Do you believe in God?

[barny0111]

Haha you guys crack me up.

To answer the question, you would have to first define God for me. There are far too many versions of God for me to give an answer that feels right. There are (roughly) 6 billion people in the world and 6 billion different perspectives. Each to there own.

I personally believe religion is defiantly not necessary to know God (God= your inner self, happiness, peace, love, life....whatever title you would like to give to feeling better about yourself and those around you). Believe in your self. That's my opinion. And by the way, wars are not from God, man creates wars from being stubborn and not wanting to get along. I don't think God has anything to do with wars.

So in conclusion.... Hail to the peanut butter. And death to the Peterpantheism . I'm indifferent to the Pastafarianism

 

[Joel]

Haha you guys crack me up.

To answer the question, you would have to first define God for me. There are far too many versions of God for me to give an answer that feels right. There are (roughly) 6 billion people in the world and 6 billion different perspectives. Each to there own.

I personally believe religion is defiantly not necessary to know God (God= your inner self, happiness, peace, love, life....whatever title you would like to give to feeling better about yourself and those around you). Believe in your self. That's my opinion. And by the way, wars are not from God, man creates wars from being stubborn and not wanting to get along. I don't think God has anything to do with wars.

So in conclusion.... Hail to the peanut butter. And death to the Peterpantheism . I'm indifferent to the Pastafarianism

I think the sign was reffering to inner peace. This plays at the crazy notion that atheists are immoral idiots because they don't have to do good to cover their ass in the afterlife. I'd rather someone give to charity out of the goodness of their hearts, not so "i don't go to hell". Like I said, I'm an atheist, i don't "know" god, but i'm pretty content with myself and my life. I mean, I and it could be better, but i would say i'm at a "peaceful" state.


RE: Wars. Obviously God isn't starting these wars, and people are. I was implying that the world would be a much better place without religion.

 

[niky]

Hahahahahahahah. I'm seriously considering trying to convert people. Never too early to start recruiting! What will be our "71 virgins" thing though? If you are a Pastafarian martyr, you go to heaven, and and a nice italian family makes you the best spaghetti you've ever had in your entire life.

Peter Pantheism gives you a treehouse full of lost boys.

Whoops. Let's rethink that one... oh Archangel Miiiiichael...

Wrong. Pepsifarians and Cokeonnities.

You mean Pepsitarians and Cokers?

 

[Duke]

Hahahahahahahah. I'm seriously considering trying to convert people. Never too early to start recruiting! What will be our "71 virgins" thing though? If you are a Pastafarian martyr, you go to heaven, and and a nice italian family makes you the best spaghetti you've ever had in your entire life.

Any true Pastafarian knows that our heaven has a stripper factory and a beer volcano awaiting us... you need to brush up a little.

 

[Dotini]

Any true Pastafarian knows that our heaven has a stripper factory and a beer volcano awaiting us... you need to brush up a little.

For the past number of posts we have been reviewing the exhilarating consequences of our consciousness surviving death. Since people of all faiths, ages, and ethnicity seem to have the same rather benign and positive experiences, it's reasonable and attractive to conclude that all current religions are false and that we are free to invent our own more up-to-date religion, even if it's based on sloth, lust or gluttony (my favorite of the seven deadly sins ).

To review, here's what happens when we have a near death experience:
1. The consciousness leaves the body, and with a higher state of alertness and awareness than normal waking. This is despite the body being unconscious/clinically dead.
2. What's seen and heard in the immediate environment of the unconscious/dead body is always realistic and often verified to be real/true upon the return to the body.
3. Blind people will have vision during the NDE.
4. General anesthesia will not preclude the NDE.
5. You will experience a life review. You will see yourself as others have seen you, and feel their emotional responses to your actions during your life. This will include the feelings you have caused in animals as well as in people.
6. Beings encountered during the NDE will generally always be deceased relatives. You will not encounter currently living family members or close friends.
7. Children under 5 have NDE's just like adults.
8. NDE's are consistent the world over, even with non-Westerners.
9. Upon your return, you are likely to recover full health and have other positive and long-lasting benefits.

