Do you believe in God?

[Hun200kmh]

Off topic, I just read the wikipedia page on Pope Urban II. A fascinating read on a fascinating historical figure, for anyone interested in the history of mankind.

On topic, about us clever guys from the XXIst century discussing the actions and the way of thinking of people that lived 1000 years ago like if they lived today ... I sincerely think it is always a very opportunistic but not very honest (or even "rational") exercise. But whatever.

 

[Slash]

Imagine the explaining you would have to do to those people, even ones that lived 200 years ago!

 

[shmogt]

Lol I saw this comedian and he was talking about all this stuff like how crazy some of it is and there is not a lot of explanation as to what really happened or why. Than he said what if it's all a prank from the old time people just to screw with us. Like they set this all up on purpose because they knew we would try to solve it lol. He goes on to say we should do the same thing and just go to the top of mt. Everest and just drill a hole 1 miles deep and throw a dog in. So in thousands of years when that generation finally decided to build something in it they will be like wait wtf how is there a dog skeleton in here? To be safe we shoot the dog once and put a crown on its head, that will really give them a mystery lol.

 

[TankAss95]

Lol I saw this comedian and he was talking about all this stuff like how crazy some of it is and there is not a lot of explanation as to what really happened or why. Than he said what if it's all a prank from the old time people just to screw with us. Like they set this all up on purpose because they knew we would try to solve it lol. He goes on to say we should do the same thing and just go to the top of mt. Everest and just drill a hole 1 miles deep and throw a dog in. So in thousands of years when that generation finally decided to build something in it they will be like wait wtf how is there a dog skeleton in here? To be safe we shoot the dog once and put a crown on its head, that will really give them a mystery lol.

What?

 

[Hun200kmh]

I was catching up on the many recent pages and saw this re-posted, by the same person that has already posted it in the first place, a few months ago.

I'm not an historian, and this has nothing to do with the existence of God, but I can't let such a display of ignorance just show up here without a word.

And I'm not going to use my own words, I'm a suspect because a Christian. So I'll go with a supposedly unbiased source. Not because it's the most credible (wiki is vulnerable, we all know that), but because it's the most easily found.

So, this only for the ones that really wonder if what happened in Western Europe between the fall of the (western) Roman Empire and the Renaissance can be called "the Christian Dark Ages" I ask this. Consider the possibility that such a name, and the graph shown above, is nothing but pure garbage, an historical invention, pure propaganda in a "1984esque" style. Just the possibility. And be curious. Be rational. Use doubt to learn.

wiki on this is a long read, maybe not for people that aren't that interested in history. But I'll leave the link here anyway, for those who are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages

 

[Slash]

What?

That's what I said.

 

[shmogt]

What?

That's what I said.

Ahah ok you know how we have so many things that we have no idea of why they are actually made. Like Jesus the bible we have no idea exactly what happened. The pyramids, the Mayan pyramids, those face things on Easter island, etc. Lots of stuff that people made thousands of years ago with no real paper work to document what happened. So our society now is stumped as to what happened. Now read the joke again and it should make sense.

 

[Slash]

Ahah ok you know how we have so many things that we have no idea of why they are actually made. Like Jesus the bible we have no idea exactly what happened. The pyramids, the Mayan pyramids, those face things on Easter island, etc. Lots of stuff that people made thousands of years ago with no real paper work to document what happened. So our society now is stumped as to what happened. Now read the joke again and it should make sense.

HAHAHA I just got that. Nice.

 

[El]

I was catching up on the many recent pages and saw this re-posted, by the same person that has already posted it in the first place, a few months ago.

I'm not an historian, and this has nothing to do with the existence of God, but I can't let such a display of ignorance just show up here without a word.

And I'm not going to use my own words, I'm a suspect because a Christian. So I'll go with a supposedly unbiased source. Not because it's the most credible (wiki is vulnerable, we all know that), but because it's the most easily found.

So, this only for the ones that really wonder if what happened in Western Europe between the fall of the (western) Roman Empire and the Renaissance can be called "the Christian Dark Ages" I ask this. Consider the possibility that such a name, and the graph shown above, is nothing but pure garbage, an historical invention, pure propaganda in a "1984esque" style. Just the possibility. And be curious. Be rational. Use doubt to learn.

wiki on this is a long read, maybe not for people that aren't that interested in history. But I'll leave the link here anyway, for those who are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages

The term "the dark ages" could well be seen as a misguiding one and as italian romantic propaganda, but there is no doubt the historical sources ( written history) became fewer after the fall of the roman empire and for hondruds of years to come. However, if you want to think adventurously, who has the right, if we say there ever was a thing worthy of the term, to claim its a thing of the past?

