Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,488 comments
  • 1,140,298 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
Those are all answers from your viewpoint though, and none apply fully to me. I do not fully believe in god but I do not fully believe in science either. Sometimes I feel perhaps there is a god, sometimes I feel science could explain something which seems inexplicable. It is not question of evidence for me, more that I feel occassionally things are not explained particularly well by science or not even explained at all yet.

While this is undoubtedly true, the scientific method remains the only valid way to approach the unknown - everything else is pure guess work and will always remain that way. There is plenty of speculation and guess work in science too, but the scientific method ensures that bad science and unsubstantiated ideas are eventually going to be replaced with something closer to the truth.

The way I see science is like a slowly emerging picture of ever increasing resolution....

res05.gif

At any particular time, people may have different interpretations as to what the picture means, but eventually, as more details become apparent, incorrect theories must be abandoned and only those that explain both the old and the new data survive. This is the opposite to how religions operate, where ideas and dogmas are protected by an unwillingness to let them go, hence they will survive, no matter what. As such, the initial picture remains the same forever, regardless of how truthful or accurate it is/was. Adoption of the scientific method requires the acceptance of an initial condition quite different to religious faith - you must be prepared to abandon any prior held idea if and when the evidence comes along to prove you wrong. Faith, on the other hand, demands you do the exact opposite. Another way of putting it is that we basically have two choices as to how we approach the unknown. One way is to assume that we can fill in the gaps in our knowledge with pre-conceived ideas about the way things ought to be. The other is to concede that our knowledge is incomplete (and perhaps always will be) but that what we do know is an increasingly good reflection of the way things really are.
 
Last edited:
While this is undoubtedly true, the scientific method remains the only valid way to approach the unknown - everything else is pure guess work and will always remain that way. There is plenty of speculation and guess work in science too, but the scientific method ensures that bad science and unsubstantiated ideas are eventually going to be replaced with something closer to the truth.

The way I see science is like a slowly emerging picture of ever increasing resolution....

res05.gif

At any particular time, people may have different interpretations as to what the picture means, but eventually, as more details become apparent, incorrect theories must be abandoned and only those that explain both the old and the new data survive. This is the opposite to how religions operate, where ideas and dogmas are protected by an unwillingness to let them go, hence they will survive, no matter what. As such, the initial picture remains the same forever, regardless of how truthful or accurate it is/was. Adoption of the scientific method requires the acceptance of an initial condition quite different to religious faith - you must be prepared to abandon any prior held idea if and when the evidence comes along to prove you wrong. Faith, on the other hand, demands you do the exact opposite. Another way of putting it is that we basically have two choices as to how we approach the unknown. One way is to assume that we can fill in the gaps in our knowledge with pre-conceived ideas about the way things ought to be. The other is to concede that our knowledge is incomplete (and perhaps always will be) but that what we do know is an increasingly good reflection of the way things really are.

:golfclap: And this is why I feel the way I do.
 
All this has reminded me of a book I bought years ago, called "Hunting Down The Universe" by Michael Hawkins, a chapter of which is particularly relevant as it discusses the nature of 'reality' and 'truth', and how science deals with such concepts. I particularly liked the following excerpt:

A theory is dreamed up and then judged scientific if it is testable by experiment and observation. But no matter how many times it is confirmed, there is always the possibility that something will come along to falsify this theory. Therefore, no scientific theory can ever represent truth. So for instance, the proposition that the sun will always rise in the morning can never be regarded as true, merely scientific.


I guess this defines what I am personally prepared to consider as "true" - that something is genuinely 'scientific', and not merely intuitive or received wisdom. It is sobering to consider that the theory which predicts that the sun will rise in the morning is "just a theory" and "impossible to prove" (to an observer on Earth anyway), despite the fact that the theory is confirmed every day. I reckon that these two statements, while arguably true, are fundamentally misleading and rob what is essentially a tried and tested fact of its demonstrable truthfulness. Obviously, nobody is going to mind if you dispensed with technicalities when making such an unthreatening prediction as 'the sun will rise tomorrow just as it did today', and called it 'a fact' as opposed to 'theory', even when it actually isn't a fact, but a (just a?) theory. But, as we know only too well, this distinction is often used to much greater effect (and considerably less fairly), particularly when discussing scientific theories that people really don't like for whatever reason...
 