It is important to point out that the vast majority of NDE's follow this consistent pattern, but there are a few who don't. Step 5 above may be sticking point for some who have behaved in less than exemplary fashion during their lives, so be careful about taking too much liberty with your new freedom from the harsh rules imposed by conventional religions.

 

[Public'sTwin]

The last 20 posts or so have been sadly disappointing. . .

 

[Dotini]

The last 20 posts or so have been sadly disappointing. . .

Some people learn about expanded consciousness, the positive NDE experience, and freedom from oppressive religion and they are grumpy about it!? Ah well, you can't please everybody...

 

[Public'sTwin]

Some people learn about expanded consciousness, the positive NDE experience, and freedom from oppressive religion and they are grumpy about it!? Ah well, you can't please everybody...

As amusing as it is, it's a mockery of the serious questions raised here—not to mention the whole 'Pastafarian' meme is from like 5 years ago now.

(Sorry to be Buzzkillington.)

 

[Dotini]

As amusing as it is, it's a mockery of the serious questions raised here—not to mention the whole 'Pastafarian' meme is from like 5 years ago now.

(Sorry to be Buzzkillington.)

I respect your opinion. But you've got to allow people, especially young ones, the freedom to explore their new ideas, even if they are a bit effusive.

And the basic question, "Do You Believe in God", is greatly informed, invigorated and illuminated by medicine's (that would be science's) insights into the NDE experience.

It's all good,
Dotini

 

[Northstar]

As amusing as it is, it's a mockery of the serious questions raised here

Thing is that if you switch some of the names around it is exactly what you would hear in a "serious" discussion.

not to mention the whole 'Pastafarian' meme is from like 5 years ago now.

It's hardly a meme, it's an actual organization who's mission is basically to keep creationism out of schools.


Also, stop being a Stiffly Stifflerson and live a little.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Also, stop being a Stiffly Stifflerson and live a little.

Thank you for the reminder, but legitimacy of Religious Satire Institutions aside, I've already acknowledged my Buzzkillington status in this thread.

 

[Northstar]

If you want to know why I have such a dislike for religion, it's crap like this. Not necessarily because he thought it was "gods will" but because he used religion to fulfill his sick needs. Yes, I know he is the exception and not the rule. However it doesn't erase this story or any other of the molestation or murder cases where they used religion to justify their crimes.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Explaining High Rates of Non-Belief

What accounts for the staggering differences between nations in terms of rates of non-belief?

Why do most nations in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia contain almost no atheists, but within many European nations atheists are in abundance? There are numerous explanations (Zuckerman, 2004; Paul, 2002; Stark and Finke, 2000; Bruce, 1999).

One leading theory comes from Norris and Inglehart (2004), who argue that in societies characterized by plentiful food distribution, excellent public healthcare, and widely accessible housing, religiosity wanes. Conversely, in societies where food and shelter are scarce and life is generally less secure, religious belief is strong. This is not a new theory (Thrower, 1999). For example, Karl Marx (1843) argued that people who suffer in oppressive social conditions are apt to turn to religion for comfort. Sigmund Freud’s (1927) central thesis was that belief in God served to comfort humans in the face of earthly pain, suffering, and death. However, Marx and Freud provided no data. Norris and Inglehart (2004) do.

