Do you believe in God?

[Tic Tach]

I doubt he means he has literal conversations with God, just that he prays every day.

I don't agree. When he wanted to know if he should invade Iraq or not, he prayed to his god, and surprise - his god said "Yes".


I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice that it always coincides with their own desires. (Susan B. Anthony)

 

[SkateNj]

i dont believe in god or any higher powers.

honestly i hate religion or to rephrase that religious extremist i have been beaten by many people when i was little for not believing in god that made me think why would your god that talks about peace and love encourage people to beat,kill,and destroy opposers and non believers

 

[PeterJB]

i dont believe in god or any higher powers.

honestly i hate religion or to rephrase that religious extremist i have been beaten by many people when i was little for not believing in god that made me think why would your god that talks about peace and love encourage people to beat,kill,and destroy opposers and non believers

The point of religious extremists is that their views are considered extreme because they do not allow others to think differently from themselves. The Bible doesn't say "kill all the non-believers", these people simply feel it's the best option, in the same way that there are hate crimes against thiests caused by athiests.

 

[Villain]

^^ That's why I don't trust or give credit to any extremist - even if I agree with most of where they are coming from. It's never always one way and I can't go along with someone as close-minded as an extremist.

 

[Tic Tach]

The Bible doesn't say "kill all the non-believers"

Actually it does, many times in the old testament. You should read the bible more, for when properly read, it is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

An extremist is simply someone who is truer to the texts of the bible/koran than the moderate.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Anyone seriously writing here that the christian message is a message of hate and not a message of love is either misinformed or just plain mentally ill, to quote the same kind of expression I have been hearing applied to theists. If this kind of nonsense keeps mounting soon only the extremists will remain arguing. And then both sides will be saying that the other side is made of people that should be locked up in institutions for mentally retarded.

A pity

 

[Tic Tach]

Anyone seriously writing here that the christian message is a message of hate and not a message of love is either misinformed or just plain mentally ill

Many parts of modern christianity are indeed that of love, I wouldn't for a minute suggest that there aren't many nice, loving xtians, but that touchy-feely "brand" of christianity is merely a reflection how it constantly adapts to secular reality. Those christians who killed the non-believers in the last numerous centuries thought that they were doing the right thing.

And before you start to type that they weren't "true" christians, please.....don't.

Maybe spend some time here. I know many individuals now-a-days have the attention span of a gnat, but there's lots of good reading.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Many parts of modern christianity are indeed that of love, I wouldn't for a minute suggest that there aren't many nice, loving xtians, but that touchy-feely "brand" of christianity is merely a reflection how it constantly adapts to secular reality. Those christians who killed the non-believers in the last numerous centuries thought that they were doing the right thing.

And before you start to type that they weren't "true" christians, please.....don't.

Maybe spend some time here. I know many individuals now-a-days have the attention span of a gnat, but there's lots of good reading.

Oh right, so now you want to tell me what I should and shouldn't say? Well, if you don't mind, I'll keep my free mind (something you obviously don't think I have, since I believe in the existence of God) and argue the way I want, saying whatever I want to say.

Now ... the concept of "true christians" is an interesting one. Apparently, you have your own idea on what "true christians" are, and maybe even think that those you call "nice loving xtians", are not "true" christians. Please ... don't.

Back to the subject, I'll use examples:

Germany was a nazi country a few decades ago and its leaders commited genocide. Weren't they "true" germans? Of course they were. Will we blame it on germans for all eternity? No we won't that's retarded.

Russia was a communist country a few decades ago and its leaders commited genocide. Weren't they "true" russians? Of course they were. Will we blame it on russians for all eternity? No we won't that's retarded.

The USA were a country were segregationism existed a few decades ago. Weren't the segregationists "true" americans? Of course they were. Will we blame it on americans for all eternity? No we won't that's retarded.

Now, when you mention Christianism, and you want to find wrongdoings in their history, you have a big advantage. You not only have decades, not only have centuries, you have TWO MILLENIA to dig out.

