you get your interpretation of the word of God - in other words, your belief system? Do you interpret the word of God yourself, or do you read the Bible, man's interpretation, and then go ahead and interpret it further?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible is the only "physical recording," if you will, of the word of God. Sure, it may be man's interpretation, but where else would you get the word of God?
Do you imagine (bad choice of words, I apologize) what a proper religion would be like, and then, from there, decide that these proper morals/beliefs/conducts are the word of God?
This again goes back to my point about how Christians today seem to "pick and choose" parts of the established branches that they like, in my eyes to conform with modern social and moral values. Now I'm not saying that you have to 100% agree with everything in the Bible, or everything in a particular branch to become Christian. My question is, where is that line? At what point does a person's beliefs stray too far from the Bible, or the word of God (if you can define/describe it), that he is no longer Christian?
Concerning your third paragraph, yes, I do believe Christians should preach. As I stated in my example, if I know a bomb is going to blow up under you, I don't care how much I 'agitate' you, I'm going to try to convince you to run (read: convert). But okay, perhaps that's just not the Christian way then. Maybe the attitude is, "There's a bomb under you. Now that I have given you a chance to save your life, it is up to you to decide whether you want to believe me." But then, we of course return to the point about how there are a whole ton of Christians who believe in a whole ton of things.
On March 06 2011 07:21 Chromyne wrote:
Deaths caused by Religion (specifically Christianity, not sure about others) is also another example I don't like. For sure, wars were fought in the name of religion, but not IN LINE with their religion. However the wars in the past under the guise of Christianity have been out of greed and selfishness of humanity.
However you could say that deaths caused by people like Hitler or Stalin, were completely IN LINE with Atheistic beliefs (regardless of whether they expressed them openly): that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, and that there are no moral absolutes to govern their actions as right or wrong.
Food for thought, feel free to disagree.
I agree with your point about religious wars. Especially in European history, many wars were waged in the name of religion, but were actually fought for political gain.
When you talk about deaths caused by Atheism though, it gets kind of awkward for me. What about all the technological, medical, environmental, etc advancements made by atheists, meant to protect and improve lives?
While atheists may not believe in moral absolutes, it doesn't mean that they don't believe that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, if you get what I mean. They don't need a God or a religion to tell them the value of human lives, they just accept it by themselves.
But I think the internet is going to kill religion the more it spreads, just my opinion on the matter.
I don't think so. If the internet proliferates further, it will have a major impact on popular religion, perhaps as major as that of the printing press, but "killing" religion is a fantastic notion with no precedents in history or in the study of human nature. In dying religions, it's the common people among whom the old religion finds its last stronghold. If Christianity is due for extinction, it will be on the internet (or some such thing) where it finds its last martyrs.
That is not to say that the internet does not have a lot of potential to do a great deal of harm to the intellectual or disciplinary rigour of religions. As far as religion is able to bring illumination to mysteries, it requires a state of complete and unswerving attention, and the Internet is of course the enemy of that.
On March 06 2011 07:58 Karliath wrote: I agree with your point about religious wars. Especially in European history, many wars were waged in the name of religion, but were actually fought for political gain.
When you talk about deaths caused by Atheism though, it gets kind of awkward for me. What about all the technological, medical, environmental, etc advancements made by atheists, meant to protect and improve lives?
While atheists may not believe in moral absolutes, it doesn't mean that they don't believe that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, if you get what I mean. They don't need a God or a religion to tell them the value of human lives, they just accept it by themselves.
Hmmm I guess my main point regarding war is that both 'sides' have been related to or have caused needless deaths, and it's not very helpful to argue that point from either side.
As for morality, I certainly agree that you don't need to believe in a higher power to have morals or value human life. Humans in general, regardless of which worldview they hold, have done many wonderful things [using science, as a tool] for humanity.
Please don't make a claim about your IQ if you want to be taken seriously.
Also, I find it pretty amazing that people can subscribe to a softer, pleasanter view of certain organized religions. There's obviously nothing wrong with a philosophy incorporating the best elements a religion while rejecting the unpleasant or morally suspect, but isn't it obvious at that point that you're just believing what you want to believe, whether or not it is actually true? Even mainstream religion is void of hard evidence, but at least they have their scriptures, their millions of followers, their pseudoscience and their dogmatic clothes to dress up their naked emperor in. Your personal religious beliefs are likely supported by nothing other than your own gut instincts. Religion can be a find place to start the search for your own personal code of ethics and morality, but if you actually believe in religious supernatural claims I would consider that to fall under the clinical definition of delusion.
On March 06 2011 07:27 dudeman001 wrote: As for me, I'm Catholic and I love what religion has to give me. Do I believe in Hell? Actually no. We also forget that the Bible is man's interpretation of the word of God. Do I think anyone is inferior to anyone else based on what they believe in? Fuck no, and "we're all the children of God" is not a bullshit excuse. To God we are all equal, he loves us all unconditionally. How can I rationalize judging anyone as a mere human? It's God who judges us, for me to judge another is playing God. No, we're all brothers and sisters, and thanks to what God has taught me I can love anyone and everyone unconditionally.