Last edited:
I think the unfortunate thing about this is that what passes as "fact" and "truth" colloquially can almost never pass as "truth" philosophically. Evolution is only a "theory" in the most rigorous sense of the term (an important sense, but overblown). As you point out, in colloquial terms, evolution is a "truth" - it is a "fact". It satisfies far higher standards of fact than those used for religious claims.
 
It's much like i said earlier with the pink bubblegum forest. I can't prove that a space cat scratching its ear won't trigger a chain reaction which destroys the sun, but there is no evidence for it either.
 
Last edited:
It's much like i said earlier with the pink bubblegum forest. I can't prove tha a space cat scratching its ear won't trigger a chain reaction which destroys the sun, butthere i no evidence for it either.

But you'd have to show precedence for it before you can make the claim.

It's observation, hypothesis based on observation, experimentation, validation, theory.

And once you have an observation that contradicts the theory, you experiment, form a new hypothesis, experiment some more, validate, new theory.

If you see a space cat scratching its ear and then see a sun go Nova, you have coincidence. If you see it happen a number of times in succession, you have a link* but you haven't shown causality. Not yet. You need to determine whether the action itself triggers the effect or whether both effects are caused by the same primary mechanism or linked in this way.

*news reports on statistical studies often abuse this non-causal linkage for nifty headlines. Headlines such as "softdrinks linked to early death and heart disease." Which freaks people out, as they are led to believe there is a causal effect. Whereas a perusal of the actual study reveals that the consumption of softdrinks are linked to the consumption of fast foods and fatty foods, which are directly linked to early death and heart disease. Don't you just love the media?
 
But you'd have to show precedence for it before you can make the claim.

It's observation, hypothesis based on observation, experimentation, validation, theory.

And once you have an observation that contradicts the theory, you experiment, form a new hypothesis, experiment some more, validate, new theory.

If you see a space cat scratching its ear and then see a sun go Nova, you have coincidence. If you see it happen a number of times in succession, you have a link* but you haven't shown causality. Not yet. You need to determine whether the action itself triggers the effect or whether both effects are caused by the same primary mechanism or linked in this way.

*news reports on statistical studies often abuse this non-causal linkage for nifty headlines. Headlines such as "softdrinks linked to early death and heart disease." Which freaks people out, as they are led to believe there is a causal effect. Whereas a perusal of the actual study reveals that the consumption of softdrinks are linked to the consumption of fast foods and fatty foods, which are directly linked to early death and heart disease. Don't you just love the media?


That's actually exactly what I was trying to say, thanks for articulating my thoughts for me 👍
 
For those theists who would like to discuss/defend their faith further, perhaps visit here, or here.


"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence of a lunatic asylum in Jerusalem." (Havelock Ellis)




SciencevsFaith-1.jpg
 
I found this website through yahoo search... i haven't clicked on it yet.

Will someone here be kind enough to investigate for us if this is any good?

I thought it a weak argument, weakly presently and insufficiently researched. At best a point of departure for further work on the question.

I think there is some benefit to discussion of the "anthropic principle" and fine-tuning of constants-type arguments, but he hasn't made much of a case.
 
Last edited:
Is it not grotesque when the representatives of an antiquated myth-sorcery, who believes in trinity, angles, devils, hell, virgin-birth, bodily ascension, making of water into wine, wine to blood, - when they want to impress us with their "science"? "
(Karlheinz Deschner)
 
I found this website through yahoo search... i haven't clicked on it yet.

Will someone here be kind enough to investigate for us if this is any good?

It's bull.

And it makes false assumptions about what assumptions "atheists" make in order to debunk them.

Here's a laughable sample:
The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong.

Seriously... what "atheist scientist" actually believes matter is eternal? And doesn't the Bible assert that the "Kingdom of God" is eternal?

The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

My assertion that God makes bagels spontaneously erupt from flour, water and yeast is strongly supported by scientific evidence that shows bagels contain flour, water and yeast.

What a waste of five minutes of time. :lol:
 
One of the difficulties in answering the question of this thread (which I have not done yet), is in defining the term "God".

The sternest, most challenging definition seems to be the "omni's"; omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Is this generally agreed to be our best operational definition?
Here is a one little site that addresses the omni's. http://www.rationalchristianity.net/omni.html

Another issue for me consists in the quantity and quality of evidence required to convince a properly rational and skeptical atheist. Surely, if the right evidence were presented, a rational person albeit atheist would/could in fact change his/her mind and admit it. Yes?

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
Another issue for me consists in the quantity and quality of evidence required to convince a properly rational and skeptical atheist. Surely, if the right evidence were presented, a rational person albeit atheist would/could in fact change his/her mind and admit it. Yes?
Indeed, and that is something that has been said in this thread many, many times.