Through an examination of current global statistics on religiosity in relation to income distribution, economic inequality, welfare expenditures, and basic measurements of lifetime security (such as vulnerability to famines, natural disasters, etc.), Inglehart and Norris (2004) convincingly argue that despite numerous factors possibly relevant for explaining different rates of religiosity world-wide, “the levels of societal and individual security in any society seem to provide the most persuasive and parsimonious explanation” (p.109).( vii ) Of course, as with any grand sociological theory, there are holes. The glaring cases of Vietnam (81% non-believers in God) and Ireland (4-5% non-believers in God) prove to be exceptions to Inglehart and Norris’s analysis; Vietnam is a relatively poor/insecure country and yet quite irreligious, while Ireland is one of the wealthiest/most secure countries in the world, and yet very religious. But aside from these two glaring exceptions, the correlation between high rates of individual and societal security/well-being and high rates of non-belief in God remains strong.

Full article

 

[Max Powers]

If you want to know why I have such a dislike for religion, it's crap like this. Not necessarily because he thought it was "gods will" but because he used religion to fulfill his sick needs. Yes, I know he is the exception and not the rule. However it doesn't erase this story or any other of the molestation or murder cases where they used religion to justify their crimes.

If you want to know why I have such a dislike for black people, it's crap like this (cites crime committed by black guy). Yes, I know he is the exception and not the rule. However, it doesn't erase this story or any of the other crimes committed by black people where they used their race to justify their crimes.

See how that works? That guy is a whack job and clearly does not represent the views of the average Christian.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^For some reason people like to take what one idiot does and paint the others with it too.

Osama is a terrorist, but that does make me one too?

 

[MSH]

He created the world in 7 days.
Looking at the mess it is today, I think that's what you get with these rushed releases...

Kaz won't make that mistake

 

[Northstar]

If you want to know why I have such a dislike for black people, it's crap like this (cites crime committed by black guy). Yes, I know he is the exception and not the rule. However, it doesn't erase this story or any of the other crimes committed by black people where they used their race to justify their crimes.

I've never heard of a black guy using being black to marry a 10 year old.

 

[WVUscion]

I've never heard of a black guy using being black to marry a 10 year old.

Its not the being black. Its that your characterizing an entire people based on the actions of one man. He just substituted out the words to make it most obvious.

It would be like saying you hate black people because that one time a while ago you heard that story about some black guy who wasn't a very nice guy.

 

[Kings]

I grew up in a christian family went to a christian primary and high school but later in life I found myself very critical of religion and I see the use of people coming up with deities is simply to try to make meaning of what we don't know I'm still open to the fact that there may be some kind of living or thinking force out there but if there is I don't believe any religion has gotten it right.

 

[Max Powers]

Its not the being black. Its that your characterizing an entire people based on the actions of one man. He just substituted out the words to make it most obvious.

It would be like saying you hate black people because that one time a while ago you heard that story about some black guy who wasn't a very nice guy.

Thanks for clarifying that. Nothing good can come out of painting all religious people with such a broad brush.


To answer the original question:
I believe in God, and would consider myself religious. I also believe in evolution, have no problem with homosexuals, and believe abortion should be the woman's choice.

Basically, most religious people are pretty reasonable, don't take every word of the bible literally, and choose to follow the messages of love, and not those of condemnation.

 

[Joel]

Just as Atheists (such as myself), say that "Just because I don't believe in God, doesn't mean I'm immoral", belief in God doesn't make someone inherently immoral either. I don't think of anybody lower or higher based on whether they believe or not, I go by what they demonstrate of their character in the real world.

To sum it up, I've met atheists who are really good people, and atheists who are absolute dicks. I've also met religious people who are really good people, and religious people who are absolute dicks. But there's more good people in this world than dicks (IMO, but that's another thread)

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Thanks for clarifying that. Nothing good can come out of painting all religious people with such a broad brush.


To answer the original question:
I believe in God, and would consider myself religious. I also believe in evolution, have no problem with homosexuals, and believe abortion should be the woman's choice.

Basically, most religious people are pretty reasonable, don't take every word of the bible literally, and choose to follow the messages of love, and not those of condemnation.

I've been thinking about these very claims a lot lately. It's easy for those of us who are atheists to target and dismantle the arguments of the fundamentalist wingnuts, but how do we respond to those with whom we tend to agree on most social and moral issues, who happen to believe in the guy upstairs?

