Is there a God?

[Assume Nothing]

I don't understand that attitude - why do you feel the need to white-knight religion? I'd personally say that I disagree with religion for many reasons, including the actions of 'wackos'.

 

Belief is not a choice, it's a compulsion to accept what's purported to be true on the basis of convincing argument, credible evidence, and trust. I have yet to be presented with the former, and I lack the latter for obvious reasons (the actions of wackos tend not to help.)

[Kimberly]

I don't understand that attitude - why do you feel the need to white-knight religion?

 

Belief is not a choice, it's a compulsion to accept what's purported to be true on the basis of convincing argument, credible evidence, and trust. I have yet to be presented with the former, and I lack the latter for obvious reasons (the actions of wackos tend not to help.)

 

Those who hold faith are automatically at a disadvantage in these discussions. Even still, many choose to believe. I've found over the years that this is often viewed as a detestable act, because they "should know better" having religion for all intensive purposes disproven. Even though I don't really hold my faith too dearly at this point of my life due to personal struggles, I find this repeating pattern that always seems to play out in discussions frustrating, even if I looked at it from a viewpoint that there isn't a higher power. There's never a middle ground, it always leads to upset people, and it personally stresses me out. And sometimes, I'm too retarded for my own good and think that I can redress the "imbalance" that always exists in these discussions - since it feels like theists are always outnumbered - and toss my hat into the ring. Quite frankly, I shouldn't. Especially since I'm clearly not up to the standards that people like you, Croce, and others set when it comes to formal debating. It's why I'm trying to slap myself now, apologize for where I [bleep]ed up, and move on >_>'

[Guest Rob]

Question for theists and atheists alike: If there is a god, would he forgive a good person who didn't believe in god? Somebody who lived a good life and was kind/honest but didn't believe in god. Would that person be permitted entrance to heaven?

[Jonanananas]

I don't understand that attitude - why do you feel the need to white-knight religion? I'd personally say that I disagree with religion for many reasons, including the actions of 'wackos'.

 

Belief is not a choice, it's a compulsion to accept what's purported to be true on the basis of convincing argument, credible evidence, and trust. I have yet to be presented with the former, and I lack the latter for obvious reasons (the actions of wackos tend not to help.)

 

Fundamentalists misconstrue the teachings of a religion. This is not the fault of the religion. A thing doesn't become bad in itself because it is often abused. As such, religion isn't bad just because fundamentalists are stupid.

[Assume Nothing]

Question for theists and atheists alike: If there is a god, would he forgive a good person who didn't believe in god? Somebody who lived a good life and was kind/honest but didn't believe in god. Would that person be permitted entrance to heaven?

I'm not too sure on why you're asking atheists - since we don't believe, we operate on theistic interpretations. I'd say that for the sake of argument, if there was a 'deity', they would either be unconcerned with human life or empathetic - i.e. deistic. I don't subscribe to the heaven/hell ideas.

 

I don't understand that attitude - why do you feel the need to white-knight religion? I'd personally say that I disagree with religion for many reasons, including the actions of 'wackos'.

 

Belief is not a choice, it's a compulsion to accept what's purported to be true on the basis of convincing argument, credible evidence, and trust. I have yet to be presented with the former, and I lack the latter for obvious reasons (the actions of wackos tend not to help.)

 

Fundamentalists misconstrue the teachings of a religion. This is not the fault of the religion. A thing doesn't become bad in itself because it is often abused. As such, religion isn't bad just because fundamentalists are stupid.

EDIT - I don't follow; how do you misconstrue the holy scripture if it's written therein? Why do you insist that moderate theism is the 'correct' interpretation, and that fundamentalism is a 'misconstruing the truth'? I'm asking, how exactly do you know?

 

I don't know what exactly moderate theism entails, so to provide examples of possible issues with moderate theism would be an exercise of futility - so please, tell us what moderates believe.