And so you dig things from centuries ago. And I will tell you, yes, many wrongdoings were made the last 2000 years. But I know several things that people with the attention span of a gnat seem to forget or never know. Or even dismiss and ridicule because it appeals to concepts a litle beyond science.

1st - Christians are no more than men and women. Inspired by Jesus Christ's example and words, but they aren't Jesus Christ himself.

2nd - Christians are as able to do wrong as any others. If anything, they have the advantage of Christ's example that, throughout the millenia, survived even when not flattering to the rulers of the moment (even within the church). Therefore, if there is a path in society towards good, it is my belief that christianity has been the main engine pushing for it. And I am glad that it is in societies traditionally christian that such concepts as Human Rights first appeared.

3rd - One thing I am sure. The concept that each and every man is unique and equal to all others in dignity is upheld by christianity, that considers each and every man a creature from God. And such a concept has had a profound effect on how christian societies have evolved and how in christian societies , in spite of all the wrong you'll find in them, and even if many times against the powers of the moment (including the church's earthly powers, also corruptible), the concept of INDIVIDUAL liberty and dignity is cherished.


Now, were the christians from 500 years ago true christians? Were the ones from 1000 years ago true christians? Were the ones from 1500 years ago true christians? Were the ones from 2000 years ago true christians? Of course they were, as were true portuguese the guys that 1000 years ago kicked the muslims out of the Peninsula without a hint of a regret, after themselves being run over by the same muslims 400 years before until their hideouts up north in the caves.

You understand me? Don't judge people that lived 1000 years ago like they lived today. They didn't. The point is, did they act the way they thought, in the society they lived in, correct, just and good? I'll leave that judgement to God. And I will not surely humanly judge them with my XXIst century's specs.

 

[Villain]

Those christians who killed the non-believers in the last numerous centuries thought that they were doing the right thing.

And before you start to type that they weren't "true" christians, please.....don't.

You seem to believe that the only historical atrocities of the past several hundred years were those caused by Christians or people with religious motivations. Stalin was not motivated by religion, nor were the fighters in the Civil War (oh you don't think that counts as an atrocious bloodbath?). The European settlers who eradicated or enslaved the native populations of North and South America were motivated by the search for gold and riches - all or most talk of attempting to bring enlightenment to the natives was blown out of proportion as a facade to the economic goals. Genocides in the Balkans, the Turkish murders of Armenians, etc.

The slavery of Africans was not religiously motivated. The Nazis acted like they had divine motives but in reality it was more of the belief of a "master race" - Hitler used religious devices and symbols to get people on his side, they were not his primary motivation.

No, I'm not saying that religions can't be blamed for many conflicts and genocides, but I am saying that the most heinous mass killing did not sprout from religion. I'm talking historical facts here. Atheists like you seem to relish in picking apart the worst parts of millenia-old religious texts and don't seem to believe that even though an old book says one thing, the contempory believers will follow another. The Bible contradicts itself in many, many places (as I'm sure you can cite and source all on your own).

Most (and when I say most, I mean a far majority) contemporary religious people are able to focus on the peaceful, charitable, humble, and moral sections of their religious documents of choice. It is the radicals who are dangerous, and these radicals are the ones who organize inquisitions and fly airplanes into buildings. Don't lump the few into the majorities.


PS - Did I mention that I don't believe in God?


"L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" (Hell is full of good wishes and desires). Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

 

[Tic Tach]

Now ... the concept of "true christians" is an interesting one. Apparently, you have your own idea on what "true christians" are, and maybe even think that those you call "nice loving xtians", are not "true" christians. Please ... don't.

I'm afraid you've missed my point. I thought you might understand the "not true christians" comment as what is known as the "No true Scotsman" argument. (see the examples under "Origins")

1st - Christians are no more than men and women. Inspired by Jesus Christ's example and words, but they aren't Jesus Christ himself.

No, they are men & women who are inspired by what they think a Jesus character might have said. The fact is that if there were a Jesus character, there certainly wasn't anyone recording anything he ever said. It all got fabricated decades later. The apostle Paul never met Jesus. The fact that we now have christians who all have their own versions of what Jesus really means, should give you pause.

