Do you believe in God?

[Northstar]

What exactly do you mean?

He means there is a lack of evidence that god exists and the only "source" isn't credible in the slightest.

 

[Famine]

What does it teach in reference to man's condition and what to do about it.

Really, you owe it to yourself to investigate the Qu'ran and determine that for yourself. Personally I hold it in similar regard to the Bible - but as I said above, it, or rather Allah, claims that while the Bible and Torah are correct to an extent, they have been corrupted by mankind through editing and translation and that only the Qu'ran is a true account of events of that time being, as it is, the uncorrupted word of Allah.

I'd give it a go, if I were you. At the very least, the Qu'ran's claim of corruption through translation is true, else you wouldn't have so many Versions of the Bible...

So you do not believe it is possible to discern that.

I have no evidence supporting the existence of any gods and, as such, cannot either believe in one nor take as their word any book and place any value in the words therein.

Its now and beyond.
No. It was considerably more difficult prior, at least in many ways.

The question was whether there is any one thing that was easier or better for you before you became a believer, not your life as a whole. I'd kinda guessed you think your whole life is better now.

HHHmmm. Forgive me in advance but isn't that who's doing the posting here.
Or are you an Alien ?

There's a person behind the gun when someone is murdered. That doesn't make the gun responsible or fallible - it has been misused for that purpose. A gun is impartial as to its use.

You said that logic was flawed and could be wrong. As with the gun above, that isn't true - it's the person wielding it that can err. And, as I said earlier, If my logic is flawed, it's not logic. Logic is impassive and impartial.

 

[jonboy1066]

Been following this thread for a while and been tempted many times to post here, my simple answer to the question is:

No I do not believe in God.

I could ramble on for hours on my reasons behind my lack of belief in any religion using personal experiences as my back up but the post would go on for ages and I just don't have time to write it today.

Perhaps another time, when I've got a bit more time on my hands I'll post in this iteresting debate. But for now I thought I'd share this pic that I saw today on another website, just because it made me laugh:

Now there's Christmas spirit for ya​

 

[Duke]

It's based on a book, but my logic tells me its more than myths.
The reason I made the decision to proceed as described in my earlier post was based in part on the following logic:

The Bible explains the problems through out the history of our exsistence in the most comprehensive and correlatable way. Not just surface issues but root causes and provides a way to cure the disease, not just treat it.

Comprehensive? At the risk of sounding like a smartass, but exactly how is "In the Beginning, God created..." comprehensive in any way? How is a story about Woman eating the forbidden fruit the root cause of anything other than a lot of sexism and repression?

And not just repression against women, either - you do realize that Eve was punished for daring to eat the Fruit of Knowledge from the Tree of Life, right? In other words - don't dare be curious, don't dare question, don't dare disagree - just accept what We tell you and don't think for yourself. From Prometheus chained to the rock for stealing fire from the gods to the present day, the story has been the same.

That little parable is what opened my eyes to the reality of religion, and I was about 10 at the time when I realized what it was. I know you are at great pains to separate God from religion, but honestly, both are meaningless concepts without the other.

You would agree that we've had and still have some problems. Mankind that is?

In fact I am curious to know your explanations for some of those problems.

Frankly, from my study of history, I would say that irrationality is the cause of many of mankind's problems throughout history, and a primary tool of irrationality is religion. Dogma keeps people in the dark, in fear, in misunderstanding, and in hatred, and under control of those wielding the power.

The last 5 of the Ten Commandments actually make sense as a reasonable moral code for rational human interaction. But you have skip the first 5, which have caused untold problems and horror. Even the good Five Commandments are enforced by threat of violence rather than taught as the basis of cooperative interaction. Jesus maybe got it a little better than the Old Testament authors, but he failed to explain the fundamentals and just clouded it up with the whole idea of the Trinity vs. Satan and the rest of it.

But for every Five Commandments that does good, there are dozens of heinous acts of religious violence and destruction on a massive scale. For every Jesus teaching compassion and love, there are millions of small acts of religious cruelty and oppression.

Neolithic pagans sacrificed humans to their gods. Egyptians built the pyramids with slave labor. Aztecs brutally sacrificed slaves by the thousands - why? Because God told them to.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been killing each other mercilessly for 2,000 years - why? Because God tells them to.

African tribes live in a perpetual stone age world of brutal rape and killing - why? Because God tells them to.

South Pacific islanders paddled canoes for hundreds of miles across dangerous ocean so they could kill and eat people who worship differently than they do - why? Because God told them to.