Unfortunately, even though I have said this myself, I'm not so sure I actually would believe it, even if and when I saw it. Imagine the scenario... Saturday morning, I'm walking back from the shops with my Saturday morning groceries, and I stop to observe a squirrel that has stopped in my path (this used to happen alot in the leafy suburbs of London where I used to live, by the way). But, what if the squirrel opened its eyes wide and proclaimed in the finest Queen's English... "Christopher, I am the Lord God, and I have come to convince you of my reality!". I tell you what, that wouldn't have me rushing straight to the nearest church, but straight to the in-patient section of the nearest psychiatric ward. Similarly, I don't know what I would count as "the right evidence". A talking squirrel is maybe a ridiculous example, but it is not a million miles from other 'supernatural' events that would have most rational people questioning their own sanity before coming to the conclusion that it was a bona fide supernatural experience.
 
I think thats a rather extreme example, Mars. Some people can become believers through dramatic experiences or strong emotional responses. But rather than being "proof" its more an example of the mind reaching out. This is the trick really here, the belief requries you do not listen to rational or logic of the scientific sense but make the jump of faith.

Perhaps to add to what I said earlier or maybe alter my opinion a bit now, I think that God possibly only exists in the form of belief. Just as much as the Devil only exists if you believe he exists. There is no scientific proof, but there is personal proof (for lack of better wording...its only proof that makes sense to you such as dramatic experiences).

As an example, I think its quite common for people who come very close to death to believe that God rather than luck saved them. I'm not referring to the earlier "I experienced death" stuff, but simple lucky escapes, not necessarily where people have gone into comas. Just because it seems more realistic to think that a greater being had a hand rather than managing to recieve a large amount of luck (luck in itself being a matter of belief I guess too).

But this only an opinion that works if you assume God is not real and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
 
No i don't believe in god or follow any religion therefore I am an atheist but I do have lots of questions
Like why did Jesus do what he did when humanity was in a better situation than it is now ? is religion really worth It ? I meen take a look at Jerusalem possibly the holiest place on earth and its been a war zone for the past 40 years.There could though be a reason why the Jewish folk are the richest people on earth. Although I do believe in feng shui ...strange
 
Last edited:
...I don't know what I would count as "the right evidence". A talking squirrel is maybe a ridiculous example, but it is not a million miles from other 'supernatural' events that would have most rational people questioning their own sanity before coming to the conclusion that it was a bona fide supernatural experience.

In addition to an agreed definition and evidence, we do also need to surmount this bugaboo of the supernatural. I think we can do it. We can do it by understanding and explaining the mechanism (in strict science terms) by which all apparently supernatural phenomena occur. This renders the term supernatural obsolete and all phenomena natural, as of course they should be in a sufficiently rational, advanced and psychologically stable society.

My final worry before attempting this transformation is resistance on the part of those clinging to irrational beliefs either in God-the-talking-squirrel or more importantly, in an anthropomorphism so rigid that non-human intelligences and non-carbon based lifeforms must be rejected on an a priori basis, despite any and all evidences.

In short, many people are comfortable with their neuroses, and will resist any change even if for the better. Both those proclaiming reason and those proclaiming faith have understandable sociological reasons to fear change.

Highest regards,
Dotini
 
No i don't believe in god or follow any religion therefore I am an atheist but I do have lots of questions
Like why did Jesus do what he did when humanity was in a better situation than it is now ? is religion really worth It ? I meen take a look at Jerusalem possibly the holiest place on earth and its been a war zone for the past 40 years.There could though be a reason why the Jewish folk are the richest people on earth. Although I do believe in feng shui ...strange

I don't think it was better back then than it is now - there were just as many wars going on at the time and large empires fighting it out. The older history gets, the more that is forgotten, and the rosier the picture that is drawn. The example I always have in my head is that of 50s or 60s music - older people will always claim "those were the days" where popular music was always good, but they forget the terrible rubbish because its just that, terrible rubbish. People tend to remember the good or notable parts, they have no reason to remember mediocrity.
The same goes for all things history, unless we have surviving evidence and sources from the time, everything is always going to be painted slightly better than it really was. I imagine there are many smaller conflicts and wars all over the place that have been forgotten just because they weren't particularly notable.

But to say the time Jesus lived in was better is pretty crazy. Do you not know or remember who crucified Jesus? A certain empire ;). Humans have always fought bloody wars. You cannot name one particular time when we have not had war and I would say its debatable if any particular time is more bloody than any other.
 
