Is there a God?

[Giordano]

There is nothing in the Bible that attacks modern day science because it was written in the past.

 

So why are some religious people intolerant of sciences (evolution, Big Bang Theory, etc)? I think we can all agree religion doesn't make people backwards and intolerant, it's manipulative preachers and idiots who read religious books as literal facts.

 

 

 

I wish a lot more people understood organized religion is a crowd controller. A bunch of modern day religious concepts were made to control the population. Gay marriage was forbidden to create families so people had to work thus making a stable society. Christian holidays were made to go hand-in-hand with old Roman pagan holidays to get converts, this I would think this is blasphemous. Islam was promoted to bring stability and get recruits for the Amir's conquests.

 

Religion was organized so the people in power can maintain their power through a stable society. So obviously when science disproved something in religion, it was a threat to the organization's power. Nowadays though, in most countries of the world, the federal system creates the best stability in itself. So religion can return to it's origins: a personal belief system to live an enriched life, not to oppress and become intolerant of other people because of what organized religion thought was unfit to their rule.

[Vezon Dash]

As far as literal truth, I believe that all of it is. However, within the Bible there are parts that are meant to be left out. For instance, a good majority of the laws in the first 5 books are made null with Jesus' death.

 

However, I can not speak for other 'Christians' out there because not everyone believes as I do. I am one of those 'hardcore/oldschool' religious people. (I will admit though, I'm not perfect)

[Assume Nothing]

 

EDIT - what does that mean, all of it's a literal truth but there are certain parts that were meant to be left out? I don't understand why you'd cherry-pick values in the book.

[Vezon Dash]

We cherry-pick the laws because the book itself says so.

 

The first 5 books were written thousands of years before Jesus' arrival on Earth. Once Jesus came back, he changed the rules that we should follow.

 

That is the difference between Christianity and Judaism (sort of). The Jews do not believe that Jesus was God, and therefore they do acknowledge the rules that Jesus put in place. That being said, they follow the older rules that Jesus made void. (Things like not eating pork, not doing work on Saturday, and other things of that sort)

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing against you here, but that is one of the reasons that people like you do not understand the Bible. You have not read/studied it, and therefore you do not completely understand why some practices are observed and why some are not. It makes the Bible sound like a huge contradiction, but in reality it is a complete flowing piece.

[Plugpoint]

^THAT VIDEO - IT'S AMY FARRAH FOWLER :blink:

 

OT: I'm atheist. I believe we all evolved from a single-celled organism without any help from a God. Seeing as we're unlikely to ever have concrete proof either way, I think arguing about the existence of a God is a bit immature (my Christian friend used to get in heated arguments with her [wagon] flatmate and I realised neither of them would ever change the other one's mind, it's so pointless... debating's fine, but not like "change your beliefs, you're wrong"). People should believe what they want to believe, and be cool with the fact that everybody gets to make that choice for themselves. Whatever makes people happy.

[Vezon Dash]

^THAT VIDEO - IT'S AMY FARRAH FOWLER :blink:

 

OT: I'm atheist. I believe we all evolved from a single-celled organism without any help from a God. Seeing as we're unlikely to ever have concrete proof either way, I think arguing about the existence of a God is a bit immature (my Christian friend used to get in heated arguments with her [wagon] flatmate and I realised neither of them would ever change the other one's mind, it's so pointless... debating's fine, but not like "change your beliefs, you're wrong"). People should believe what they want to believe, and be cool with the fact that everybody gets to make that choice for themselves. Whatever makes people happy.

 

Which is why I have never forced religion on other people. Sometimes I scorn others who do not believe, but that is not usually the case.

[Giordano]

I am not suggesting removing organized religion because, as the video said, people would just regroup. But what I'm trying to say, is that (specifically American) people should UNDERSTAND a lot of the characteristics that makes one a Christian were made up by the Medieval church. There's no reason to in-tolerate gays for the benefit of a organization that does not control anything (and if it does, they would screw you over).

 

People need to understand that is all. Hoping to remove religion is an idealistic, unrealistic goal. Be a realist and make people understand the actual history of religion instead of trying to disprove God or trying to remove religion altogether.