Christians burned the Library of Alexandria, which contained nearly all the artistic and scientific knowledge of recorded history, setting the human race back the better part of a thousand years in advancement - why? Because God told them to.

The Spanish Inquisition and the English Civil War - why? Because God told them to.

Jim Jones and Fred Phelps - why? Because God told them to.

I know, I know, you will automatically fall back to the standard default defense of "but those were flawed men who were not real believers." but the blunt fact of the matter is that nearly all of those people committing those atrocities ARE real believers. They believe they are doing their god's work because their god told them to.

And you have nothing to offer in response to that but... nothing. You can't respond to it, because you have absolutely NO proof that their gods didn't tell them to destroy a vast library full of incredible information and beauty just because it didn't show their flavor of god enough respect. You can't prove that god didn't tell the Serbs and Croatians to murder a half a million of each other. You can't prove that god didn't tell the 38 Heaven's Gate people to kill themselves.

The exact same proof you have that God has shown himself to you is the exact same proof they had that God had shown himself to them.

You can extemporize, you can fall back on your scripture, you can explain the magical feeling you have, you can do whatever you want, but you can't escape the fact that you have absolutely no proof that your God is right and their gods were wrong. You have a feeling. Guess what? They had a feeling too.

You do not believe that what I'm saying is discernable or universally applicable for you.(even though it is)

You say it is universally applicable. I say it is not. What backs you up? Your Book. What backs me up? The entirety of human history.

I apologize if I sound bitter against you personally - I am not. I have no reason to suspect you are going to start burning books or heretics. But you are presenting the same monolithic, arrogant, reason-proof, evangelistic argument that has been used to destroy people since the dawn of time:

My God is the Right God because I Believe, and even if I don't smite you for not believing, He will.

I'm not buying. Religion's got nothing I want. And God is meaningless without religion, so there is no point in trying to separate the two.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Comprehensive? At the risk of sounding like a smartass, but exactly how is "In the Beginning, God created..." comprehensive in any way? How is a story about Woman eating the forbidden fruit the root cause of anything other than a lot of sexism and repression?

And not just repression against women, either - you do realize that Eve was punished for daring to eat the Fruit of Knowledge from the Tree of Life, right? In other words - don't dare be curious, don't dare question, don't dare disagree - just accept what We tell you and don't think for yourself. From Prometheus chained to the rock for stealing fire from the gods to the present day, the story has been the same.

That little parable is what opened my eyes to the reality of religion, and I was about 10 at the time when I realized what it was. I know you are at great pains to separate God from religion, but honestly, both are meaningless concepts without the other.



Frankly, from my study of history, I would say that irrationality is the cause of many of mankind's problems throughout history, and a primary tool of irrationality is religion. Dogma keeps people in the dark, in fear, in misunderstanding, and in hatred, and under control of those wielding the power.

The last 5 of the Ten Commandments actually make sense as a reasonable moral code for rational human interaction. But you have skip the first 5, which have caused untold problems and horror. Even the good Five Commandments are enforced by threat of violence rather than taught as the basis of cooperative interaction. Jesus maybe got it a little better than the Old Testament authors, but he failed to explain the fundamentals and just clouded it up with the whole idea of the Trinity vs. Satan and the rest of it.

But for every Five Commandments that does good, there are dozens of heinous acts of religious violence and destruction on a massive scale. For every Jesus teaching compassion and love, there are millions of small acts of religious cruelty and oppression.

Neolithic pagans sacrificed humans to their gods. Egyptians built the pyramids with slave labor. Aztecs brutally sacrificed slaves by the thousands - why? Because God told them to.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been killing each other mercilessly for 2,000 years - why? Because God tells them to.

African tribes live in a perpetual stone age world of brutal rape and killing - why? Because God tells them to.

South Pacific islanders paddled canoes for hundreds of miles across dangerous ocean so they could kill and eat people who worship differently than they do - why? Because God told them to.

Christians burned the Library of Alexandria, which contained nearly all the artistic and scientific knowledge of recorded history, setting the human race back the better part of a thousand years in advancement - why? Because God told them to.

The Spanish Inquisition and the English Civil War - why? Because God told them to.

Jim Jones and Fred Phelps - why? Because God told them to.

I know, I know, you will automatically fall back to the standard default defense of "but those were flawed men who were not real believers." but the blunt fact of the matter is that nearly all of those people committing those atrocities ARE real believers. They believe they are doing their god's work because their god told them to.