God doesn't want us to be mindless slaves. In the eyes of a religious individual, he created us in this world with our own free will for a reason. A reason humans may never truly understand. But nonetheless he gave us the gift of reason so we can come to understand one another, so we can love one another.
On March 06 2011 05:41 Karliath wrote: I may not believe in Christianity, and I sure may be glad that people don't come to my door to preach to me, but I find that it is bad for Christians, if they really believe in their faith, not to preach.
What would you like religious people to do then? You both dislike how we try to spread our word, but dislike that when we don't. If someone is willing to accept the word of God, then they can be approached. If someone is shut off, then the more they're approached the more agitated they'll become. It's like telling a colorblind person that the sky is blue. If they're receptive, they may believe you and listen. If they're not, they'll just disregard what you say. There's nothing more you can do.
Thank you for your response.
Concerning the first paragraph I quoted, my point about inferiority has no basis if you don't believe in Hell. My point was that, if God judges that you can go to Heaven and I have to go to Hell, the inferiority is clear. If someone still wants to say that the soul in Heaven is equal to the one in Hell, then I have nothing to say to that person. BUT, since you don't believe in Hell, between you and me then, that argument can be disregarded.
You say that the Bible, which includes Hell, is only man's interpretation of the word of God. May I ask then, where you get your interpretation of the word of God - in other words, your belief system? Do you interpret the word of God yourself, or do you read the Bible, man's interpretation, and then go ahead and interpret it further?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible is the only "physical recording," if you will, of the word of God. Sure, it may be man's interpretation, but where else would you get the word of God?
Do you imagine (bad choice of words, I apologize) what a proper religion would be like, and then, from there, decide that these proper morals/beliefs/conducts are the word of God?
This again goes back to my point about how Christians today seem to "pick and choose" parts of the established branches that they like, in my eyes to conform with modern social and moral values. Now I'm not saying that you have to 100% agree with everything in the Bible, or everything in a particular branch to become Christian. My question is, where is that line? At what point does a person's beliefs stray too far from the Bible, or the word of God (if you can define/describe it), that he is no longer Christian?
Concerning your third paragraph, yes, I do believe Christians should preach. As I stated in my example, if I know a bomb is going to blow up under you, I don't care how much I 'agitate' you, I'm going to try to convince you to run (read: convert). But okay, perhaps that's just not the Christian way then. Maybe the attitude is, "There's a bomb under you. Now that I have given you a chance to save your life, it is up to you to decide whether you want to believe me." But then, we of course return to the point about how there are a whole ton of Christians who believe in a whole ton of things.
Deaths caused by Religion (specifically Christianity, not sure about others) is also another example I don't like. For sure, wars were fought in the name of religion, but not IN LINE with their religion. However the wars in the past under the guise of Christianity have been out of greed and selfishness of humanity.
However you could say that deaths caused by people like Hitler or Stalin, were completely IN LINE with Atheistic beliefs (regardless of whether they expressed them openly): that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, and that there are no moral absolutes to govern their actions as right or wrong.
Food for thought, feel free to disagree.
I agree with your point about religious wars. Especially in European history, many wars were waged in the name of religion, but were actually fought for political gain.
When you talk about deaths caused by Atheism though, it gets kind of awkward for me. What about all the technological, medical, environmental, etc advancements made by atheists, meant to protect and improve lives?
While atheists may not believe in moral absolutes, it doesn't mean that they don't believe that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, if you get what I mean. They don't need a God or a religion to tell them the value of human lives, they just accept it by themselves.
And thank you for responding civilly and kindly. You really can't believe how much I appreciate that in a religious discussion.
On a personal level, I get my understanding of the word of God from what I learned on my own. Personally I believe just the idea of Hell is all God needs. Would he really force those who disobey him to suffer an eternity? That those who don't believe in him get cast down to Lucifer who in turn tortures us? No way, God as a divine pure being would never do anything like that. A purgatory I can believe, but not a Hell after death. To influence people to behave, only the IDEA of a punishment is all necessary. That's just how I believe differently.
Your "physical recording" sounds a lot more like what I meant than man's interpretation. But after all, the Bible is... well, biblical (lol) in how old it is, and after monk's transcribing and King George's final edition, the original and final versions could very well be different. That doesn't mean believers should disregard it. The Bible is like a guideline to being a better person and living a better life. And if we assume that a person is a rational human being they can fill in the blanks for themselves. In this regard religion remains and incredibly valuable tool for making people better.
It would be nice if religious believers could preach and not come under such harsh criticism. And I take it that those that believe in Hell do try to preach much more than I do. Maybe I'm just too laid back lol. I guess it'd just be nice if people took away "this person is trying to look out for me" instead of "this person is trying to convert me" but it doesn't feel like that's how people receive preaching.