I think we respond like this.

You claim the existence of god. You claim, also, to be religious, which I assume means you belong to a particular faith. Let's make the reasonable assumption that this faith is one of the western monotheisms, all of which base their very existence upon one sacred scripture or another.

Let's take another reasonable leap here and focus on a story common to all three of the Judaic texts - the story of Abraham and his son Isaac. This is a particularly morally ghastly parable involving God "testing" Abraham by commanding 'ol Abe to murder his one and only son as proof of faith. Abraham blithely proceeds to comply, and only stops when the Angel of God shouts "wait, just kidding!" at the very last second, as Abraham has a knife poised to plunge into his son's heart.

Yes, this is an 'extreme' example of scripture, but I find it morally reprehensible to take such a vile story and "cherry pick" from it the "moral of the story", which is presumably that one must, at times, be willing to sacrifice things of lesser value for things of greater value. In this instance the greater value is God's approval, and the lesser value is ... erm ... the life of one's only child. It's perfectly possible to learn this lesson devoid of such heinous "back story". In the full knowledge that there are many among you who might take the "back story" more literally than you, why would you cling to faith as the source of such a lesson rather than be satisfied with learning it through secular means devoid of such claptrap?

To make that simpler:

If you ignore large swaths of the doctrine that founds your faith, and the lessons that are left are knowable by other means, what meaning does your faith have? The only meaning I can see in it is as tacit validation for those who take it more literally, which far too often means violence.

 

[Dotini]

The only meaning I can see in it (religion) is as tacit validation for those who take it more literally, which far too often means violence.

In the 20th Century, Communists, Nazis and Japanese Imperialists were arguably the most violent and active killers of humanity. Neither was religious except to the extent of exploiting racial myths and stereotypes. Secular nationalism is no benign force for good, either.

 

[Famine]

In the 20th Century, Communists, Nazis and Japanese Imperialists were arguably the most violent and active killers of humanity. Neither was religious except to the extent of exploiting racial myths and stereotypes. Secular nationalism is no benign force for good, either.

False syllogism. Religion tending to violence does not mean all violence originates in religion.

 

[niky]

I've been thinking about these very claims a lot lately. It's easy for those of us who are atheists to target and dismantle the arguments of the fundamentalist wingnuts, but how do we respond to those with whom we tend to agree on most social and moral issues, who happen to believe in the guy upstairs?

I think we respond like this.

You claim the existence of god. You claim, also, to be religious, which I assume means you belong to a particular faith. Let's make the reasonable assumption that this faith is one of the western monotheisms, all of which base their very existence upon one sacred scripture or another.

Let's take another reasonable leap here and focus on a story common to all three of the Judaic texts - the story of Abraham and his son Isaac. This is a particularly morally ghastly parable involving God "testing" Abraham by commanding 'ol Abe to murder his one and only son as proof of faith. Abraham blithely proceeds to comply, and only stops when the Angel of God shouts "wait, just kidding!" at the very last second, as Abraham has a knife poised to plunge into his son's heart.

Yes, this is an 'extreme' example of scripture, but I find it morally reprehensible to take such a vile story and "cherry pick" from it the "moral of the story", which is presumably that one must, at times, be willing to sacrifice things of lesser value for things of greater value. In this instance the greater value is God's approval, and the lesser value is ... erm ... the life of one's only child. It's perfectly possible to learn this lesson devoid of such heinous "back story". In the full knowledge that there are many among you who might take the "back story" more literally than you, why would you cling to faith as the source of such a lesson rather than be satisfied with learning it through secular means devoid of such claptrap?

To make that simpler:

If you ignore large swaths of the doctrine that founds your faith, and the lessons that are left are knowable by other means, what meaning does your faith have? The only meaning I can see in it is as tacit validation for those who take it more literally, which far too often means violence.