And you have nothing to offer in response to that but... nothing. You can't respond to it, because you have absolutely NO proof that their gods didn't tell them to destroy a vast library full of incredible information and beauty just because it didn't show their flavor of god enough respect. You can't prove that god didn't tell the Serbs and Croatians to murder a half a million of each other. You can't prove that god didn't tell the 38 Heaven's Gate people to kill themselves.

The exact same proof you have that God has shown himself to you is the exact same proof they had that God had shown himself to them.

You can extemporize, you can fall back on your scripture, you can explain the magical feeling you have, you can do whatever you want, but you can't escape the fact that you have absolutely no proof that your God is right and their gods were wrong. You have a feeling. Guess what? They had a feeling too.



You say it is universally applicable. I say it is not. What backs you up? Your Book. What backs me up? The entirety of human history.

I apologize if I sound bitter against you personally - I am not. I have no reason to suspect you are going to start burning books or heretics. But you are presenting the same monolithic, arrogant, reason-proof, evangelistic argument that has been used to destroy people since the dawn of time:

My God is the Right God because I Believe, and even if I don't smite you for not believing, He will.

I'm not buying. Religion's got nothing I want. And God is meaningless without religion, so there is no point in trying to separate the two.

Too bad we can't tell about the graphic sexual things missionary's did to "witches" back in the day, huh?
Or can we? I'll leave that up to you mods...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Comprehensive? At the risk of sounding like a smartass, but exactly how is "In the Beginning, God created..." comprehensive in any way? How is a story about Woman eating the forbidden fruit the root cause of anything other than a lot of sexism and repression?

I'm referring to the whole story or the entire book.
As to the rest of this, it is why we have the the problems we have, including the two you mention.

And not just repression against women, either - you do realize that Eve was punished for daring to eat the Fruit of Knowledge from the Tree of Life, right? In other words - don't dare be curious, don't dare question, don't dare disagree - just accept what We tell you and don't think for yourself. From Prometheus chained to the rock for stealing fire from the gods to the present day, the story has been the same.

Eve wasn't the only one punished, every person born since has been.
Whats the problem with warning someone of something immenently hazardous.
I wouldn't say thats exactly the same.

That little parable is what opened my eyes to the reality of religion, and I was about 10 at the time when I realized what it was. I know you are at great pains to separate God from religion, but honestly, both are meaningless concepts without the other.

No, I completely disagree with that.
They, in reality are entirely different.

Frankly, from my study of history, I would say that irrationality is the cause of many of mankind's problems throughout history, and a primary tool of irrationality is religion. Dogma keeps people in the dark, in fear, in misunderstanding, and in hatred, and under control of those wielding the power.

The last 5 of the Ten Commandments actually make sense as a reasonable moral code for rational human interaction. But you have skip the first 5, which have caused untold problems and horror. Even the good Five Commandments are enforced by threat of violence rather than taught as the basis of cooperative interaction. Jesus maybe got it a little better than the Old Testament authors, but he failed to explain the fundamentals and just clouded it up with the whole idea of the Trinity vs. Satan and the rest of it.

Of the 5 good commandments, as you refer to them, some are enforced under threat by Civil Authority or as to those who refuse to embrace them under
cooperative interaction, which is under Covenant Authority.
Our whole societal system is based on the same principle.
You're not advocating anarchy are you?

As to "clouded up", he actually clarified it.

But for every Five Commandments that does good, there are dozens of heinous acts of religious violence and destruction on a massive scale. For every Jesus teaching compassion and love, there are millions of small acts of religious cruelty and oppression.

Neolithic pagans sacrificed humans to their gods. Egyptians built the pyramids with slave labor. Aztecs brutally sacrificed slaves by the thousands - why? Because God told them to.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been killing each other mercilessly for 2,000 years - why? Because God tells them to.

African tribes live in a perpetual stone age world of brutal rape and killing - why? Because God tells them to.

South Pacific islanders paddled canoes for hundreds of miles across dangerous ocean so they could kill and eat people who worship differently than they do - why? Because God told them to.

Christians burned the Library of Alexandria, which contained nearly all the artistic and scientific knowledge of recorded history, setting the human race back the better part of a thousand years in advancement - why? Because God told them to.

The Spanish Inquisition and the English Civil War - why? Because God told them to.

Jim Jones and Fred Phelps - why? Because God told them to.

I'm in agreement with you on most of this, other than its obvious to me, GOD had nothing to do with it.

I know, you will automatically fall back to the standard default defense of "but those were flawed men who were not real believers." but the blunt fact of the matter is that nearly all of those people committing those atrocities ARE real believers. They believe they are doing their god's work because their god told them to.