Theists, be them Muslims or Christians, that blow themselves up in suicide attacks, while not representative for most religious people, are very brave and moral people. They sacrifice a lot for what they believe to be good.
The problem is that they have the facts wrong, leading their brave personalities and proper ethics to violent behavior. These individuals don't use religion as an excuse. Their ethics forces them to do this.
Religion is the problem, not people. Moderates are just as much a problem as fundamentalists. Moderates just betray their faith more. I can't respect that at all. Moderates just do two things bad. They are religious but they are bad at being religious.
On March 06 2011 07:27 dudeman001 wrote: As for me, I'm Catholic and I love what religion has to give me. Do I believe in Hell? Actually no. We also forget that the Bible is man's interpretation of the word of God. Do I think anyone is inferior to anyone else based on what they believe in? Fuck no, and "we're all the children of God" is not a bullshit excuse. To God we are all equal, he loves us all unconditionally. How can I rationalize judging anyone as a mere human? It's God who judges us, for me to judge another is playing God. No, we're all brothers and sisters, and thanks to what God has taught me I can love anyone and everyone unconditionally.
God doesn't want us to be mindless slaves. In the eyes of a religious individual, he created us in this world with our own free will for a reason. A reason humans may never truly understand. But nonetheless he gave us the gift of reason so we can come to understand one another, so we can love one another.
On March 06 2011 05:41 Karliath wrote: I may not believe in Christianity, and I sure may be glad that people don't come to my door to preach to me, but I find that it is bad for Christians, if they really believe in their faith, not to preach.
What would you like religious people to do then? You both dislike how we try to spread our word, but dislike that when we don't. If someone is willing to accept the word of God, then they can be approached. If someone is shut off, then the more they're approached the more agitated they'll become. It's like telling a colorblind person that the sky is blue. If they're receptive, they may believe you and listen. If they're not, they'll just disregard what you say. There's nothing more you can do.
Thank you for your response.
Concerning the first paragraph I quoted, my point about inferiority has no basis if you don't believe in Hell. My point was that, if God judges that you can go to Heaven and I have to go to Hell, the inferiority is clear. If someone still wants to say that the soul in Heaven is equal to the one in Hell, then I have nothing to say to that person. BUT, since you don't believe in Hell, between you and me then, that argument can be disregarded.
You say that the Bible, which includes Hell, is only man's interpretation of the word of God. May I ask then, where you get your interpretation of the word of God - in other words, your belief system? Do you interpret the word of God yourself, or do you read the Bible, man's interpretation, and then go ahead and interpret it further?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible is the only "physical recording," if you will, of the word of God. Sure, it may be man's interpretation, but where else would you get the word of God?
Do you imagine (bad choice of words, I apologize) what a proper religion would be like, and then, from there, decide that these proper morals/beliefs/conducts are the word of God?
This again goes back to my point about how Christians today seem to "pick and choose" parts of the established branches that they like, in my eyes to conform with modern social and moral values. Now I'm not saying that you have to 100% agree with everything in the Bible, or everything in a particular branch to become Christian. My question is, where is that line? At what point does a person's beliefs stray too far from the Bible, or the word of God (if you can define/describe it), that he is no longer Christian?
Concerning your third paragraph, yes, I do believe Christians should preach. As I stated in my example, if I know a bomb is going to blow up under you, I don't care how much I 'agitate' you, I'm going to try to convince you to run (read: convert). But okay, perhaps that's just not the Christian way then. Maybe the attitude is, "There's a bomb under you. Now that I have given you a chance to save your life, it is up to you to decide whether you want to believe me." But then, we of course return to the point about how there are a whole ton of Christians who believe in a whole ton of things.
On March 06 2011 07:21 Chromyne wrote:
Deaths caused by Religion (specifically Christianity, not sure about others) is also another example I don't like. For sure, wars were fought in the name of religion, but not IN LINE with their religion. However the wars in the past under the guise of Christianity have been out of greed and selfishness of humanity.
However you could say that deaths caused by people like Hitler or Stalin, were completely IN LINE with Atheistic beliefs (regardless of whether they expressed them openly): that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, and that there are no moral absolutes to govern their actions as right or wrong.
Food for thought, feel free to disagree.
I agree with your point about religious wars. Especially in European history, many wars were waged in the name of religion, but were actually fought for political gain.
When you talk about deaths caused by Atheism though, it gets kind of awkward for me. What about all the technological, medical, environmental, etc advancements made by atheists, meant to protect and improve lives?
While atheists may not believe in moral absolutes, it doesn't mean that they don't believe that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, if you get what I mean. They don't need a God or a religion to tell them the value of human lives, they just accept it by themselves.
And thank you for responding civilly and kindly. You really can't believe how much I appreciate that in a religious discussion.
On a personal level, I get my understanding of the word of God from what I learned on my own. Personally I believe just the idea of Hell is all God needs. Would he really force those who disobey him to suffer an eternity? That those who don't believe in him get cast down to Lucifer who in turn tortures us? No way, God as a divine pure being would never do anything like that. A purgatory I can believe, but not a Hell after death. To influence people to behave, only the IDEA of a punishment is all necessary. That's just how I believe differently.