No i don't believe in god or follow any religion therefore I am an atheist but I do have lots of questions
Like why did Jesus do what he did when humanity was in a better situation than it is now ?

Like Ardius said: Jesus' time sucked. Bloody Jewish rebellions, Roman taxes, vendors clogging the temples, etcetera. If you want to talk about Jesus, at least read the Bible... or your history.

is religion really worth It ? I meen take a look at Jerusalem possibly the holiest place on earth and its been a war zone for the past 40 years.

It's been a war zone for the past four millenia or so. I don't see much that has changed.

There could though be a reason why the Jewish folk are the richest people on earth. Although I do believe in feng shui ...strange

There is a good reason. It's the same reason Chinese business people are successful. Great networking amongst friends and relatives (this also makes both societies very vulnerable to pyramid scams), a keen sense for business and an incredible work ethic. If three or four generations of your family slaves away at a desk all day pinching pennies and running a business, if you're not rich and successful, that'd be the injustice.
 
Humans have always fought bloody wars. You cannot name one particular time when we have not had war and I would say its debatable if any particular time is more bloody than any other.

While it is true that there have always been conflicts & wars over territory, resources etc, it should give us pause to consider the amount of bloodshed and misery done in the name of religion (and isn't that the last place we should find it, given it's claim of a moral highground?) You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend.

Check this out:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm


The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who could have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible? (Sam Harris)



BumperStickers10.jpg
 
I don't agree - religion itself isn't the cause of war. It was/is just the fashionable excuse.
You could also say all wars are down to one man, but just as equally point out that one man can't affect much without organisation.

If religion wasn't such a powerful aid for people to live their lives, it wouldn't be seen as a cause of war so much. You cannot have one and not the other. Just like gold is all nice and shiny but also causes wars. Land is nice to grow crops and live on but also causes wars. Does this make gold or land sources of war? Or does it make those who value such things the cause of war? The people cause wars, not religion.

While I agree that religion generally is quite hypocritical when it condemns murder yet has been the source of war itself, I don't agree with painting religion as only providing war - there are benefits to religion. Its only going to provoke strong reactions too, better to ignore religion than to mock it.
 
I don't agree - religion itself isn't the cause of war. It was/is just the fashionable excuse.

That sounds like an enticing idea, but when one considers that some religions have sometimes killed those "infidels" who aren't members of their own particular brand of mental illness (aka faith), how does one separate those beliefs and ideas from being the cause of the wars/killing?



If religion wasn't such a powerful aid for people to live their lives, it wouldn't be seen as a cause of war so much.

I'm not sure that I understand that statement.




You cannot have one and not the other. Just like gold is all nice and shiny but also causes wars. Land is nice to grow crops and live on but also causes wars. Does this make gold or land sources of war?

Is gold or land a belief system? Do they have dogma, eternal promises & threats, a claim to morality, deities, or holy books which chronicle if not outright recommend the slaying of others? I really don't think that is analogous at all.



Or does it make those who value such things the cause of war? The people cause wars, not religion.

Well, that's kind of a given isn't it? Remove people from the equation, and there would be no wars! What I'm suggesting is that certain beliefs about reality can & do have very real ramifications, so it might be important what we believe, for our actions just may follow. Take the crazy Phelps family in the U.S. for example; would they be as insane without their religious beliefs fueling their actions? I suggest not. Their beliefs (religion) cause their ugliness.



While I agree that religion generally is quite hypocritical when it condemns murder yet has been the source of war itself, I don't agree with painting religion as only providing war - there are benefits to religion.

Yes, I agree, I hope I didn't imply otherwise. (and of course benefits and comfort having nothing to do with the truth factor of religious claims).



It's only going to provoke strong reactions too, better to ignore religion than to mock it.

Unfortunately history doesn't bear that out. Islam would just love it if it were ignored as it takes over the world. (and if you think that is a wild, crazy statement, let me know, I'll back it up).

I think that religion has historically had far too much freedom from criticism and rational inquiry. Too much undue respect has been given to it's absurdness, and perhaps............well, here, Pat Condell says it best.



Cheers.
 
So why am I dangerous?

I can't answer that as I don't know you, but there are many people in the States who would rather teach "Intelligent Design" (which is creationism in a cheap suit) in the science class. They certainly don't have the appearance of what one might consider "dangerous", but they are.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/046501917X/?tag=gtplanet-20



http://www.amazon.com/dp/0767926153/?tag=gtplanet-20



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594202303/?tag=gtplanet-20



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WCNU44/?tag=gtplanet-20
 
okay...we're still going on about this god vs darwin thing? I thought we settled this debate in court years ago.