If they were real believers, then they were severly misguided at the least.
I think as you point out, they were more likely "under the influence of Religion", which does not equate to "under the influence of GOD."

And you have nothing to offer in response to that but... nothing. You can't respond to it, because you have absolutely NO proof that their gods didn't tell them to destroy a vast library full of incredible information and beauty just because it didn't show their flavor of god enough respect. You can't prove that god didn't tell the Serbs and Croatians to murder a half a million of each other. You can't prove that god didn't tell the 38 Heaven's Gate people to kill themselves.

I don't know about their Gods, or the first part, but its easy to see my GOD wasn't involved in any part of the second part. He clearly states:
"You shall not commit murder"

The exact same proof you have that God has shown himself to you is the exact same proof they had that God had shown himself to them.

Not so. He is true to his word, not religion.

You can extemporize, you can fall back on your scripture, you can explain the magical feeling you have, you can do whatever you want, but you can't escape the fact that you have absolutely no proof that your God is right and their gods were wrong. You have a feeling. Guess what? They had a feeling too.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with feeling.

You say it is universally applicable. I say it is not. What backs you up? Your Book. What backs me up? The entirety of human history.

I apologize if I sound bitter against you personally - I am not. I have no reason to suspect you are going to start burning books or heretics. But you are presenting the same monolithic, arrogant, reason-proof, evangelistic argument that has been used to destroy people since the dawn of time:

My God is the Right God because I Believe, and even if I don't smite you for not believing, He will.

The Book is not religion, but you are right in respect to: "The law never saved anyone, neither can it".

I'm not buying. Religion's got nothing I want. And God is meaningless without religion, so there is no point in trying to separate the two.

"Religion" has nothing I want either.
We actually agree on many things here, but where we part ways is your reasoning or logic holds that somehow GOD must be legitimately responsible in some of these things, where in my investigation, I find he most assuredly isn't.

GOD establishes his way of doing things through "Covenant" not "Religion".
Religion is man's establishment of what he believes that means.
In some cases it can be, practically "spot on" and in some cases, as you point out, it can be "light years apart".

 

[Danoff]

I think as you point out, they were more likely "under the influence of Religion", which does not equate to "under the influence of GOD."

If there's anyone you don't need to point that out to, it's an Atheist.

 

[Duke]

Eve wasn't the only one punished, every person born since has been.

Which makes it even WORSE! I'm punished for what someone else did! Yes, that's logical and rational.

Whats the problem with warning someone of something immenently hazardous.

You miss the point, and I have to assume that you missed it on purpose. The only people knowledge is dangerous for are people who maintain power over others by enforcing ignorance.

Of the 5 good commandments, as you refer to them, some are enforced under threat by Civil Authority or as to those who refuse to embrace them under
cooperative interaction, which is under Covenant Authority.
Our whole societal system is based on the same principle.
You're not advocating anarchy are you?

Why? Because I feel that people should be educated, not threatened? People should be taught that obeying those Five Commandments lets people deal with each other fairly and honestly, not because they'll be damned to Hell if they do not.

As to "clouded up", he actually clarified it.

Clarified how, exactly? Even Jesus's followers can't agree on what he was saying, let alone non-believers like me.

I'm in agreement with you on most of this, other than its obvious to me, GOD had nothing to do with it.

PROVE IT. Evidence and testimony and history say those people were told by God to do those things. All you have as evidence against that is your own assertion that God didn't.

If they were real believers, then they were severly misguided at the least.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with feeling.

Then show me some evidence that God exists. Otherwise, you have a feeling and nothing more.

The Book is not religion, but you are right in respect to: "The law never saved anyone, neither can it".

On several different levels: What?!

We actually agree on many things here, but where we part ways is your reasoning or logic holds that somehow GOD must be legitimately responsible in some of these things, where in my investigation, I find he most assuredly isn't.

No, my reasoning does not hold that GOD is legitimately responsible, because I do not think GOD exists. My point is that these people all believed they were doing GOD's work - and there is not one shred of evidence that they weren't doing GOD's work.

GOD establishes his way of doing things through "Covenant" not "Religion".
Religion is man's establishment of what he believes that means.
In some cases it can be, practically "spot on" and in some cases, as you point out, it can be "light years apart".

I repeat: How do you KNOW that God did not make "Covenant" with those people to make them do horrible things in His name? This is the part you have never answered in any post.

Because you can't. It's OK, we know you can't.

 

[Danoff]

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

That's easy. He knows because his interpretation of the bible is correct and theirs isn't. His pastor says so.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Which makes it even WORSE! I'm punished for what someone else did! Yes, that's logical and rational. .

