The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   The existence of God (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=364155)

KorpiklaaniVodka February 29th, 2016 10:24 AM

The existence of God
 
Warning: this subject is extremely sensitive and complex. If you lack logical skills it's better to stay away from it.

Since 2014, I was convinced to become an agnostic after reading multiple sites, observing the actions of Romanian local priests (experts in corruption) and thinking more about it. Prior to that I was pretty much a narrow Christian which loved reading the Bible and whatnot.

Now I'm not sure if there is a creator or not, because man has not yet acquired the scientific means to determine this, but I'm convinced that religion, and especially Christianity is pretty much false, and was created by man to control the masses, to brainwash people and ultimately establish a herd instinct.

What do you think?

Somewhere_ February 29th, 2016 5:30 PM

Im a Christian, but Im not exactly a theologian, so I dont know all of the answers to contradictions and stuff, but so far, I found simple google searches seem to rectify them...

About the science and stuff, I am not super well-versed, so I can't exactly defend my position well. Im sort of losing the faith unfortunately, so Im heading towards a deistic route. I think its ignorant to claim a god or gods is impossible to exist, but also ignorant to claim one exists without looking into it more, which is why I respect people that are either atheists that have thought things through, or christians/other religion that have though things through and researched.

Tbh, I dont think the bible is meant to be a control tool, although I think it could be manipulated to be used as one, like anything else.

Desert Stream~ February 29th, 2016 6:49 PM

I'm an atheist, science can explain most things.

Wicked3DS February 29th, 2016 9:09 PM

As a Christian, I don't think "brainwashing" is a fair term to use. At the end of the day, you still have to make a choice.

Electricbluewolf March 1st, 2016 1:42 PM

For me there is no comfort that there is "a big guy in the sky" making our decisions and life choices.

However, I find no problems with other people doing so. In fact if it brings comfort, enlightenment and order to themselves than so be it. I know lives changed through finding God, and through deciding to not believe.

But if people are using it to fool people, take their money for ludicrous promises on what God can "cure" and discriminate against anyone who doesn't believe in God that to me that's not practising what the Bible tries to teach.

With mentioning the Bible to me the interpretation is metaphorically in some of the aspects, so that it could relate to different society classes.

Elysieum March 2nd, 2016 7:49 AM

I identify myself as an antitheist. Critical thinking has been an invaluable part of my life and has allowed me to grow in cognizance. I come from a moderately Christian family in a moderately Christian culture, so it was not a breeze to relinquish those bindings or to declare myself as a dissenter to my parents.

But I am glad I did, when I did. I live my life without the promise of paradise, which makes it that much sweeter.

Pokemon Game Fan March 2nd, 2016 5:13 PM

I'm an Agnostic Atheist. I dont believe there is a god, however I dont think there's a way to prove it either way.

That said, religion is complete bullshit. You can't prove whether or not there is a god, but that's a different topic than religion. Religion =/= God. There are so many inconsistencies in religion that I don't even wanna get started on it.

Megan March 4th, 2016 12:45 PM

There's no way to prove whether there's a god or not. However, I like to say that it's highly unlikely that there's an intelligent being that is on such a high level of existence that it's aware of itself while also being able to create complicated concepts like maths and physics, let alone living beings.

Neil Peart March 5th, 2016 1:01 AM

My thoughts on God have vacillated over my 25 years on this planet. I was borderline militant in my atheism from my teen years until about last year. I still think organized religion of any kind is in some form delusional, but I can't help but catch myself thinking more in depth about the idea of a creator; a higher power.

Marugi March 5th, 2016 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wicked3DS (Post 9141892)
As a Christian, I don't think "brainwashing" is a fair term to use. At the end of the day, you still have to make a choice.

I definitely agree with this. However, the Roman Catholic church did use its influential power during medieval times to manipulate illiterate peasants, so that is a somewhat valid point, but it doesn't apply to Christianity today.

Pokemon Game Fan March 6th, 2016 1:55 AM

The idea behind the 'brainwashing' part is that most people are indoctrinated at a young age. I mean, if we were all just allowed to make our own choices, wouldn't there be more of everything instead of Christianity being the majority?

Christianity is the majority because a lot of people are Christian, and then they pass it on to their kids, who are taught to be Christian at a young age, who then grow and do the same with their kids. Some break away into other religions or become Atheists, but for the most part people tend to stick with what they were taught as a kid.

In some sort of way, you are stuck believing what you were taught as a kid unless you break out of it. For example, if you were born in the Middle East, you'd likely be a Muslim right now.

So that's where the 'brainwashing' part comes from, not from convincing a full grown adult to join your religion. Hopefully that clears some stuff up.