[Peronix]

I agree, there will always people who will believe in things without evidence.

 

But the thing is, you won't find many people even among anti-theists let alone atheists that want to legislate religion away. As Christopher Hitchens once said, "My weapons are words."

 

I wish more moderate theists would realize this. More often than not they will attack the atheist rather than the fundamentalist, even though the latter makes it quite clear that they want to legislate against things like gay marriage and teaching evolution, just to name two.

 

I would also argue that idealistic goals are not inherently bad as long as you don't use underhanded tactics to get there. Aiming for perfection ensures that you're always striving to make progress. I think life would be pretty boring if everyone just kicked back and said "good enough."

[obfuscator]

Funny that you mention Christopher Hitchens not wanting to legislate against religion, yet he

, and I'm not sure how much more of an implicit "religious education should be illegal" comparison you could make.

 

Peter Hitchens sums that thought up nicely

 

It is notable that the work of my brother, Christopher Hitchens, and that of Richard Dawkins coincide closely on one striking point. My brother devotes a chapter in his 2007 book God Is Not Great to the question Is religion child abuse? Amid a multitude of fulminations about circumcision, masturbation and frightening children with stories of hell, he lets slip what I suspect is his actual point: If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world. This is perfectly true, as is his earlier statement that the obsession with children, and with rigid control over their upbringing, has been part of every system of absolute authority. There is a revealing assumption buried in these statements and also in the opening part of the chapter, in which he says, We can be sure that religion has always hoped to practise upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young, and has gone to great lengths to make sure of this privilege by making alliances with secular powers in the material world. Does he realize that he is here describing Soviet Communism?

 

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins too has a lengthy section on Physical and Mental Abuse. He recounts how in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.

 

The word abuse used here by both Richard Dawkins and my brother is far stronger than it first seems to be. In modern Britain and slightly less so in the United States, an accusation of child abuse is devastating to the accused. It is almost universally assumed to be true. Juries and the media are instantly prejudiced against the defendant before any evidence has been heard. To suggest that any person so charged may be innocent is to risk being accused of abuse oneself.

 

To use the expression child abuse in this context is to equate such education with a universally hated crime. If Professor Dawkins genuinely believes what he said to the Dublin audience, then he should logically believe that bringing the child up Catholic should be a criminal offence attracting a long term of imprisonment and public disgrace. If he does not mean this, what does he mean by the use of such wildly inflated language, and what is he trying to achieve by it?

 

Note: This isn't the full article (I couldn't find it online. I have the book but am not going to transcribe 1k words).

[Peronix]

I was quoting that as more a statement of my own position. That said, though I don't agree with his wording on that issue, I can kind of see his point, especially given the extreme social pressures I've gotten from my family and friends.

 

Personally I think it would suffice to keep religion out of public schools' curriculum. Creationism isn't science, period. If you want to teach your kid that, do it yourself, and ask that they be excused from the evolution studies.

[obfuscator]

Fair enough. As far as I know (here at least) religion isn't taught from more than a historical perspective in public schools. (Except in separate schools which are aimed at Catholics although being publicly funded).

[Powerfrog]

Fair enough. As far as I know (here at least) religion isn't taught from more than a historical perspective in public schools. (Except in separate schools which are aimed at Catholics although being publicly funded).

I've never got over the fact that it was a required subject to take in my none Christian school in England, for GCSEs.

 

"History" wasn't. In fact, we had to choose from separate sections and i had to choose biology/chemistry/physics over history, incapable of doing all of them. Yet Religious Education was mandatory.

 

It's only now i look back as an adult that i realize A). How meaningless it all was in the first place and B). Meaningless aside, what a truly awful system we were forced to use.

[Vezon Dash]

That isn't the case here in the US.

[sarg1010]

The first 5 books were written thousands of years before Jesus' arrival on Earth. Once Jesus came back, he changed the rules that we should follow.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

 

If Christianity "started" around Jesus' time, and the current Bible was written at least 40 years after his death... this statement makes absolutely no sense. Unless of course you mean "were written ABOUT the thousands of years before..."