No public man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: he is always convinced that it says what he means. (George Bernard Shaw)

2nd - Christians are as able to do wrong as any others. If anything, they have the advantage of Christ's example that, throughout the millenia, survived even when not flattering to the rulers of the moment (even within the church). Therefore, if there is a path in society towards good, it is my belief that christianity has been the main engine pushing for it. And I am glad that it is in societies traditionally christian that such concepts as Human Rights first appeared.

The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive, but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born. (Mark Twain)

 

[Tic Tach]

You seem to believe that the only historical atrocities of the past several hundred years were those caused by Christians or people with religious motivations.

No. Please indicate where I even suggested that. There clearly have been wars & conflicts over resources, land, power, politics etc which have had nothing to do with religion, but the attrocities by the religious were done truly "in the name of" their religion. The same can't be said for non-theism. And before anyone starts furiously typing about Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler etc. Please watch.


But the thing is, shouldn't the historical track record for the religious camp be one of little to no bloodshed? Isn't that what one should expect with the claims of peace & love and a moral highground?

 

[homeforsummer]

I meant danger to mental health, not physical danger. Someone with strong faith is self harming, whether or not that is permitted can be defined by law, it's possible to argue for and against living in a world to be free to self-harm. The more concerning danger is of that illness spreading by preaching it to others as or reinforcing it to others in groups etc.
Dangers of the mind.

It's not that either. Someone could quite easily live their life strongly believing in a God without it ever being detrimental to any other aspect of their life. I'm sure for people who need that kind of belief it's even a positive thing.

To describe it as an illness is probably quite offensive to someone religious, just like saying that homosexuality is an illness is quite offensive to gay people.

Bottom line: everyone is different. Just because a select few can be a danger to themselves or others, it does not mean that there's a fundamental problem with whatever vessel they channel their problems through.

 

[Villain]

But the thing is, shouldn't the historical track record for the religious camp be one of little to no bloodshed?

The point I'm getting at in it's very simplest form is that human nature and greed are the real killers.

Isn't that what one should expect with the claims of peace & love and a moral highground?

Everyone claims that. The old addage - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Tic Tach]

The point I'm getting at in it's very simplest form is that human nature and greed are the real killers.

On that we agree.

Everyone claims that. The old addage - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Not so sure on this one though. But it did remind me of this gem:

The religion of one age is literally entertainment of the next. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

 

[DK]

I'm sure for people who need that kind of belief it's even a positive thing.

Would it be cynical for me to suggest that those higher up in church hierarchies (be it Catholic, Anglican, Evangelical, Presbyterian etc.) do have a need for the belief of other people?

 

[Moot]

It's not that either. Someone could quite easily live their life strongly believing in a God without it ever being detrimental to any other aspect of their life. I'm sure for people who need that kind of belief it's even a positive thing.

To describe it as an illness is probably quite offensive to someone religious, just like saying that homosexuality is an illness is quite offensive to gay people.

Bottom line: everyone is different. Just because a select few can be a danger to themselves or others, it does not mean that there's a fundamental problem with whatever vessel they channel their problems through.

Being offensive is not a reason to abandon treatment and ignore an illness.
I'm not saying I would be a judge on whether it's wrong of them to delude themselves of reality for their lives or the risk to others from a spreading of the sentiment. That would be done by professionals in neuroscience or something. There would be assessments, and they could live freely in society, as long as hand in hand with that the general public are aware they are in circulation and educated to the needs of these religious people mixing in the community.
It would be down to different governments to decide how to handle religious people. Ideally in the future I would like to know what people live near me are known as religious, for example using the same sex offenders scheme there is in the United States where when somebody moves into the neighbourhood the community get informed. I would also not want religious people near schools in case pupils are preached to or subverted. But that's just how I feel, that may not be something that can be justified by authorities. Depends on the moral decision making.
The thing is religion must be highlighted as an illness, otherwise religious people might get into positions of responsibility, like teachers or in politics, having a leader of the government as religious is mind boggling worrying. How can they make proper decisions when they don't even know what reality is?

 

[PeterJB]

Adolf?

 

[Tic Tach]

Godwin's Law.