Your "physical recording" sounds a lot more like what I meant than man's interpretation. But after all, the Bible is... well, biblical (lol) in how old it is, and after monk's transcribing and King George's final edition, the original and final versions could very well be different. That doesn't mean believers should disregard it. The Bible is like a guideline to being a better person and living a better life. And if we assume that a person is a rational human being they can fill in the blanks for themselves. In this regard religion remains and incredibly valuable tool for making people better.
It would be nice if religious believers could preach and not come under such harsh criticism. And I take it that those that believe in Hell do try to preach much more than I do. Maybe I'm just too laid back lol. I guess it'd just be nice if people took away "this person is trying to look out for me" instead of "this person is trying to convert me" but it doesn't feel like that's how people receive preaching.
Hmm, so you believe that there is no hell but God deems it necessary to create that concept for people to obey him yet previously, you just stated that God wants people to have free will. Aren't those two things contradicting each other?
Someone has a gun on your head and tells you that he is going to kill you if you don't do as he tells you to. Can you still consider that choice "free will" when they are being threatened? Does that sound like free will to you? It doesn't matter if the gun is empty if the person believes the gun is loaded as the threat is still there, and doesn't this also contradict your definition of a pure divine being who wouldn't make anyone suffer?
What you essentially believe in is what you want to be true, and I think it is pretty much the same with most religious people. But just because that's the way you want things to work doesn't mean that it does.
Alshanin, don't generalize people. Not all religious people are violent.
My main problem with religion is its conflicts with science. Faith in general annoys me and I find it to be one of the worst possible vice you could have. See, the difference between you and me is that if there was physical and irrefutable evidence that some god existed, I would have to believe it. I don't argue with reality, unlike you. There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to you to make you see that there is no god.
You disregard widely accepted and proven scientific facts, on the basis that it conflicts with your religious delusions. Sure at the moment it's stuff like carbon dating, fossils, evolution etc. It is highly possible that in the future new very important scientific discoveries will be made, if these would help mankind immensly, but conflict with your beliefs, you would do everything in your power to stop them. Religious thinking hinders mankind.
You can't make life altering decisions based on faith. Faith is rejecting all reason and accepting whatever someone says to you. If I told you I am god, why would you not believe me? If your answer is "because the bible said so and the bible says its true", I say that I'm speaking the truth, because I am god. If someone actually came to you and said that, you'd probably think they were being ridiculous, well to me religious people sound just like that. Are you starting to understand what I mean? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in god or any of the claims about god or jesus in the bible.
I hear a lot about people claiming the bible is a good source of morals.
The Bible is like a guideline to being a better person and living a better life. And if we assume that a person is a rational human being they can fill in the blanks for themselves. In this regard religion remains and incredibly valuable tool for making people better.
I could go on and find you a lot more of these, but honestly try reading your bible and you'll be surprised.
What's that? These are from the old testament and therefore don't apply? I didn't know an omnipotent, infallible being made mistakes and suddenly changed his mind. Oh, and the 10 commandments are from the old testament.
Heres some new testament passages:
Matthew 5:27-32 (About divorce and adultery, you should also dismember and blind yourself, if you're having lustful thoughts) Matthew 10:33-10:37 (kill your family, because jesus is the lawd) Acts 3:23 (Kill non-believers)
There are also various passages that endorse slavery and how slaves should be treated. Google them, if you're too lazy to read a bible.
Then there's some really nice stuff like Luke 12:33, let me know when you've sold all your possessions so I can send you my paypal account info.
All christians believe in the "sacrifice" of Jesus (sacrifice is kinda funny when you're actually immortal). Do you really believe, that an innocent people can be killed to forgive the crimes of everyone? If so, you'd be okay, if we shot someone and let everyone out of prisons. They're forgiven after all.
Do you disagree with any of these? Congratulations, you now consider yourself more moral than god.
Try answering these questions: 1) How do you define god? 2) What kind of evidence do you require to show you that there is no god? 3) What can you show as evidence to prove the existance of the christian god?
On March 06 2011 07:27 dudeman001 wrote: As for me, I'm Catholic and I love what religion has to give me. Do I believe in Hell? Actually no. We also forget that the Bible is man's interpretation of the word of God. Do I think anyone is inferior to anyone else based on what they believe in? Fuck no, and "we're all the children of God" is not a bullshit excuse. To God we are all equal, he loves us all unconditionally. How can I rationalize judging anyone as a mere human? It's God who judges us, for me to judge another is playing God. No, we're all brothers and sisters, and thanks to what God has taught me I can love anyone and everyone unconditionally.
God doesn't want us to be mindless slaves. In the eyes of a religious individual, he created us in this world with our own free will for a reason. A reason humans may never truly understand. But nonetheless he gave us the gift of reason so we can come to understand one another, so we can love one another.