[Guest Rob]

I'm not too sure on why you're asking atheists - since we don't believe, we operate on theistic interpretations.

 

This thread seems to be mostly atheists talking, so I figured it'd give me more/quicker responses. Plus I like to have many opinions for subjects such as these.

[Jonanananas]

I've already tried to explain moderate theism to you. I failed horribly, and to be honest, I'm not in the mood to try again.

 

 

As for misconstruing the scripture...honestly, the biggest part of it is just common sense, some part of it is knowing when, how and why these parts were written.

 

Just take the genesis chapter. It should, honestly, be obvious to anyone that this was not meant to be literal, and never was meant to be either. What counts are the values of the religion embedded within.

 

In this case, it helps to know that this particular chapter was written by jewish priests when in exile in babylon. They specifically wanted to set themselves apart from other religions with specific values (Such as man being a partner in god's creation) which was supposed to appeal to jews who got swayed by the babylonists(what do you call them?) feasts, parades, etc.

[Assume Nothing]

Common sense just isn't common in all fairness. The thing which strikes me about moderate religion is why different interpretations insist that certain parts are deemed to be true without evidence, yet other parts as 'obviously' metaphors - it sounds like special pleading to me, as I've said before. Is it because a particular chapter is favourable so you exercise less skepticism?

 

If we take your point - the values of religion is what really matters, not whether the premise of religion is true (i.e. the existence of a deity they call 'god') - then what is the point of it? Secular organizations could provide moral teachings just as well, if not better - 'god' is just an unnecessary burden.

 

I don't know enough about specific chapters and their truth value to make any informed judgement/comment. I'd just note that there is little corroboration without collaboration (a point in reference to why the idea that the same 'god' guides them all is flawed, because of inconsistent revelations. I realise this is slightly irrelevant, but nonetheless worth pointing out.)

[Crocefisso]

I don't understand that attitude - why do you feel the need to white-knight religion? I'd personally say that I disagree with religion for many reasons, including the actions of 'wackos'.

 

Belief is not a choice, it's a compulsion to accept what's purported to be true on the basis of convincing argument, credible evidence, and trust. I have yet to be presented with the former, and I lack the latter for obvious reasons (the actions of wackos tend not to help.)

 

Fundamentalists misconstrue the teachings of a religion. This is not the fault of the religion. A thing doesn't become bad in itself because it is often abused. As such, religion isn't bad just because fundamentalists are stupid.

 

This is very debateable indeed. For the most part, fundamentalists often stick the bare essentials of a religion with as little interpretation as possible (hence the 'fundamental' part). I would argue they are, in religions such as Islam, more true to their religion than the apologists, whose adherence to scripture (in the Abrahamic religions I know a little of) tends to change with the times.

 

Extremists that go above and beyond that which is written in their religion, on the other hand, such as the Spanish Inquisition, are not fundamentalist but merely extremist (or so I think).

[Jonanananas]

I don't understand that attitude - why do you feel the need to white-knight religion? I'd personally say that I disagree with religion for many reasons, including the actions of 'wackos'.

 

Belief is not a choice, it's a compulsion to accept what's purported to be true on the basis of convincing argument, credible evidence, and trust. I have yet to be presented with the former, and I lack the latter for obvious reasons (the actions of wackos tend not to help.)

 

Fundamentalists misconstrue the teachings of a religion. This is not the fault of the religion. A thing doesn't become bad in itself because it is often abused. As such, religion isn't bad just because fundamentalists are stupid.

 

This is very debateable indeed. For the most part, fundamentalists often stick the bare essentials of a religion with as little interpretation as possible (hence the 'fundamental' part). I would argue they are, in religions such as Islam, more true to their religion than the apologists, whose adherence to scripture (in the Abrahamic religions I know a little of) tends to change with the times.

 

Extremists that go above and beyond that which is written in their religion, on the other hand, such as the Spanish Inquisition, are not fundamentalist but merely extremist (or so I think).