 

[mastretta_mx]

I believe in somekind of superior power, but I don't believe on religions

 

[Prosthetic]

Most (and when I say most, I mean a far majority) contemporary religious people are able to focus on the peaceful, charitable, humble, and moral sections of their religious documents of choice.

A large majority of those people would be Humanist and not Christians.

 

[Villain]

A large majority of those people would be Humanist and not Christians.

There's an -ism for everything isn't there?

 

[buggs1a]

I'm afraid you've missed my point. I thought you might understand the "not true christians" comment as what is known as the "No true Scotsman" argument. (see the examples under "Origins")

No, they are men & women who are inspired by what they think a Jesus character might have said. The fact is that if there were a Jesus character, there certainly wasn't anyone recording anything he ever said. It all got fabricated decades later. The apostle Paul never met Jesus. The fact that we now have christians who all have their own versions of what Jesus really means, should give you pause.

No public man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: he is always convinced that it says what he means. (George Bernard Shaw)

The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive, but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born. (Mark Twain)

I am public man and I believe the bible is the word of God and is true in every word.

 

[Prosthetic]

There's an -ism for everything isn't there?

Yeah.. But Humanist is just a general term. I would consider my self one and I hate the term.. I hate the fact that there is a label for anything, because I think its all stupid.

The general concept of a being a "Humanist" is just being a good person. It doesn't matter if you believe in God, Allah, flying marshmellows. The only thing that matters is that you believe in being a good person.

That's why it pisses me off to no end when I hear people say "I go to church because I believe in there morals, and bettering my self" And they call themselves good Christians etc... etc... Unless you actually practice what your Bible, Koran etc... says then you really aren't part of that religion now are you? I love my sister to death but I would put her into that category, although she doesn't call her self anything, she goes to Church to "better herself."

Honestly the fact people have to categorize themselves at all is one of the most comical things people do.

 

[dylansan]

I am public man and I believe the bible is the word of God and is true in every word.

Why?

 

[Tic Tach]

I am public man and I believe the bible is the word of God and is true in every word.

Hmmmmmmm....

Perhaps you need to look at the bible critically, instead of uncritically.

Here's a start:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

http://www.godisimaginary.com/i5.htm

 

[Villain]

Honestly the fact people have to categorize themselves at all is one of the most comical things people do.

Labels are for soup cans. 👍

 

[buggs1a]

This thread should not exist. Too much fighting and arguing and rudeness. Also Christians probably should stay away. You all non believers won't change no matter what anyone says even if you say you might, you won't. Yer minds already made up. This thread is a bad idea.

It is impossible to believe without the holy spirit. Since none of you care and you all have hard hearts you can't believe. Christians can say anything and it all could be true and fact and already proven but none of you care. You just argue and trash talk Christians and their God. Satan has blinded some of you.

One day you will know the truth and stand before God.

There's so much fighting and arguing etc that this thread needs to be deleted.

 

[dylansan]

This thread should not exist. Too much fighting and arguing and rudeness. Also Christians probably should stay away. You all non believers won't change no matter what anyone says even if you say you might, you won't. Yer minds already made up.

As opposed to you? I ask again, and it's nothing personal, but why do you accept everything in the bible as true?

This thread is a bad idea.

It is impossible to believe without the holy spirit. Since none of you care and you all have hard hearts you can't believe. Christians can say anything and it all could be true and fact and already proven but none of you care. You just argue and trash talk Christians and their God. Satan has blinded some of you.

Have you ever considered that you may be the one who is blinded? If not, why?

One day you will know the truth and stand before God.

There's so much fighting and arguing etc that this thread needs to be deleted.

Fortunately, that's not your decision. There's been plenty of moderators posting in this thread with no intention of closing it. What goes on in this thread is debate. If it gets out of hand, a mod deals with it. But the debate is necessary. If you do not ask yourself questions, such as the ones posed in this thread, you can never learn anything. it's impossible.