Well... with Christianity, it's relatively easy to justify... as the doctrine as set by Christ supersedes anything that has come before (thus, no more sacrificing of children... no more Sabbath... no more marrying your cousin... no more polygamy)... but he has said some things too, that are not quite easy to paint in a good light.

I can't answer how you can hold to a faith with so many contradictions (as I can't), so I'll leave it to others to answer that more fully. But as Dotini points out, the same complaints can be levelled against racial pride and patriotism... which can also be taken to extremes (as can political theories... communism, for example...)

 

[CraftyLandShark]

In the 20th Century, Communists, Nazis and Japanese Imperialists were arguably the most violent and active killers of humanity. Neither was religious except to the extent of exploiting racial myths and stereotypes. Secular nationalism is no benign force for good, either.

False syllogism. Religion tending to violence does not mean all violence originates in religion.

Famine is dead on, but this presents a good opportunity to make an important point. National Socialsm and Communism, in all of their forms, share a very important characteristic with deistic faiths - they all value, and in fact demand, adherence to the command of a central authority without requiring that central authority to justify its actions. It doesn't matter whether that central authority is the Politboro or Pol Pot, Amaterasu or Yaweh; when a state claims absolute moral and physical command over its people, it does nothing but set itself up as a God.

This dismantles another common "pragmatic" argument of the faithful; that the most evil regimes of the 20th century have been outwardly atheistic. These regimes attack god because to become de facto gods themselves, they must discredit whatever deities their populace already worships.

By the way, a false dichotomy to accompany a false syllogism: secular nationalism is by no means the one and only alternative to religion. See below for some discussion of nationalism.

Well... with Christianity, it's relatively easy to justify... as the doctrine as set by Christ supersedes anything that has come before (thus, no more sacrificing of children... no more Sabbath... no more marrying your cousin... no more polygamy)... but he has said some things too, that are not quite easy to paint in a good light.

I can't answer how you can hold to a faith with so many contradictions (as I can't), so I'll leave it to others to answer that more fully. But as Dotini points out, the same complaints can be levelled against racial pride and patriotism... which can also be taken to extremes (as can political theories... communism, for example...)

Certainly anything can be taken to an extreme, and the fact that the same claims apply to other social evils is essentially immaterial. Racial pride is entirely useless as an idea unless fully implemented, and when fully implemented, we're looking at men in pointy white hoods. Importantly, also, you've conflated patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is a love of one's country, and part of love is criticism, where neccessary. Nationalism is a far more concrete political idea, which in part implies a moral right for one's state to assert its will upon other states. This speaks for itself.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

In the 20th Century, Communists, Nazis and Japanese Imperialists were arguably the most violent and active killers of humanity...

Not even arguably.

 

[niky]

Patriotism, Nationalism... well... the fact that Patriotism includes love and devotion put it in the same boat as religion in that it requires devotion to an abstract entity or idea which cannot return that emotional investment in kind.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Patriotism

Yes, ideally, Patriotism would involve some sort of critical appraisal and "tough love", but it doesn't often work out that way.

Patriotism can justify such incredible acts as invading a foreign country under the pretense of "defense"... calling for the death of all Jews, or all Americans... or... hey, let's do them both! And renaming French Fries "Freedom Fries".

Is it any wonder Lennon was against both countries and religions? (but pro-LSD, man... peace out...)

Patriotism is only ideal if the country you are patriotic for holds itself to the highest moral and ethical standards. But none of them do, not really. Patriotism detracts from things that we really should be "patriotic" for... like "Humanity".

It's arguable, in fact, that Patriotism/Nationalism is a form of Religion. Much like Greenpeace.

 

[DK]

And renaming French Fries "Freedom Fries".

We just call them "fries" over here. And you know why.

 

[gtracedriver]

Yes, God exists trust me. He helped me to pass my exams

But the main thing is, you have to give your best and faith