 

[arora]

I was catching up on the many recent pages and saw this re-posted, by the same person that has already posted it in the first place, a few months ago.

I'm not an historian, and this has nothing to do with the existence of God, but I can't let such a display of ignorance just show up here without a word.

I've left that one alone because I'm not sure what 'scientific advancement' is being portrayed or how it is measured, or what Christians are attributed with this 'dark age'. I'll assume it's a nock on the Catholic church in Europe suppressing knowledge to maintain power, the graph is void however of any meaningful data. It did do one thing for me though, it made me think, and in thinking of oppression, which I believe the graph is trying to portray, I came up with a few things.

First being Trofim Lysenko and all his additions to modern science and how they impacted The U.S.S.R. Anyone interested can google the term Lysenkoism, should yield enough legitimate information. I can't say there is any parallelism to tic tac's graph as I have no idea what his graph represents but anyone should see a hindrance of science forced onto a society.

Second, after bumping around aimlessly I came across in interesting paper written by Paul Froese(Dept of Sociology and Anthropology at baylor University). It starts with this quote from William James.(dubbed father of American psychology)

A philosophy whose principle is so incommensurate with our most intimate feelings as to deny them all relevancy in universal affairs, as to annihilate their motives at one blow, will be even more unpopular than pessimism—that is why materialism will always fail of universal adoption

And From the introduction.

In this article, I examine the ultimate failure of scientific atheism in Soviet Russia. First, I clarify the concept of a monopoly religion. Then I investigate Soviet Russia’s religious economy, a landscape dominated by a severely weakened Orthodox Church and a heavily promoted atheist alternative to religion. Under these circumstances, one might expect the rapid spread of religious disbelief, but the intensity of the atheist campaign originated from official mandate and not popular appeal. In turn, the tenets of scientific atheism never inspired the Russian population but instead grew increasingly uninspired as Soviet officials created a monopoly “church” of scientific atheism in hopes of replacing persistent religious beliefs and practices. The majority of the article explains why Communists could not successfully preach atheism to the masses even with the full support of the state.

Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed

Both subjects speak for themselves and serve a thinking mind much more then that silly graph 👍

 

[Akira AC]

^ Christians are attributed the dark ages because they stopped the normal development of technology and theories(Galileo for example), repression from the church was necessary to maintain political control, denying or deflecting such thing is actually an historical inaccuracy, besides the church had an economical model back then and it couldn't compromise such thing because of some pioneers that might take the concept of god down and therefore their political/economic control.

Besides the USSR did great advances in many scientific areas, yes they were dictatorial at times but taking control from the church and giving free will to the people will allowed them to have development in different areas, pre-sovietic Russia could not archive what communists and their philosophies did (for the record, communist are not evil, portraying atheists as communist is actually irrelevant).

I also wonder why theists (to be more specific Christians) never bring out to this discussion the multiple sexual assaults done by priests to children, and how they get exonerated in multiple occasions because the church doesn't condemn but actually deny these actions.

 

[arora]

Christians are attributed the dark ages because they stopped the normal development of technology

As did Stalin.

repression from the church was necessary to maintain political control, denying or deflecting such thing is actually an historical inaccuracy, besides the church had an economical model back then and it couldn't compromise such thing because of some pioneers that might take the concept of god down and therefore their political/economic control.

I'm not denying anything other then that graph represents any form of data. I'm not deflecting either, in fact I stated what I figured the idea behind it to be.

Besides the USSR did great advances in many scientific areas, yes they were dictatorial at times but taking control from the church and giving free will to the people will allowed them to have development in different areas

Free will in the form of forcing non scientific agriculture? Do you know who Lysenko is, his ideas, or how he came to power? I'm sorry if I think imprisoning and killing scientists who went against his ideas is wrong, or any different then what the church did.

(for the record, communist are not evil, portraying atheists as communist is actually irrelevant).