 

As far as I know, Islamic extremists are misconstrueing the quran too. I only know this from some people mentioning it though, I have no specific knowledge of what's actually written there etc.

 

I am a bit more knowledgeable with christianity, and fundamentalists do not stick to the bare essentials of it. They are sticking to the literal sense of it, which is, simply put, stupid. You can argue about common sense all you want, but some parts are definitely not meant to be taken literally and as said, for some parts there even is historic proof of that. Not to mention that there are hundreds of variations of the bible and it should be clear that they a)obviously cannot be literally true at the same time and b)the reason that only some of these are in the standard version of the bible is not because some are literally true and some aren't.

 

Heck, even in the standard (I'm talking about roman catholic) bible you e.g. have two versions of the genesis chapter and 4 different gospels that also contradict themselves at times. How anyone could think they can interpret this literally is beyond me, it's just so mind-boggingly stupid...

[Crocefisso]

^ I absolutely agree that fundamentalist Christians are stupid in their interpretation, I was just being slightly pedantic in pointing out that fundamentalists, for all their absence of common sense, are just doing what their holy book of choice says.

[Assume Nothing]

@Jona: Question - how do you know which parts to take literally and which parts not? Contradictions in claims between different interpretations of the variations makes it very difficult to believe one interpretation over the others, so what lends more weight in your direction?

 

If there's a contradiction or conflict, which one do you eliminate and why - is it because one defies logic, or is it because it is favourable to your cause, or any other reason I might not have included? These are the issues that make religion as a whole a difficult concept to swallow.

[Vezon Dash]

Heck, even in the standard (I'm talking about roman catholic) bible you e.g. have two versions of the genesis chapter and 4 different gospels that also contradict themselves at times. How anyone could think they can interpret this literally is beyond me, it's just so mind-boggingly stupid...

 

I'm not familiar with the Catholic bible, so could you explain the "4 different gospels that also contradict themselves?"

[Crocefisso]

Heck, even in the standard (I'm talking about roman catholic) bible you e.g. have two versions of the genesis chapter and 4 different gospels that also contradict themselves at times. How anyone could think they can interpret this literally is beyond me, it's just so mind-boggingly stupid...

 

I'm not familiar with the Catholic bible, so could you explain the "4 different gospels that also contradict themselves?"

The Gospels are the same (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) because there is only Bible. Jona is referring to the fact that the 4 gospels offer contradictory accounts of Jesus' life and deeds and so on, owing to the fact they were composed by different authors across some decades (I forget how many) and with what I presume were different sources.

[Jonanananas]

Yeah I agree with you here. It's one extremely big logic hole in the christian religion. But you know, personally I'm not too bothered with it, because you know, what does it matter if someone believes it still despite those logic holes? At least he's not fundamentalist :P

 

And yeah, basically the church just chose which parts they thought fit the best.

[Vezon Dash]

Heck, even in the standard (I'm talking about roman catholic) bible you e.g. have two versions of the genesis chapter and 4 different gospels that also contradict themselves at times. How anyone could think they can interpret this literally is beyond me, it's just so mind-boggingly stupid...

 

I'm not familiar with the Catholic bible, so could you explain the "4 different gospels that also contradict themselves?"

The Gospels are the same (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) because there is only Bible. Jona is referring to the fact that the 4 gospels offer contradictory accounts of Jesus' life and deeds and so on, owing to the fact they were composed by different authors across some decades (I forget how many) and with what I presume were different sources.

 

I mean, I've read all 4 of those books in a normal bible, but I fail to truly see any contradictions. It isn't like they were all written by the same person, so there should *obviously* be some kind of variation.... If there was no difference, why would you even have all 4 of those books?

 

 

 

 

 

Even if there are contradictions, it isn't like science is perfect either. Don't get me wrong, most science is generally accurate, but the kind of science that is being discussed is more theoretical than anything.