 

[Joey D]

I feel it is getting slightly out of hand however, especially with talk of how religion is corrupting children and how it could be classified as a mental illness. To me that's no different then going into the homosexuality thread and saying being gay is a mental disorder and corrupts our youth. I'm saying it calls for a closing or deletion, but perhaps some sensitivity could be practised a bit? I mean what if I called atheism a mental illness? That'd go over like a lead balloon.

One thing I'm just curious about is why so many atheist seem to be bothered so much by theists? A vast majority of theists do not push their beliefs on other people, they are happy to live their life, attend services, do good because they feel it's their god's will and generally live a happy life. How does that in any way hurt you? Honestly I'd rather be friends with a bunch of do gooding theists then a bunch of argumentative atheists any day. Even if I don't believe in the same god as them or have the same beliefs, I think as long as you're doing good for society then it doesn't really matter.

You obviously aren't going to change the way a theist thinks, just as I'm sure they aren't going to change your beliefs (and yes I will still consider them beliefs). Yes there should be discussion on the topic onto why or why not your believe or don't believe one way or another, but outright attacking one side isn't going to make you win anyone over with your point.

My point has been, throughout this recent debate, is one of acceptance that people believe differently. However, I still argued for the case that their is a supernatural force present in our universe, even if I don't know what that force is. I would still like to see a solid argument on why god can't exist. I don't want books, youtube videos or quotes. Just explain to me how everything in the universe can work without the existence of a supernatural force. I've thought about this in great length and I can't come up with something that totally disproves the existence of god, and while I'm no expert in any field of science, I do feel that I have a general understanding of the way things work.

My hope is to create some healthy discussion now, instead of this corruption and mental illness nonsense.

 

[dylansan]

I can tell you the posters' feelings in this thread that religion is a mental illness are genuine, but not with ill intent. Mental illness, in my eyes, is too strong a term. I don't know of any scientific studies which conclusively show that to be true. However, I feel that a belief that the events in the bible are true is at least a delusion, a lack of effort to search for real answers. And especially, those who won't accept evolution, but accept the church's replacements, creationism or superevolution, are extremely deluded.

The atheist desire to get theists to question their religion does not come out of a desire to insult, prove wrong, hurt, or certainly not delude or confuse. When an atheist argues with a theist, it is out of a genuine desire to help them, to get them to see the truth they have missed by ignoring things that conflict with their religion. I am sure a theist tries to do the same thing when arguing, to try and get atheists to see the truth in religion (except apparantly buggs1a, who seems to have given up).

The difference is that atheists rarely convert to religions, because there is simply no reason to. No argument made by a theist can ever convince a logical person that god exists, simply because all the arguments are based on a book, and the only evidence the book relates to god is in the book itself, making it irrelevant. Atheists convert to religion out of fear. The fear that for not believing, they will be tortured for all eternity in the afterlife. Even though there is no way to prove that such a thing happens, people think it's worth accepting, since if they're wrong there's no penalty. However, they fail to realize the possibility of a god who rewards logical thinking with eternal happiness, and punishes those who blindly follow others. Statistically, the odds are the same.

The logical choice is to admit that any or no gods may exist, with no indication what is true until death (perhaps). However, atheists, as opposed to agnostics, tend to assume there is no god for the same reason they assume unicorns don't exist. There is simply no evidence.

Edit: I have no problem with people who believe in God, or are religious, but people could be just as moral and good without religion, and I have always found it most important to have as clear a picture of reality as possible, whether or not this causes one to drop everything considered truth for most of his life. An understanding of reality can never be a bad thing. Even if we eventually learn something that causes life to lose some or all of its meaning, it's still better than pretending lies are true.

We're humans. We can get around obstacles, but only if we recognize the obstacle is there. Hiding the truth can make us happy, but it also makes us wrong.

Edit #2: What I find more frustrating though, is when religious people try to defend their religion as if there is evidence that it is true. The nature of faith is that it cannot be proven true or false, whether the stories associated with it happened or not. I don't care if you're trying to get me to accept your religion or not, telling me it is provably true is a lie. Either you are purposely lying, or just have no concept of what proof is. Both are aggravating and quite sad, to say the least. That's why I feel the need to get involved in this thread. I urge anyone with questions about this post to ask them.