Isn't it logical and rational that genetically things have been passed to you.
Its the same principle.
Although, you don't have to be punished, you can choose out, just like she chose in.

You miss the point, and I have to assume that you missed it on purpose. The only people knowledge is dangerous for are people who maintain power over others by enforcing ignorance..

Talk about logic this reply definately defies any.

Why? Because I feel that people should be educated, not threatened? People should be taught that obeying those Five Commandments lets people deal with each other fairly and honestly, not because they'll be damned to Hell if they do not.

Of such is the whole purpose of the new Covenant. But education alone will not suffice.
Also if a law doesn't have associated punishment or consequences it is not a law, its a suggestion.

Clarified how, exactly? Even Jesus's followers can't agree on what he was saying, let alone non-believers like me..

The Trinity is similar to the Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial branches of Government, although they are in complete unity with the plan and purpose of GOD.

Satan is the "God of this World".

BTW he comes for only three reasons: "Kill, Steal, and Destroy".

PROVE IT. Evidence and testimony and history say those people were told by God to do those things. All you have as evidence against that is your own assertion that God didn't.

Heres some for you. The same type of people put Jesus on the cross(murdered him) for the same kind of reasons. Not only that, but they claimed to be true Covenant followers of the GOD that sent him. They were doing GOD a favor. So were they true followers, or were they true followers of someone else? Jesus told them who their Father was and it wasn't GOD.

I don't know about their Gods, or the first part, but its easy to see my GOD wasn't involved in any part of the second part. He clearly states:
"You shall not commit murder"

If GOD specifically commands this, then tell me how HE was the one telling them to murder someone.

Now, that being the case, assuming you read the reply above these, who do you think might have been influencing them.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

For the same reason you know what is being said on this thread.(well sometimes)

I can read. Why do you think he wrote the Book.

and for the same reason you know anyone you know. The only difference is he does not appear physically. However while he (the Lord) could appear physically it is to the beleivers benefit he doesn't.

Then show me some evidence that God exists. Otherwise, you have a feeling and nothing more.

I repeat, it has nothing to do with a feeling. A feeling is of emotion which is a carnal dimension. It has nothing to do with that.

No, my reasoning does not hold that GOD is legitimately responsible, because I do not think GOD exists. My point is that these people all believed they were doing GOD's work - and there is not one shred of evidence that they weren't doing GOD's work.

Yes it is, read the Bible. He does not have anything to do with those things.

I repeat: How do you KNOW that God did not make "Covenant" with those people to make them do horrible things in His name? This is the part you have never answered in any post.

Because it is clearly not part of the Covenants he has established.

 

[Duke]

And once more around the circus ring.

You believe in your God. Other people believe in theirs which is different. You both have precisely the same amount of evidence that your gods are real and tell you what they tell you. Both of your beliefs are equally valid.

What a titanic waste of time and energy.

 

[Danoff]

Reading Super's post, I can't help but wonder in amazement that here in 2009 someone can still talk the way he does. It's anachronistic. I don't mean to pick on your Super, there are lot of people, very smart people, who think and talk the way you do.

One of the smartest guys I've ever met believes completely in the healing power of crystals. He has them positioned around his office, and he pays people to apply them to his back and head to use their energy to make him better. He also seems to believe that he can sense people's auras - so he "knows" a great deal about people based on the energy they give off.

Getting him talking about his love of crystals is very much the same conversation as getting Super to talk about God. You hear the same reasoning, the same circular logic, the same slippery mind techniques one uses to trick themselves out of rationality.

It simply astounds me that people are still capable of this kind of self-deceit in light of all of the evidence around them. But hope seems to be a powerful motivator - and I understand the natural impulse there. I understand why you would want to believe that you and your loved ones will live forever in eternal bliss and that all those whom you hate will live forever in eternal torture. That makes sense to me. It's just stunning how capable people are of actually pulling that belief off.

 

[Nicksfix]

I understand why you would want to believe that you and your loved ones will live forever in eternal bliss and thatall those whom you hate will live forever in eternal torture. That makes sense to me. It's just stunning how capable people are of actually pulling that belief off.

Danoff.........
If he's a Christian and believes in God..........He should not hate anybody.He should have a heart to forgive as God tells him to,according to the Bible.

Not real sure if you interpret him as hating people,or if you just worded it wrong in your post.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Danoff.........
If he's a Christian and believes in God..........He should not hate anybody.He should have a heart to forgive as God tells him to,according to the Bible.