On March 06 2011 05:41 Karliath wrote: I may not believe in Christianity, and I sure may be glad that people don't come to my door to preach to me, but I find that it is bad for Christians, if they really believe in their faith, not to preach.
What would you like religious people to do then? You both dislike how we try to spread our word, but dislike that when we don't. If someone is willing to accept the word of God, then they can be approached. If someone is shut off, then the more they're approached the more agitated they'll become. It's like telling a colorblind person that the sky is blue. If they're receptive, they may believe you and listen. If they're not, they'll just disregard what you say. There's nothing more you can do.
Thank you for your response.
Concerning the first paragraph I quoted, my point about inferiority has no basis if you don't believe in Hell. My point was that, if God judges that you can go to Heaven and I have to go to Hell, the inferiority is clear. If someone still wants to say that the soul in Heaven is equal to the one in Hell, then I have nothing to say to that person. BUT, since you don't believe in Hell, between you and me then, that argument can be disregarded.
You say that the Bible, which includes Hell, is only man's interpretation of the word of God. May I ask then, where you get your interpretation of the word of God - in other words, your belief system? Do you interpret the word of God yourself, or do you read the Bible, man's interpretation, and then go ahead and interpret it further?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible is the only "physical recording," if you will, of the word of God. Sure, it may be man's interpretation, but where else would you get the word of God?
Do you imagine (bad choice of words, I apologize) what a proper religion would be like, and then, from there, decide that these proper morals/beliefs/conducts are the word of God?
This again goes back to my point about how Christians today seem to "pick and choose" parts of the established branches that they like, in my eyes to conform with modern social and moral values. Now I'm not saying that you have to 100% agree with everything in the Bible, or everything in a particular branch to become Christian. My question is, where is that line? At what point does a person's beliefs stray too far from the Bible, or the word of God (if you can define/describe it), that he is no longer Christian?
Concerning your third paragraph, yes, I do believe Christians should preach. As I stated in my example, if I know a bomb is going to blow up under you, I don't care how much I 'agitate' you, I'm going to try to convince you to run (read: convert). But okay, perhaps that's just not the Christian way then. Maybe the attitude is, "There's a bomb under you. Now that I have given you a chance to save your life, it is up to you to decide whether you want to believe me." But then, we of course return to the point about how there are a whole ton of Christians who believe in a whole ton of things.
On March 06 2011 07:21 Chromyne wrote:
Deaths caused by Religion (specifically Christianity, not sure about others) is also another example I don't like. For sure, wars were fought in the name of religion, but not IN LINE with their religion. However the wars in the past under the guise of Christianity have been out of greed and selfishness of humanity.
However you could say that deaths caused by people like Hitler or Stalin, were completely IN LINE with Atheistic beliefs (regardless of whether they expressed them openly): that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, and that there are no moral absolutes to govern their actions as right or wrong.
Food for thought, feel free to disagree.
I agree with your point about religious wars. Especially in European history, many wars were waged in the name of religion, but were actually fought for political gain.
When you talk about deaths caused by Atheism though, it gets kind of awkward for me. What about all the technological, medical, environmental, etc advancements made by atheists, meant to protect and improve lives?
While atheists may not believe in moral absolutes, it doesn't mean that they don't believe that human life has no absolute intrinsic value, if you get what I mean. They don't need a God or a religion to tell them the value of human lives, they just accept it by themselves.
And thank you for responding civilly and kindly. You really can't believe how much I appreciate that in a religious discussion.
On a personal level, I get my understanding of the word of God from what I learned on my own. Personally I believe just the idea of Hell is all God needs. Would he really force those who disobey him to suffer an eternity? That those who don't believe in him get cast down to Lucifer who in turn tortures us? No way, God as a divine pure being would never do anything like that. A purgatory I can believe, but not a Hell after death. To influence people to behave, only the IDEA of a punishment is all necessary. That's just how I believe differently.
Your "physical recording" sounds a lot more like what I meant than man's interpretation. But after all, the Bible is... well, biblical (lol) in how old it is, and after monk's transcribing and King George's final edition, the original and final versions could very well be different. That doesn't mean believers should disregard it. The Bible is like a guideline to being a better person and living a better life. And if we assume that a person is a rational human being they can fill in the blanks for themselves. In this regard religion remains and incredibly valuable tool for making people better.
It would be nice if religious believers could preach and not come under such harsh criticism. And I take it that those that believe in Hell do try to preach much more than I do. Maybe I'm just too laid back lol. I guess it'd just be nice if people took away "this person is trying to look out for me" instead of "this person is trying to convert me" but it doesn't feel like that's how people receive preaching.
Are you, or do you call yourself a Christian, dudeman001?
On March 06 2011 13:39 Alshahin wrote: The problem is that they have the facts wrong, leading their brave personalities and proper ethics to violent behavior. These individuals don't use religion as an excuse. Their ethics forces them to do this.
Religion is the problem, not people. Moderates are just as much a problem as fundamentalists. Moderates just betray their faith more. I can't respect that at all. Moderates just do two things bad. They are religious but they are bad at being religious.