Somewhere_ March 6th, 2016 6:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marugi (Post 9149173)
I definitely agree with this. However, the Roman Catholic church did use its influential power during medieval times to manipulate illiterate peasants, so that is a somewhat valid point, but it doesn't apply to Christianity today.

Dont forget the Catholic church also banned the Bible later as well so the the common person couldn't interpret for him/herself to control them. This hints that the Bible isn't the tool for controlling the masses, but the opposite.

Bossvelt March 6th, 2016 9:29 AM

I used to be really militant as some others in this thread as well. However, I have calmed down from that as I have aged. My disbelief in a god doesn't really stem from religious corruption but rather an apathy towards it. I do not think one exists and should it exist I do not think even then that I would follow it.

However, if we are to talk about religion, that is another issue. It's a hit and miss. I do believe all people that are religious are those that cannot find the strength in themselves to do things without feeling like someone is guiding them, and it comforts them. That's a good thing.

However, there's some very archaic things about it as well. The most prominent examples today are countries with Islam as the dominant religion in which women are treated as second class citizens and not identifying as a follower or denouncing the religion could get you killed. When I think about things like that, it leaves a very foul taste in my mouth. This also applies to religious corruption in European and Western countries where people are scammed out of their money so religious officials can get rich as they please knowing these people will believe anything they say.

So, I think of religion as more bad than good, but that little good that it does bring does make me feel as if it is necessary for some people.

(sorry for the ramble i tried to not sound too stupid lol just kinda riffed the whole thing)

Lunaris Adamantine March 7th, 2016 2:16 AM

I'm am an atheist, and non-religious. Even though I was raised within a religious family, I had always disliked the whole idea of it. None of it was ever logical, and everything from the bible simply couldn't be taken seriously. The existence of a god just doesn't make sense.

My own opinion on religion and theism is that some time in the past, during the dawn of civilization, someone asked a question about the origins of life. No one had an answer, obviously, so they made stuff up. Different cultures started making up different ideas, and eventually there came to be the hundreds of religions that have existed throughout history.

At this point, anyone from any religion could say the rest are wrong. And that happens a lot. With so many mixed ideas, so many different cultures based on so many different religions, it's easy for me to say that they are all probably wrong.

I'm not saying that having a religion is bad, though. If it helps you, then that's most definitely a good thing. And I'm not going to try to change your mind. This is simply the way I feel about it, that's all.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 4:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KorpiklaaniVodka (Post 9140999)
Warning: this subject is extremely sensitive and complex. If you lack logical skills it's better to stay away from it.

Since 2014, I was convinced to become an agnostic after reading multiple sites, observing the actions of Romanian local priests (experts in corruption) and thinking more about it. Prior to that I was pretty much a narrow Christian which loved reading the Bible and whatnot.

Now I'm not sure if there is a creator or not, because man has not yet acquired the scientific means to determine this, but I'm convinced that religion, and especially Christianity is pretty much false, and was created by man to control the masses, to brainwash people and ultimately establish a herd instinct.

What do you think?

One should make a distinction between Roman Catholicism and Christianity, first of all. The Roman Catholics do and believe a lot of things that aren't actually in line with the Bible, including but not limited to using the Apocrypha, venerating Mary, and using good deeds as a way to get into heaven.

However, where science fails, one should look to logic. Without a God, there's no real reason for logic, morality, or the laws of nature (such as dogs giving birth to dogs instead of deer). If atheism is correct, then there's no ultimate purpose to our lives at all. We may as well just do what makes ourselves happy, even if that means hurting others. There's no point to our lives because they aren't eternal. Once you die, that's it. You stop caring about everything because you aren't there to care. Leaving a legacy doesn't matter because everything fades with time, including memory. Basically, everything is vanity.

But if there is a God, that begs the question of "which one," so let's explore that. In order to properly explain the existence of logic, morality, and the laws of nature, whatever God or gods must be absolutely perfect in every way. Logic, for example, is mere opinion if it isn't perfectly objective, regardless of mankind's interpretations. Morality is the same.

There are some religions we can immediately dismiss this way, such as atheism, Shinto (gods are fallible, enough said), and Hinduism (they believe this reality's an illusion). Others require a closer look. Islam can be dismissed, for example, because it simultaneously claims that its god Allah is impossible for us to know and ascribes 99 names to him so that he can be known. It also simultaneously claims that monogamy is how marriage should be, yet Allah told Muhammad to take his brother's wives. In other words, Allah contradicts himself, and therefore shouldn't be acknowledged as God.

When you examine every religion closely like this, you find that Christianity is the only one that holds any weight at all, and the rest refute themselves by simple logic. 2 Timothy 2:13 reads, "If we're faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." Neither can truth; either something is true or it is not true. Any mathematician can tell you that. If the universe is really a result of chance alone, things like reason, love, and morality are impossible to explain.