[Assume Nothing]

I'll reiterate on why it matters:

 

[hide=Beliefs influence actions][/hide]

 

edit in response to Jona's edit: that's exactly my point. It doesn't make what they believe to be true by any regards, and even if its harmless, it becomes trivial; a waste of time.

[Jonanananas]

Umm...I was quite specifically talking about non-fundamentalists/extremists so I don't understand why you come up with extreme examples that as far as I can see are basically only due to that group...

[Vezon Dash]

I'll reiterate why it matters: beliefs influence actions.

 

[hide][/hide]

 

My beliiefs are that being homosexual is wrong, but that doesn't mean that I (being a religious person) am going to go out of my way to be unkind to them (or God forbid kill them). I bet that there are also non-religious people that hate gays, hate religious people, and other immoral things.

[Jonanananas]

Heck, even in the standard (I'm talking about roman catholic) bible you e.g. have two versions of the genesis chapter and 4 different gospels that also contradict themselves at times. How anyone could think they can interpret this literally is beyond me, it's just so mind-boggingly stupid...

 

I'm not familiar with the Catholic bible, so could you explain the "4 different gospels that also contradict themselves?"

The Gospels are the same (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) because there is only Bible. Jona is referring to the fact that the 4 gospels offer contradictory accounts of Jesus' life and deeds and so on, owing to the fact they were composed by different authors across some decades (I forget how many) and with what I presume were different sources.

 

I mean, I've read all 4 of those books in a normal bible, but I fail to truly see any contradictions. It isn't like they were all written by the same person, so there should *obviously* be some kind of variation.... If there was no difference, why would you even have all 4 of those books?

 

 

 

 

 

Even if there are contradictions, it isn't like science is perfect either. Don't get me wrong, most science is generally accurate, but the kind of science that is being discussed is more theoretical than anything.

 

There is no big difference in the message, in the teaching, etc.

 

There are differences in the literal accounts, which is one argument I used to explain why taking the bible literally doesn't work.

[Vezon Dash]

Which is understandable. They all have the same general message though, and that is what most people take out of it. An example of something in the bible that I do not take literally are the books of law in the old testament. There are some things that were meant for a different time period than we live in now.

[Assume Nothing]

I'll reiterate why it matters: beliefs influence actions.

 

[hide][/hide]

 

My beliiefs are that being homosexual is wrong, but that doesn't mean that I (being a religious person) am going to go out of my way to be unkind to them (or God forbid kill them). I bet that there are also non-religious people that hate gays, hate religious people, and other immoral things.

I'd say that belief in itself is enough to cause harm - I'll illustrate by asking: would you vote in favour of minimizing gay rights on that regard? If it's 'wrong' by your account, I'll take that to mean morally impermissible, and thus you're more likely to than otherwise.

 

If you would, that's a good example of how even moderate Christianity may cause harm.

[Guest Rob]

As horrible as those things are in that gigantic picture, it's not the doing of Religion, but people who take religion too far.

[Jonanananas]

I'll reiterate why it matters: beliefs influence actions.

 

[hide][/hide]

 

My beliiefs are that being homosexual is wrong, but that doesn't mean that I (being a religious person) am going to go out of my way to be unkind to them (or God forbid kill them). I bet that there are also non-religious people that hate gays, hate religious people, and other immoral things.

That belief in itself is enough to cause harm - would you vote in favour of minimizing gay rights on that regard? It's 'wrong' by your account, so I'll take that to mean morally impermissible. If you would, that's a good example of how even moderate Christianity has harmful effects.

As Vezon said himself...there are enough non-religious people who don't like gays.

[Assume Nothing]

It's not because they're non-theistic though, so you can't attribute it to atheism - the key difference. I wouldn't say adding to bad decisions are harmless.

 

EDIT @Rob: It's their belief that formed the basis - if the religion wasn't there, then those things wouldn't have happened.