Sources please. (If you can do your research besides Googling it that would be great too.)
On March 06 2011 19:34 Sotamursu wrote: My main problem with religion is its conflicts with science. Faith in general annoys me and I find it to be one of the worst possible vice you could have. See, the difference between you and me is that if there was physical and irrefutable evidence that some god existed, I would have to believe it. I don't argue with reality, unlike you. There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to you to make you see that there is no god.
You disregard widely accepted and proven scientific facts, on the basis that it conflicts with your religious delusions. Sure at the moment it's stuff like carbon dating, fossils, evolution etc. It is highly possible that in the future new very important scientific discoveries will be made, if these would help mankind immensly, but conflict with your beliefs, you would do everything in your power to stop them. Religious thinking hinders mankind.
As a Christian I believe in carbon dating, fossils and naturalistic evolution. Personally, I don't see any conflicts (go ahead, quote Genesis), but again, this isn't even a core issue [with Christianity] so if naturalistic evolution is true (which I believe is completely logical), Christianity isn't debunked. (I do understand that some or many do not believe in naturalistic evolution, and well... someone has to be wrong in the end!)
Saying that faith hinders human advancement is silly, mainly because scientists that exist from all worldviews... are still scientists. Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, believed in God and Einstein was a firm non-atheist; Harvard, Yale, and other universities were established by Christians for the purpose of discovering the natural world; modern day Christian scientists still exist as well (the most notable that comes to mind is Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome project).
You can't make life altering decisions based on faith. Faith is rejecting all reason and accepting whatever someone says to you. If I told you I am god, why would you not believe me? If your answer is "because the bible said so and the bible says its true", I say that I'm speaking the truth, because I am god. If someone actually came to you and said that, you'd probably think they were being ridiculous, well to me religious people sound just like that. Are you starting to understand what I mean? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in god or any of the claims about god or jesus in the bible.
Saying you are God, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and God, is not the same as a Christian professing belief in his/her God. It may be true that they may have come to their [initial] belief existentially, however the Bible isn't just a book. It has historical merits that put it beyond just say-so. If that were not true, I'm sure Christianity would have fallen a long time ago under all this antagonism. Faith is not blind, it is a trust based on reason. You can argue the merits of that reasoning, but this is how, even people today, use this word.
I hear a lot about people claiming the bible is a good source of morals.
The Bible is like a guideline to being a better person and living a better life. And if we assume that a person is a rational human being they can fill in the blanks for themselves. In this regard religion remains and incredibly valuable tool for making people better.
I could go on and find you a lot more of these, but honestly try reading your bible and you'll be surprised.
What's that? These are from the old testament and therefore don't apply? I didn't know an omnipotent, infallible being made mistakes and suddenly changed his mind. Oh, and the 10 commandments are from the old testament.
You're really good at finding verses, you don't like doing actual research, do you? There is this thing call context. They don't apply for very specific reasons: 1) they were for a specific group of people at a specific time (the Israelites), 2) it was to set the Israelites apart from everyone else (not really relevant to the laws you provided, however), and 3) it was to show the severity of sin with respect to a perfectly holy God.
You might not find that satisfying, and that's perfectly okay. But like some people don't like a speck of fecal matter in their chocolate cake, a perfectly holy God doesn't like unholiness.
Heres some new testament passages:
Matthew 5:27-32 (About divorce and adultery, you should also dismember and blind yourself, if you're having lustful thoughts) Matthew 10:33-10:37 (kill your family, because jesus is the lawd) Acts 3:23 (Kill non-believers)
There are also various passages that endorse slavery and how slaves should be treated. Google them, if you're too lazy to read a bible.
Then there's some really nice stuff like Luke 12:33, let me know when you've sold all your possessions so I can send you my paypal account info.
I think you're being lazy about this too:
Matthew 5:27-32 is not literal, that wouldn't make sense because sin is not physical in origin, so doing any of that literally would not help. This verse is to show the severity of sin and the need to get rid of it.
Matthew 10:33-37 is not about hating your family or killing them, it's about loving Jesus so much more relative to your family (who you already love, hopefully).
Acts 3:23. I don't see how you came to that conclusion at all. I don't see any imperative to kill non-believers. It says that they will be cut off from God's people, the KJV even says they'll be destroyed, but that's not an imperative or license to kill them. It just says that non-believers will not be with God.
You should have Google'd slavery, then you might see that slavery in the Bible is completely different. Slavery was usually a financial issue, and not based on race. People would sell themselves as slaves if they were in debt to someone, or if they just wanted their physical/financial needs provided for by a master. The Bible openly condemns man-stealing and slave-trading, which I think you are associating with.
All christians believe in the "sacrifice" of Jesus (sacrifice is kinda funny when you're actually immortal). Do you really believe, that an innocent people can be killed to forgive the crimes of everyone? If so, you'd be okay, if we shot someone and let everyone out of prisons. They're forgiven after all.