Not real sure if you interpret him as hating people,or if you just worded it wrong in your post.

Which God, the Old testament one, or Jesus?

 

[Famine]

Judging by his replies and adherence to both OT fables and NT stories, I'd say "both". From "In the beginning" up to "even so, come Lord Jesus".

Which begs the question... Does he eat prawns?

 

[Duke]

You know, I was in a waiting room yesterday, and I read through a magazine article analyzing the "mood" of God. The article discussed, with all apparent seriousness, how you could read both Testaments and chart what kind of mood God was in when various parts were written. It went on at some length with no visible irony.

The poor author was so blindered that it never seemed to occur to him that the "mood" of "God" could be a direct result of the varying political climate in which authors - real-world men - wrote the stories. It never seemed possible to him - or even to have entered his imagination - that the influence might have gone from Man > "god" rather than from God > man.

I was kind of dumbfounded, though I suppose I shouldn't have been. As you say, danoff, it's kind of anachronistic.

 

[Denur]

Wow, that is a lovely word, anachronistic. Consulting my limited classical background, that means something like anti-chronical or out-of-sequence. Maybe someone can enlighten me a bit how this word fits into this discussion (sorry for going a bit off topic).

 

[Duke]

Because it seems like an attitude that dates from several hundred years ago, not one that should be current in the 21st century.

And yes, there is quite a load of irony in the fact that it's only called the "21st century" based on a specific (and somewhat arbitrary) benchmark point.

 

[Nicksfix]

Which God, the Old testament one, or Jesus?

?

God is the father
Jesus is the Son.......not a God

 

[Duke]

?

God is the father
Jesus is the Son.......not a God

That would depend on who you ask, of course.

 

[TrievelA7X]

?

God is the father
Jesus is the Son.......not a God

For I am the father, the son, and the holy ghost

Am I mis-remembering the Bible, or does it not say this?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Reading Super's post, I can't help but wonder in amazement that here in 2009 someone can still talk the way he does. It's anachronistic. I don't mean to pick on your Super, there are lot of people, very smart people, who think and talk the way you do.

In reality its more renaissance derived.

However you are right to a degree. Your rationale is a product of the "isms" influence, born in the late 19th century, proliferated in the 20th, and has come to fruition in the 21st.

One of the smartest guys I've ever met believes completely in the healing power of crystals. He has them positioned around his office, and he pays people to apply them to his back and head to use their energy to make him better. He also seems to believe that he can sense people's auras - so he "knows" a great deal about people based on the energy they give off.

I don't mean to pick on you here either, but in my opinion he is ahead of you. What I mean is, he realizes there's a problem and is actively pursuing a solution and in this case, applying a remedy, even at the risk of looking like a fool.
In regaurd to that last part, there is some truth to that, but I disagree with the extent of the claim.

Getting him talking about his love of crystals is very much the same conversation as getting Super to talk about God. You hear the same reasoning, the same circular logic, the same slippery mind techniques one uses to trick themselves out of rationality.

I don't agree at all with this. It is my rationale, that through my investigation, led me to the conclusion.

It simply astounds me that people are still capable of this kind of self-deceit in light of all of the evidence around them. But hope seems to be a powerful motivator - and I understand the natural impulse there. I understand why you would want to believe that you and your loved ones will live forever in eternal bliss and that all those whom you hate will live forever in eternal torture. That makes sense to me. It's just stunning how capable people are of actually pulling that belief off.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what I want to believe, other than "if it is true" or "if it truly works" in application to the problem.

In reality, I am still more times than not, resistant to it for that very reason.

In fact if I believed what I want to believe, I would take Famine's advice and embrace the Koran, where in the final solution is "those who will not convert are to be put to the sword". However as Duke went to great lengths to point out, and I have to agree with him, for obvious reasons thats not much of a solution.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Fun Fact: Studies have shown church-goers make more money!
Now git to church, and make some money!

 

[Nicksfix]

TrievelA7X -

You did not mis-interpret the bible,it does say that.
The word Trinity - refers to the Father,Son,Holy Ghost (3 seperate entities).Some people do not believe in Trinity,this, I think is where people think that there is only 1 God.

The bible also says this - one of the most well known verses in the bible.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son........

If you believe this verse,then you have to believe in trinity,right ?

Just a thought for you to ponder. 👍


Duke -
You are correct,depends on who you talk to.I'll give you that one.That also falls back into the Trinity belief.