For the record I didn't call communists evil, nor did I portray atheists as communist(I've even recently quoted some communist ideals in this thread). If you cannot see the similarities in approach to maintain power I can't help you.

I also wonder why theists (to be more specific Christians) never bring out to this discussion the multiple sexual assaults done by priests to children, and how they get exonerated in multiple occasions because the church doesn't condemn but actually deny these actions.

Do you feel it is something I have tried to hide? I have always been against organized religion and never hid that fact(I can't expect you to know this unless you've read any posts where I've commented on it), as a Christian I have no reason to either bring it up or not as I'm not defending or attacking the church.

Aside from bringing up some facts of history I figured some might learn from or read about, I was making two points. Didn't Stalen go against, or hide, science from the public? Didn't he also try to abolish religion to gain and maintain power?(or actually create his own religion)

 

[Tic Tach]

For some weekend humor:


.

 

[Akira AC]

As did Stalin.

How so?

I'm not denying anything other then that graph represents any form of data. I'm not deflecting either, in fact I stated what I figured the idea behind it to be.

So linking an article that documents how the church loose its adepts and then how this trend became a problem isn't any form of defence right?

Free will in the form of forcing non scientific agriculture? Do you know who Lysenko is, his ideas, or how he came to power? I'm sorry if I think imprisoning and killing scientists who went against his ideas is wrong, or any different then what the church did.

So because communist did it means that atheists did it?

For the record I didn't call communists evil, nor did I portray atheists as communist(I've even recently quoted some communist ideals in this thread). If you cannot see the similarities in approach to maintain power I can't help you.

See above.

Aside from bringing up some facts of history I figured some might learn from or read about, I was making two points. Didn't Stalen go against, or hide, science from the public? Didn't he also try to abolish religion to gain and maintain power?(or actually create his own religion)

Which proves what, that atheism is wrong because it destroys/creates religions based in an ideology(Nazis for example), or that religions are just based on ideologies(like the Muslim), because that seems to be the case.

Making Stalin an example of how atheism do the same things that the church did is actually irrelevant, Stalin seek control and it didn't use religion or atheism as a tool, just ideologies.

 

[arora]

How so?

Lysenkoism

So linking an article that documents how the church loose its adepts and then how this trend became a problem isn't any form of defense right?

You lost me. Do you mean if the church didn't exist in the first place? Also not sure what it is I'm supposedly defending, the graphs lack of Merritt? If you think I agree with anyone silencing science you are mistaken but like I said, you lost me on this one.

So because communist did it means that atheists did it?

No, because an atheist did it means an atheist did it.

See above.

Lost me again.

Which proves what, that atheism is wrong because it destroys/creates religions based in an ideology(Nazis for example), or that religions are just based on ideologies(like the Muslim), because that seems to be the case.

Which points out that people do these things, regardless of religion. I wasn't making a case that atheism is wrong, not sure where you got that from.

Making Stalin an example of how atheism do the same things that the church did is actually irrelevant, Stalin seek control and it didn't use religion or atheism as a tool, just ideologies.

So anything you don't want to discuss is irrelevant? O.K. Stalin did seek control by trying to destroy religion though, or like I said, actually trying to create his own.

I think there's a communication gap here for whatever reason, I'm not sure.

 

[Akira AC]

No, because an atheist did it means an atheist did it.

Communists =/=atheists, there is a big difference between doing atrocities in the name of god and doing atrocities in the name of the political party (which is what Stalin did).

So anything you don't want to discuss is irrelevant? O.K. Stalin did seek control by trying to destroy religion though, or like I said, actually trying to create his own.

Discussing politic ideologies is irrelevant, he destroyed religion to consolidate political control, just saying that he destroyed religion in the name of atheism is actually mistaken.

 

[Tic Tach]

I've posted this here before, but it looks like it's time once again.

 

[arora]

Communists =/=atheists, there is a big difference between doing atrocities in the name of god and doing atrocities in the name of the political party (which is what Stalin did).

I thought we already established communist does not equal atheist but thanks for reminding me. an atrocity is an atrocity in my book, please explain the difference. If it's because 'in the name of x fictitious character' is some how worse then 'in the name of advancing civilization' I'm not going to buy it.

Discussing politic ideologies is irrelevant, he destroyed religion to consolidate political control, just saying that he destroyed religion in the name of atheism is actually mistaken.