We can certainly confirm the Bible's accuracy, however. Daniel prophesied four empires and Alexander the Great, for example, in Daniel 7, 8, and 11. In Ezekiel 26, Ezekiel prophesied Tyre's destruction. In addition to fulfilled prophecies, there are scientific proofs of what the Bible says happened in history. For example, the global flood of Noah's time would predictably bury and kill animals, people, and more before it finally drained. We find fossils underground today. Sure, you could claim that they're millions or billions of years old rather than mere thousands, but the same dating methods used to reach such conclusions date a fossilized piece of tree bark from Mt. St. Helen's eruption to about millions of years ago as well, when it clearly wasn't a fossil for more than four decades. I'd be more inclined to believe the Bible than such faulty dating methods.

And, of course, one of the biggest reasons Christianity is correct is the fact that there are historical documents both in the Bible and not that confirm the Bible's story: there was a man called Jesus Christ who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, was buried, and was seen alive again three days later before ascending to heaven. The way Christ lived here left us only three options in regard to what we think of Him: either He's truly the Son of God, He's a demon or possessed by one, or He's absolutely insane.

Here's the thing, though. Proving that God exists isn't enough. Even demons believe He exists, and that fact makes them tremble in fear (James 2:19). It doesn't matter if you believe there's a God if you don't put your trust in Him. Even if you still don't think there's a God, it's simply safer to change that belief and pray. Pascal's famous wager states that if there really is no God, then it makes no difference whether you believe there is. If God does exist, however, then your belief makes all the difference.

Is that a chance you're willing to take?

Harmonie March 7th, 2016 7:04 AM

To put it simply, I do not see any reason to believe there is a God, or any form of deity.

I was raised as a Christian, but at the end of the day, I can't say I really ever had that belief for myself. I never felt a thing while at church, I never felt the presence of a higher being. I had a 'belief', I suppose, but it was only propped up by trusting the people of my family and my church that they had access to knowledge/feelings that I did not.

It was a long-drawn out process of how I even came to consciously acknowledge that, I will save that story for it isn't entirely on-topic. Nevertheless, I grew up finding out that I wasn't alone, that other people did not have these feelings/beliefs either... That they were not seeing it, just like me. Once officially outside of the Christian belief, I have been able to see things more clearly. As I said, I do not see any reason to believe in a deity. It's not to say that there absolutely isn't one, although I strongly question the idea of an intervening deity there isn't much I can say about the existence of the entity a deist would propose - except for one thing: The idea is irrelevant! The time to believe is when there is reason to believe. I do not see any. While we must keep an open-mind, it is not justified to really put too much thought into this claim, if you ask me... So I do not subscribe any belief to it.

Lastly, on the subject of Christianity being created to brainwash the masses. From my studying (which isn't horribly extensive and has been a few years in the past, so don't take anything I say as gospel truth) Christianity (and its preceding religion, Judaism) was just a new way of understanding what people believed was the creator(s). A lot of aspects of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) were straight-up rejections of the ideas of how the Mesopotamians saw their deities.

Even if what I said above isn't as accurate as I hope it to be, to assume that Christianity was created to brainwash the masses just doesn't feel realistic. Throughout history, the churches that have formed from Christianity certainly have seized power, but I don't think we should automatically assume that the authors of the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible were out to control people. I can't explain with the evidence we have why they thought that they could explain what God would order in books like Leviticus, but I can say one thing... It certainly wasn't the morality of an all-knowing God. It's hard for me to know what they might have been thinking, for I have never actually held a belief in God for myself.

I am a strong anti-theist, but I do not want to see people jump to such hasty conclusions.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 7:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonie (Post 9151372)
To put it simply, I do not see any reason to believe there is a God, or any form of deity.

I was raised as a Christian, but at the end of the day, I can't say I really ever had that belief for myself. I never felt a thing while at church, I never felt the presence of a higher being. I had a 'belief', I suppose, but it was only propped up by trusting the people of my family and my church that they had access to knowledge/feelings that I did not.

It was a long-drawn out process of how I even came to consciously acknowledge that, I will save that story for it isn't entirely on-topic. Nevertheless, I grew up finding out that I wasn't alone, that other people did not have these feelings/beliefs either... That they were not seeing it, just like me. Once officially outside of the Christian belief, I have been able to see things more clearly. As I said, I do not see any reason to believe in a deity. It's not to say that there absolutely isn't one, although I strongly question the idea of an intervening deity there isn't much I can say about the existence of the entity a deist would propose - except for one thing: The idea is irrelevant! The time to believe is when there is reason to believe. I do not see any. While we must keep an open-mind, it is not justified to really put too much thought into this claim, if you ask me... So I do not subscribe any belief to it.