Jesus is God, so yes he is immortal. However, he died as a human for other people's mistakes while being perfect himself, so yeah that kind of sucks.
Your illustration assumes that the person is innocent - meaning completely blameless and perfect - which they are not.
Do you disagree with any of these? Congratulations, you now consider yourself more moral than god.
Try answering these questions: 1) How do you define god? 2) What kind of evidence do you require to show you that there is no god? 3) What can you show as evidence to prove the existance of the christian god?
1) Creator of the universe (through 6 day creation or naturalistic evolution, doesn't really matter to me) and humanity to have fellowship with and bring glory to Himself. Perfectly holy and just. 2) I don't believe the claim, 'god exists' is falsifiable. So logically, you can't provide evidence for this (correct me if I'm wrong). I guess you could produce evidence that would reduce the probability of a god existing? But that seems sort of moot because reducing is not extinguishing. 3) What evidence do you require to convince you of the existence of the Christian God?
The Bible is like a guideline to being a better person and living a better life. And if we assume that a person is a rational human being they can fill in the blanks for themselves. In this regard religion remains and incredibly valuable tool for making people better.
I could go on and find you a lot more of these, but honestly try reading your bible and you'll be surprised.
What's that? These are from the old testament and therefore don't apply? I didn't know an omnipotent, infallible being made mistakes and suddenly changed his mind. Oh, and the 10 commandments are from the old testament.
Heres some new testament passages:
Matthew 5:27-32 (About divorce and adultery, you should also dismember and blind yourself, if you're having lustful thoughts) Matthew 10:33-10:37 (kill your family, because jesus is the lawd) Acts 3:23 (Kill non-believers)
There are also various passages that endorse slavery and how slaves should be treated. Google them, if you're too lazy to read a bible.
Then there's some really nice stuff like Luke 12:33, let me know when you've sold all your possessions so I can send you my paypal account info.
All christians believe in the "sacrifice" of Jesus (sacrifice is kinda funny when you're actually immortal). Do you really believe, that an innocent people can be killed to forgive the crimes of everyone? If so, you'd be okay, if we shot someone and let everyone out of prisons. They're forgiven after all.
Do you disagree with any of these? Congratulations, you now consider yourself more moral than god.
Try answering these questions: 1) How do you define god? 2) What kind of evidence do you require to show you that there is no god? 3) What can you show as evidence to prove the existance of the christian god?
In your quoting and explanation of scripture, your Hermeneutics is atrocious. I would suggest that YOU read the bible, and take some time to study the true context and meaning of scriptures you quoted before presenting such an obviously biased, and flat out wrong interpretation. It is tough to know where to begin to pick apart such a post when there are so many misrepresentations of christian theology and belief.
My main problem with religion is its conflicts with science. Faith in general annoys me and I find it to be one of the worst possible vice you could have. See, the difference between you and me is that if there was physical and irrefutable evidence that some god existed, I would have to believe it. I don't argue with reality, unlike you. There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to you to make you see that there is no god.
You disregard widely accepted and proven scientific facts, on the basis that it conflicts with your religious delusions. Sure at the moment it's stuff like carbon dating, fossils, evolution etc. It is highly possible that in the future new very important scientific discoveries will be made, if these would help mankind immensly, but conflict with your beliefs, you would do everything in your power to stop them. Religious thinking hinders mankind.
You can't make life altering decisions based on faith. Faith is rejecting all reason and accepting whatever someone says to you. If I told you I am god, why would you not believe me? If your answer is "because the bible said so and the bible says its true", I say that I'm speaking the truth, because I am god. If someone actually came to you and said that, you'd probably think they were being ridiculous, well to me religious people sound just like that. Are you starting to understand what I mean? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in god or any of the claims about god or jesus in the bible.
Many skeptics think that Christianity is for people who do not want to think. Christians are often characterized as people who believe whatever they are told by the church. Faith is thought of as something that one believes blindly - with no supporting evidence. However, this viewpoint does not represent biblical Christianity. In contrast, to what many skeptics believe, the Bible challenges its readers to test it and come to a reasonable conclusion. There are those Christians who believe blindly, and certain cults (such as Mormonism) teach that truth can be known through prayer. These ideas are heretical to biblical Christianity and often lead to deception, making such individuals susceptible to conversion by the cults.
-Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Contrary to what many non-believers think, the Bible does not teach blind faith. In fact, the Bible actually tells believers to test everything. No other "holy" book tells its readers to actually put what it says to the test. The Bible can make such a statement because it passes the tests of truthfulness that no other "holy" book can. God Himself in His revelation to Isaiah stated, "Come now, and let us reason together..." God, the Creator of humans and human reasoning ability wants us to use that ability to determine His plan of salvation. How do we determine if the Bible is true? We test it and see if it is reasonable. Psalm 19 tells us that the universe "declares the glory of God" and that this "voice goes out into all the earth." In fact, the Bible says that the evidence for God's design of the universe is so strong that people are "without excuse" in rejecting God and His plan of salvation.