Which is why that is not what I said. It's not irrelevant to discuss replacing religion with political ideology. If the church had power and control and it was corrupt, something had to replace it, people are far from advanced enough to not rely on some organization in which to follow.

 

[Akira AC]

I thought we already established communist does not equal atheist but thanks for reminding me. an atrocity is an atrocity in my book, please explain the difference. If it's because 'in the name of x fictitious character' is some how worse then 'in the name of advancing civilization' I'm not going to buy it.

Exactly, the problem is that church acted in the name of religion, and Stalin acted in the name of communism. Saying that Stalin acted in the name of atheism is like saying that the church acted that way in the name of charity, there is a logical connection between the concept but is not correct as each uses the its ideologies as base.

The church did atrocities in the name of god, in the name of religion in fact, one could argue that Staling did the same by using progress as excuse, but is not the same as saying he did in the name of atheism which is the part I consider irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[TankAss95]

Judging one person by their beliefs is simply stupid, and it works for both atheists and religious people.
Christianity for example is a group that you could fit many different people into, with vastly varying beliefs. You can't use a criminal event which may have been significantly or not significantly influenced by Christianity, to attack Christians in an argument. It's the same with atheists, there is nothing stopping such a person from committing the same severities of such crimes, and if a singular atheist individual or group did do something bad, then it is not acceptable to attack a random atheist.
Bad people have always existed, and bad people will do bad things, regardless whether they are religious or not.

 

[arora]

.........

Fair enough, I new we'd get somewhere even if I don't know where that is

Since I don't think you know what I've been rambling in this thread or why, I'll tell you. Personal freedoms, specifically the right of every man to find a meaningful existence. As far as the thread title, I'd much rather discuss things like conscience, metaphysics, and cosmology, but religion and sociology seem to be more in the favor of others.

 

[BobK]

I've posted this here before, but it looks like it's time once again.

"Interviews" with dead people? I'm supposed to take that video seriously?

 

[Sir Tuddle]

Not gonna read 300 odd pages to get caught up to speed so:

No I don't believe in god, not since I was... What? 7?

 

[Tic Tach]

"Interviews" with dead people? I'm supposed to take that video seriously?

Yes, the video - while done in a cartoony sort of fashion - drives home a very real point. I understand that many now-a-days have the attention span of a gnat, especially when online, and asking someone to watch a 6.5 minute video is asking a lot, but I suggest that if you did take the time, you'd see the point the behind it.

 

[BobK]

I don't dispute that the video eventually makes a valid point, but let's face it here. If one of the theists in this discussion had posted up a link to something claiming to be interviews with people dead for over half a century I'm sure that you would have pilloried and/or ridiculed them.

 

[TankAss95]

A belief in God is based on experiences with God.

"We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He has disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself." - C. S. Lewis

 

[dylansan]

I've never had any experiences with God. So where does that put me, hell? Is it my fault I don't believe if I haven't been convinced?

 

[Danoff]

A belief in God is based on experiences with God something.

Fixed.

Problem is "something" might have been a shady burrito that caused some strange dreams.

 

[TankAss95]

I've never had any experiences with God. So where does that put me, hell? Is it my fault I don't believe if I haven't been convinced?

A great question. You could also ask, "How do I know the unknown God?" A wise man called Augustine once said: “Because God has made us for Himself, our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.” (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/42572)

As an atheist yourself, I'm sure you'll agree that we all have an unquenchable thirst for understanding and knowledge. We often look to science to fulfil our needs, but it can't answer the questions we asked as a child. Why am I here? What is my meaning in life? Questions like these can all be answered though your relationship with God.

Knowing God is possible by prayer, worship and study. I often use the world around me to feel close to God: The heavens declare the glory of God;And the firmament shows His handiwork.
-Psalms 19:1 (NKJV)

...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
-Romans 1:19-20 (NKJV)

 

[Danoff]

We often look to science to fulfil our needs, but it can't answer the questions we asked as a child. Why am I here? What is my meaning in life? Questions like these can all be answered though your relationship with God.

You can assign answers to those questions through a variety of religions, each with different answers, each claiming exactly what you do. You can also answer those questions with other pseudo religions like communism.

Why am I here? The state requested it.
What is my meaning in life? To serve the state.

Assigning an answer to those questions doesn't make it right.