I'm actually alright with it, so long as churches are allowed to teach intelligent design in sunday school. That way we don't get the state-sponsored religion hitch, and conservatives stay marginally pleased. I mean...If you don't believe, what are you doing in a church, anyway?

Something you never expected to hear from a Christian, eh? Guess we're not all evil like you seem to like to imply...

But, really, I see no harm in the concept other than harm to "progress." I mean, who am I trying to hurt by believing? Myself? Certainly not you. I'm not 100 percent with most people's interpretations of the Bible, either. To me, it's not a historical document so much as a self-help guide, one of the best there is, really. Most Christians I talk to find it the same way...seems only Limbaugh-listeners and Hardshell Bigot Bugs take it literally.

There's no real religion, I find, in these sorts of debates...it's all thinly veiled politics.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually alright with it, so long as churches are allowed to teach intelligent design in sunday school. That way we don't get the state-sponsored religion hitch, and conservatives stay marginally pleased. I mean...If you don't believe, what are you doing in a church, anyway?

Yeah, kids have so much choice over that!

Ardius
I don't agree - religion itself isn't the cause of war. It was/is just the fashionable excuse.

I'm a Christian and the Crusades were my idea.
 
Yeah, kids have so much choice over that!

As a parent, you teach your kids what you believe in, whether it's "right" or "not," and whether you try or don't, because they tend to take after you. It's how children learn.

I get the sense that you wish to cast the Church and Christians as evil, brainwashing cultists, because it makes you feel better about and validates your position. but, hey, if you want to lie and call us evil, go ahead, only makes people mad.

We're not perfect. Many of us are downright imperfect. But only the fringe, I think, represents the hateful, boisterous, bigotous Christian that you love, as it helps you make your point. Makes you sure of yourself, makes you feel like you're the good guy...

But you're no better than anyone. and neither is anyone else who thinks they're better than anyone else, on either side of this debate. We all have our vices. We are all capable of good and evil.

I accept a great deal of what we know about science...other than that crazy quantum physics stuff which I can't wrap my head around. and i don't really reject that other than go blank when people who know about it talk about it. I also think we should treat Gays as people, not sinners...actually, I think that sinners in general should be treated better, less the consequences of their actions. If people are sorry, forgive them...but they really must be sorry. and if no-one is emotionally or physically harmed, why should it be a huge deal? Still, I don't think it's fair to have a preacher or priest marry a gay couple if they have reservations...but legally, why shouldn't they have the tax benefits? technically, you don't need a man of god to marry someone...

Frankly, the blunt, mocking comments you made are no better than a certain right-wing, catholic political commentator's rantings...they serve no further purpose than to inflame and aggrivate.
 
I'm actually alright with it, so long as churches are allowed to teach intelligent design in sunday school.

Heh - that reminds me of a funny quote:

Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.

But seriously, why is it ok to drill false beliefs into the mind of a child? Shouldn't that be viewed as a form of child abuse?

Please read this excerpt from this book:



Ask yourself this: Why can't you raise your hand to ask a question during or after a Christian service? If you can't ask questions of a speaker, it must be because the speaker considers questions to be harmful or annoying. And if you are forced to be any place where questions are discouraged, you're likely being indoctrinated. Even in religious services, such as those that take place in many Jewish communities where questions are encouraged, there is at least one question that will probably get the questioner, especially if he/she is very young, in trouble. No, it's not “Does God exist?” The question is, “Can I go home?” (Prior to leaving the house, “Can't I just stay at home?” will do the trick too). Are children of any religious faith, before the age where they can inquire and think properly, really free to refuse to attend religious services? In the United States, the law is backward in this regard, giving no protection to a child's mind. Authority figures are not free to treat a child's body as they wish, but it is open season on the mind.

If a child's parents want to shield their child from the secular teachings of the public schools, if they want to teach their children dogma rather than science, then that is considered the business of the parent. The law puts nonsensical belief above the welfare of the child. The child has no say in it. How is this fair? To take advantage of the trusting nature of a child for the purpose of indoctrination is abuse. (Thanks to Richard Dawkins again for having the courage to point this out).