[Vezon Dash]

Christianity 'technically' started after his death. Of course the Bible was not completed and complied immediately, but there was no 'Bible' so to speak for the pioneer Christians.

 

 

The first 5 books were written BEFORE Jesus. It is believed that they were written by Moses (not a fact though).

[Powerfrog]

Christianity 'technically' started after his death. Of course the Bible was not completed and complied immediately, but there was no 'Bible' so to speak for the pioneer Christians.

 

 

The first 5 books were written BEFORE Jesus. It is believed that they were written by Moses (not a fact though).

Just out of curiosity, because you said you were a literalist earlier, do you believe that the people that have their ages listed were actually that old? Methuselah being 965 years old, for example.

[Vezon Dash]

Yes. I do.

 

With the Bible you have to take it all as a truth or take none of it as truth.

[sarg1010]

Yes. I do.

 

With the Bible you have to take it all as a truth or take none of it as truth.

Even the parts that are clearly changed/tampered with in the later re-writings/translations of the Gospels (which I still don't get why there are names to them. Nowhere does it say who wrote them)?

 

And from last page, you are saying that someone wrote about Christianity and god... before either were even around/thought of?

[Vezon Dash]

Yes. I do.

 

With the Bible you have to take it all as a truth or take none of it as truth.

Even the parts that are clearly changed/tampered with in the later re-writings/translations of the Gospels (which I still don't get why there are names to them. Nowhere does it say who wrote them)?

 

And from last page, you are saying that someone wrote about Christianity and god... before either were even around/thought of?

The 'gospels' were written by who they were named after. In fact, the only book in the New Testament does not have a clear author is the book of Hebrews, but it was most likely Saul (Paul) of Tarsus.

 

 

The Bible hasn't always been about Christianity. The Old Testament is based on Judaism, and the New Testament is based on Christianity. (as Christianity spawned from Judaism)

[Assume Nothing]

Funny that you mention Christopher Hitchens not wanting to legislate against religion, yet he

, and I'm not sure how much more of an implicit "religious education should be illegal" comparison you could make.

It's the fault of word-usage, its connotations are derived from the media after-all. By child-abuse, he doesn't mean sexual child exploitation - rather, he means causing direct and often very significant harm to children, for that is to say, psychological and physical abuse (child-abuse). I don't disagree that fundamentalists do cause a lot of harm to children, often tantamount to brainwashing.

 

I don't know the sources and its language, so I can't verify the legitimacy of the translation, but to illustrate:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjbJnZUJTYU

 

It seems plausible enough, their punishment for apostasy is the execution after-all.

[Powerfrog]

Yes. I do.

 

With the Bible you have to take it all as a truth or take none of it as truth.

If that's the case, why not take the sensible step towards taking none of it as truth? I can't get around the idea of ignoring obvious impossibilities for the sake of not being wrong about a decision your parents made for you before you were knowledgeable enough to decide based on your own common sense.

 

That's also a bad way to look at it, just because most of it is fiction doesn't mean all of it's teachings should be avoided and ignored.

[Vezon Dash]

It is just one of those things where you believe just because you can. A man has to have something to believe in.

[Assume Nothing]

A man has to have something to believe in.

I've seen this far, far too much - and it strikes me that even on OT, it crops up. I can only speak for myself, but as a person without belief in deities, I believe in many things - the power of expression, the strength of humanity, the changes we could make, etc. It just so happens that many atheists tend to be secular humanists, or rationalists, etc.

 

I could find a quote of someone saying it better, but I'll just leave it at that. It doesn't require the concept of a god to fill in the gaps. The objective should really be 'believe in only what's necessary'. If religion is unnecessary, why follow its teachings?

[Vezon Dash]

However, I believe that it is. I believe in Heaven and Hell, and I'm going to do what is necessary to be a part of the former as opposed to the latter when I die.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't understand though - why postulate on something you can never observe/sense in the only life you know with certainty exists? If evidence is out of the question, and there's very few arguments that could support the existence of heavens/hell, then it would seem silly to believe.

 

So, ultimately, I'll question - why believe in it?