 

[Touring Mars]

It simply astounds me that people are still capable of this kind of self-deceit in light of all of the evidence around them. *snip* You hear the same reasoning, the same circular logic, the same slippery mind techniques one uses to trick themselves out of rationality.

It doesn't surprise me, and I wouldn't call it 'self-deceit' personally. All religions contain memes (or concepts), alot of them common to many religions, and my view is that successful memes survive almost by 'natural selection'. But unlike genes, which are physically passed from one generation to the next, memes can be taken up to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how that meme is reinforced - and in the case of religious beliefs, they can be reinforced very powerfully in a large number of ways. Personal conviction is perhaps the most powerful persuader. I feel like I know my mind, my memories, my experiences better than anyone else possibly can (although I don't doubt that this may not actually be true), and so my word will always stand a chance against your word, however more rational yours might be. But personal conviction is not even the half of it, in my opinion. Religious views are shared and powerfully reinforced by family, by friends, colleagues, communities and by the church itself - not only is it commonly an every day thing for most religious people (most Muslims pray five times a day without fail), but it's also common to start at an age before the mind is capable of distinguishing rational from irrational. So I find it hard to blame fundamentalists for the way they think, because I reckon many have little say in the matter. I'm not sure how you can trick yourself out of rationality when you were never encouraged or taught to think in rational terms in the first place.

there are lot of people, very smart people, who think and talk the way you do.

Indeed, and there is the rub - many religious people are more than capable of using reasoning and logic, only in a direction that rarely challenges their core beliefs. As Duke and others have pointed out (and sometimes with no small measure of frustration), circular logic or reasoning applied only to a closed loop doesn't get you very far - but that is just fine as far as maintaining your credentials as a believer goes. It's my view that religions have survived and flourished so well to this day because one of the most successful memes of mainstream religions is that you don't ask questions about things you have already been given the answer to, and you do not question the authority of the source.

For me, it is a better strategy to present the case for a rational view based on its own merits rather than to attempt to point out the irrationality of the opposing view on the basis of it being a 'belief'. I reckon this is why so many educated Christians accept evolution theory, or Big Bang theory etc. - because they are convincing in their own right - despite the fact that an extension of their main conclusions conflict with some of the most fundamental aspects of their parent religions.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

IMO the whole crux of this discussion is this:

I believe you(some) are assuming and accepting as an absolute, an "isms" philosophy.
In doing so, you conclude that this is enough to satisfy your logic or rationale.(or because you want to and consider it a neutral, higher or refuge position)

You also by doing so, can suspend the pursuance of your own investigation or effort to truly conclude this philosophy's position as an absolute.

Duke freely admits to this when he says: in his estimation, his life is fine, he does not seek or need any further investigation. So from my investigation, he has stopped short of and allowed this philosophy to confine him to its boundaries.

 

[Touring Mars]

And what boundaries would those be? I'd be willing to wager my life savings that Duke (or any other atheist on these pages) would be quite willing to say that, regardless of their own "investigation" (as you put it), their philosophy and belief system could be radically altered in an instant, if and when the evidence became available or it became irrefutably or immediately obvious that God existed. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on this to happen.

There comes a point when it is valid to ask 'Where is the merit in searching constantly for something that simply isn't there?'. Also, if it's so important and so fundamental to our existence, then why isn't it so obvious as to not require a lifetime of potentially fruitless searching at all?

Carl Sagan said, when talking about the Cosmos, "There are two ways of seeing the stars - as they really are, and as we may wish them to be." The same thing applies to everything in my view, and I know which of the two I choose. Scientific understanding of the natural world and of the Cosmos has proven beyond a doubt that reality is far more mysterious, interesting and complex than anything I may wish it to be...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It doesn't surprise me, and I wouldn't call it 'self-deceit' personally. All religions contain memes (or concepts), alot of them common to many religions, and my view is that successful memes survive almost by 'natural selection'. But unlike genes, which are physically passed from one generation to the next, memes can be taken up to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how that meme is reinforced - and in the case of religious beliefs, they can be reinforced very powerfully in a large number of ways. Personal conviction is perhaps the most powerful persuader. I feel like I know my mind, my memories, my experiences better than anyone else possibly can (although I don't doubt that this may not actually be true), and so my word will always stand a chance against your word, however more rational yours might be. But personal conviction is not even the half of it, in my opinion. Religious views are shared and powerfully reinforced by family, by friends, colleagues, communities and by the church itself - not only is it commonly an every day thing for most religious people (most Muslims pray five times a day without fail), but it's also common to start at an age before the mind is capable of distinguishing rational from irrational. So I find it hard to blame fundamentalists for the way they think, because I reckon many have little say in the matter. I'm not sure how you can trick yourself out of rationality when you were never encouraged or taught to think in rational terms in the first place.