Biblical faith is based upon knowledge and sound doctrine
God wants believers to be knowledgeable, especially regarding their faith. A lack of knowledge leads to apostasy and destruction, as God Himself said to Hosea, "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge." A zeal for God is not sufficient to please Him, since many Jews have this zeal, although it is misplaced since it is "not in accordance with knowledge." The Bible encourages believers to have a knowledge-based faith, built upon sound biblical doctrine. When Paul preached the gospel, he did it through reasoning from the scriptures and not an appeal to blind faith. Paul, in his letters told believers to do away with childish thinking and reasoning. Christians are advised to set an example for others in teaching by modeling "integrity, seriousness, and soundness of speech." The physician Luke, in his prologue to his gospel revealed that he determined the truth through careful investigation:
...it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'" (Matthew 22:37)
The Bible teaches a rational faith, based upon knowledge and refined through testing. Christians are encouraged to use their minds in all aspects of life, including our spiritual life - prayer and worship. God values truthfulness to a high degree and wants us to know the truth about his creation, the nature of His being and His scriptures. Ultimately, God wants all people to come to the knowledge of the truth of His salvation through Jesus Christ, so that they may spend eternity with Him in the new creation.
Well, in many religious countries it's hard to be an atheist. Hell even in big parts of USA it's hard to be open about ones atheism. Being the only rational in an otherwise irrational environment is hard, but the internet gives the possibility to express your opinions and perhaps release some anger towards the religious.
Since the internet is all about free speech the sane ideas prevails and that's why rationalism/scepticism triumphs religion on internet.
On March 06 2011 16:44 Nemesis wrote: Alshanin, don't generalize people. Not all religious people are violent.
Read the post. Don't be lazy. All religious people are religious. No generalization.
Violence is just one example. Religion distorts ethics. If I were religious I would use violence for the greater good. I would kill innocents too. If god exists, god is more important than humans. I will do what he asks. It is the ethical thing to do. This life has no meaning anyway. It is all about the afterlife. The people I kill are saved.
And those that aren't violent can't think straight either. They think believing things because there is no evidence is a good thing all by itself. They consider that pious and it is a great virtue. This is bad for interpreting reality. This leads to all kind of strange and hypocrite things that moderates do.
Sources please. (If you can do your research besides Googling it that would be great too.)
Source for what? Google what?
You think Mohammed Atta used religion as an excuse to commit suicide because he was depressed? Source please.
On March 06 2011 16:44 Nemesis wrote: Alshanin, don't generalize people. Not all religious people are violent.
Read the post. Don't be lazy. All religious people are religious. No generalization.
Violence is just one example. Religion distorts ethics.
Religion has given the very basis of ethics. It is a sad fact that there is no point to nor any benefit to "good" or "bad" scientifically. The Holocaust was an interpretation of evolution as a state policy.
Saying that faith hinders human advancement is silly, mainly because scientists that exist from all worldviews... are still scientists. Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, believed in God and Einstein was a firm non-atheist; Harvard, Yale, and other universities were established by Christians for the purpose of discovering the natural world; modern day Christian scientists still exist as well (the most notable that comes to mind is Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome project).
This video explains why faith hindered Newton and many other famous scientists:
Furthermore, while Einstein was not an atheist and considered himself an agnostic, he vehemently rejected the notion of a personal God and is quoted saying, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Saying you are God, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and God, is not the same as a Christian professing belief in his/her God. It may be true that they may have come to their [initial] belief existentially, however the Bible isn't just a book. It has historical merits that put it beyond just say-so. If that were not true, I'm sure Christianity would have fallen a long time ago under all this antagonism. Faith is not blind, it is a trust based on reason. You can argue the merits of that reasoning, but this is how, even people today, use this word.
Your definition is not consistent with the widely held definition of faith. That is, faith is trust placed with complete disregard to proof or evidence. Faith, by definition, does not utilize rigorous logic and reasoning.
Furthermore, religion was not placed under extreme and frequent scrutiny until this past century or so. Simply renouncing religion, for a very long period of time in history, would have led to execution. For example, Copernicus and Galileo were met with extreme resistance and were condemned by the Church because of heliocentrism. Religion has been used by people for centuries to fill in the gaps for events or phenomena for which they didn't understand. It gives people a reason to be content with ignorance. As technology and science progressed, explanations for these phenomena were put forth and tested, which in turn developed into theories, which are completely devoid of any reference to the supernatural. So, the reason Christianity hadn't fallen a long time ago is because challenging it would have led to severe punishment, usually death, and there was a lag in science and technology in providing explanations for natural phenomena. If people two thousand years ago knew about the theories we have today, religion wouldn't exist.
On March 07 2011 07:25 sermokala wrote: Religion has given the very basis of ethics. It is a sad fact that there is no point to nor any benefit to "good" or "bad" scientifically. The Holocaust was an interpretation of evolution as a state policy.
EPT
(Burning prostitutes alive)