You might think it's crazy to consider Sunday school to be abusive, but it is. In Sunday school, a nonsensical version of the universe is hammered into your brain before you are old enough to intellectually defend your self. This will haunt you for your whole life if you don't see through the nonsense. The people who are indoctrinating you are taking away your right to think critically. There is no greater theft.

What if I took the child and told her, every night and in every possible way, that if she ever jumped rope, invisible goblins in the sky would snatch her up and eat her flesh over and over and over again? Forever. If that child grew up believing this, living in fear of invisible goblins, and thinking that all of her rope jumping friends were destined for a terrible fate wouldn't you consider my actions to be horrible? Wouldn't it be abusive to take vantage of a child's trusting nature in such a way? This is exactly what religions do, threatening children with eternal torture for actions that harm no one.

So why do religions use such abusive indoctrination techniques? Religions are just like other businesses. The churches are selling something. Their product is universal: it is faith, and it costs next to nothing to produce, but it sells like hot cakes. Religions survive, because, like other businesses, they strive to form what corporations call “brand loyalty” in their customers. And churches, like businesses, try to hook their customers as young as possible.

All of the well-known fast food establishments cater to children. They sell their garbage in a number of ways. The idea is to get a child to think of the fast food as being fun, and to tie the food to a happy emotion. Kids get toys when they eat hamburgers that come in brightly colored boxes. If they eat in the restaurant portion of a fast food joint, there are places to play. The idea is to get them thinking about the food emotionally rather than logically. Emotions stay with you much longer than logical thoughts - especially when you're a kid. The fast food companies want kids to ignore the fact that they are eating junk, and instead focus on how happy they feel while doing it.

Places of worship do the same thing. Many churches use a double pronged approach. They bring children in and try to make them feel good about going to church. Children are given comfort in the idea that they are loved by Jesus or Allah, that they are part of a select group (even if it's not stated outright, that they are better than everyone else), and that they will one day see dead loved-ones again.

As a child gets older and is hooked, the Church clamps down. The child is taught to be ashamed of his or her body, that sexual thoughts are sinful, and that there is a place of torment awaiting those who don't obey the churches restrictive sexual rules. So fear and self-loathing are added to the love, hope, and hubris mix.

Recently, many churches have resorted to flashier sales techniques utilizing Christian rock music and teen-oriented services. Legions of trendily dressed youth pastors with soul patches and earrings have descended upon teens, trying to assure them that Christ is cool. The purpose of all this is not just to snare you, but to snare your children some day, and then your grandchildren.

Understand this: If religions don't indoctrinate children, they will cease to exist. They can only survive by using childhood indoctrination techniques. They bank on the fact that it's difficult to break free of indoctrinated ideas that were ingrained at an early age, especially for those who have been discouraged from thinking critically.

So what can you do? If you live in a religious household where saying you're an atheist will get you into serious trouble, then simply keep your nonbelief to yourself until you are old enough to do what you want. I am not advocating that you openly rebel against your parents or others in charge of you. They very likely love you and may be, on the whole, very good parents or very good authority figures. What I am telling you is that you and only you have the right to your own mind. It is illegal in this country to abuse the body of a child, but it's not illegal to abuse a child's mind. So you have to look out for yourself. No one else owns your mind, only you.

Above all, realize that your mind, like your body, is your own. You don't have to let other people flood your mind with religious garbage. Religion relies and thrives on your fear.


------------------------------------




Something you never expected to hear from a Christian, eh? Guess we're not all evil like you seem to like to imply.

I was a Christian for a quarter century (yes, a "true" christian). I know the song & dance intimately, and I'm not implying that you are "evil". Not even close. Holding false beliefs doesn't make one evil.





To me, it's not a historical document so much as a self-help guide, one of the best there is, really.

Then I suggest that you've never looked at it critically. When you do, you will find that it utterly fails as any kind of moral guide. Can some nice verses be cherry-picked? Yes. But what criteria do you use to deem the good parts good, and the repulsive parts repulsive? Could it be your own natural moral intuitions?




Most Christians I talk to find it the same way...seems only Limbaugh-listeners and Hardshell Bigot Bugs take it literally.

Again, what parts does one take literally and how does one know which parts to take literally? It seems that each person has the right interpretation, (thanks to their magic decoder ring that nobody else has), thus the thousands of denominations of christianity alone!

The problem lays within giving the bible the kind of reverence and respect which it doesn't deserve. It was penned by primitive, superstitious, chauvanistic, patriarchal, tribal, pre-scientific desert men, and it's high time it was knocked off of the pedestal which it doesn't deserve.
 
Last edited:
Back