Indeed, and there is the rub - many religious people are more than capable of using reasoning and logic, only in a direction that rarely challenges their core beliefs. As Duke and others have pointed out (and sometimes with no small measure of frustration), circular logic or reasoning applied only to a closed loop doesn't get you very far - but that is just fine as far as maintaining your credentials as a believer goes. It's my view that religions have survived and flourished so well to this day because one of the most successful memes of mainstream religions is that you don't ask questions about things you have already been given the answer to, and you do not question the authority of the source.

For me, it is a better strategy to present the case for a rational view based on its own merits rather than to attempt to point out the irrationality of the opposing view on the basis of it being a 'belief'. I reckon this is why so many educated Christians accept evolution theory, or Big Bang theory etc. - because they are convincing in their own right - despite the fact that an extension of their main conclusions conflict with some of the most fundamental aspects of their parent religions.

This is totally assumptive and contradictory to everything I am saying.

I say question everything by your own investigation, including your own assumptions on what your absolutes concerning what is the true boundaries of rationality.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is totally assumptive and contradictory to everything I am saying.

I say question everything by your own investigation, including your own assumptions on what your absolutes concerning what is the true boundaries of rationality.

Well, it wasn't addressed at you anyway - I was suggesting to Danoff reasons why many religious people think the way they do, and why I don't share his surprise (although I fully understand it) that so many people think this way. I don't find it surprising that you think it is contradictory to your views though, since I am an atheist and a rationalist, and you are not an atheist - but I don't think this automatically means that your views on how religions work have any more validity than mine. I agree that people should question things - within reason - but my point was that mainstream religions survive because many things pertaining to their core beliefs do go unchallenged (or are you disputing that?). I also think there are very good reasons why certain things go unchallenged, and the net result is that religions continue to prosper. I confess to not being an expert on how this has happened, but it is pretty clear from the world around us that mainstream religions are still very, very successful. This reality doesn't fill me with any joy, but the least I can do is attempt to understand why this is the case.

Although I agree that one needs to conduct one's own investigations, you also need to have a rational framework for interpreting the results as well as the ability to draw conclusions that account for all of the available evidence, and not just some of it. This is what the scientific method is - a rational framework by which new information is discovered and new ideas are hypothesized and tested. Science also inherently acknowledges its limits and is constantly addressing unknowns, as well as accepting what is known to be false. Religions tend not to do this - atleast not to the point where their core beliefs become the target of scrutiny.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And what boundaries would those be? I'd be willing to wager my life savings that Duke (or any other atheist on these pages) would be quite willing to say that, regardless of their own "investigation" (as you put it), their philosophy and belief system could be radically altered in an instant, if and when the evidence became available or it became irrefutably or immediately obvious that God existed. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on this to happen.

In my investigation it is this: That rationale and faith are not mutually exclusive.

There comes a point when it is valid to ask 'Where is the merit in searching constantly for something that simply isn't there?'. Also, if it's so important and so fundamental to our existence, then why isn't it so obvious as to not require a lifetime of potentially fruitless searching at all?

This is a tricky one and I will attempt to explain it like this:

First you are assuming it isn't there. That doesn't mean it isn't.
Next, searching it out indicates you are sincerly and genuinely or serious about your intentions. This is not a trifle thing. Principally, its very similar to marriage. Its a Covenant.
Also because we have Dominion, autonomy or "Free will choice".
For that to be respected, there can be no coercion, pressure, or force involved.
Now if these things are maintained, then also there will be "value" to the decision.
I want to give you this example concerning this. It is from the "man's" perspective, and particularly if you are married you will hopefully grasp the principle.

Let's say you have an anniversary coming up in a month or so. In one scenario your wife reminds you several times about it. In the other she says nothing or if she does it is so suttle you probably don't even know it is a hint. Now under which scenario will whatever you do probably mean the most to her. (Assuming you don't forget of course)

Carl Sagan said, when talking about the Cosmos, "There are two ways of seeing the stars - as they really are, and as we may wish them to be." The same thing applies to everything in my view, and I know which of the two I choose. Scientific understanding of the natural world and of the Cosmos has proven beyond a doubt that reality is far more mysterious, interesting and complex than anything I may wish it to be.

Well there you have it, a big arrow pointing to "Intelligent Design". IMO
EDIT: Again, I don't find where "Science" and "GOD" are not mutually exclusive.