Lastly, on the subject of Christianity being created to brainwash the masses. From my studying (which isn't horribly extensive and has been a few years in the past, so don't take anything I say as gospel truth) Christianity (and its preceding religion, Judaism) was just a new way of understanding what people believed was the creator(s). A lot of aspects of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) were straight-up rejections of the ideas of how the Mesopotamians saw their deities.

Even if what I said above isn't as accurate as I hope it to be, to assume that Christianity was created to brainwash the masses just doesn't feel realistic. Throughout history, the churches that have formed from Christianity certainly have seized power, but I don't think we should automatically assume that the authors of the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible were out to control people. I can't explain with the evidence we have why they thought that they could explain what God would order in books like Leviticus, but I can say one thing... It certainly wasn't the morality of an all-knowing God. It's hard for me to know what they might have been thinking, for I have never actually held a belief in God for myself.

I am a strong anti-theist, but I do not want to see people jump to such hasty conclusions.

I would just like to ask you one question, then. According to Christianity, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and human beings are (quite obviously) none of the above. Why, then, do you get to say that X "wasn't the morality of an all-knowing God"? Are you sure that you, a flawed human being like the rest of us, are in a position to tell God what's right or what's wrong?

Shining Raichu March 7th, 2016 7:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais
Without a God, there's no real reason for logic, morality, or the laws of nature (such as dogs giving birth to dogs instead of deer). If atheism is correct, then there's no ultimate purpose to our lives at all. We may as well just do what makes ourselves happy, even if that means hurting others. There's no point to our lives because they aren't eternal. Once you die, that's it. You stop caring about everything because you aren't there to care. Leaving a legacy doesn't matter because everything fades with time, including memory. Basically, everything is vanity.

One of the problems with religion, or with the notion of a God, is exactly this. The notion of a grand design teaches that everything must have a point, which is simply not true. Something can exist simply because it exists, and for no other reason.

What this poster also fails to realise is that their own logic can be extrapolated to the deity itself. If God doesn't have a God, what is his purpose? Did he create the universe and the Earth simply to give himself one? If God doesn't have a God, is that why he is so amoral that he can allow (or worse, facilitate) the kind of horrible things that happen to his own creations, who he so dearly loves yet feels the need to test for worthiness?

Is this the point he has given to his own eternal life?

On a separate note, I would dispute the point about a legacy. I submit that the need to leave a legacy is strengthened by the idea that our lives are not eternal. The larger the legacy, the longer we live.

Bossvelt March 7th, 2016 7:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151218)


There are some religions we can immediately dismiss this way, such as atheism, Shinto (gods are fallible, enough said), and Hinduism (they believe this reality's an illusion).
----------------

We can certainly confirm the Bible's accuracy, however. Daniel prophesied four empires and Alexander the Great, for example, in Daniel 7, 8, and 11. In Ezekiel 26, Ezekiel prophesied Tyre's destruction. In addition to fulfilled prophecies, there are scientific proofs of what the Bible says happened in history. For example, the global flood of Noah's time would predictably bury and kill animals, people, and more before it finally drained. We find fossils underground today. Sure, you could claim that they're millions or billions of years old rather than mere thousands, but the same dating methods used to reach such conclusions date a fossilized piece of tree bark from Mt. St. Helen's eruption to about millions of years ago as well, when it clearly wasn't a fossil for more than four decades. I'd be more inclined to believe the Bible than such faulty dating methods.

------------
Here's the thing, though. Proving that God exists isn't enough. Even demons believe He exists, and that fact makes them tremble in fear (James 2:19). It doesn't matter if you believe there's a God if you don't put your trust in Him. Even if you still don't think there's a God, it's simply safer to change that belief and pray. Pascal's famous wager states that if there really is no God, then it makes no difference whether you believe there is. If God does exist, however, then your belief makes all the difference.

Is that a chance you're willing to take?

I just sorta cut out the stuff I wanted to inquire or say things about.

Pertaining to the first, atheism is not a religion but a lack thereof.

Second, may I ask if you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism? (genuine question i'm pretty curious)

Third, are you trying to incite a change in people's beliefs with the fear of being wrong for a God that is apparently all loving?

I am not trying to insult but I just wanted to reply to your post in particular.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 8:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu (Post 9151393)
One of the problems with religion, or with the notion of a God, is exactly this. The notion of a grand design teaches that everything must have a point, which is simply not true. Something can exist simply because it exists, and for no other reason.

What this poster also fails to realise is that their own logic can be extrapolated to the deity itself. If God doesn't have a God, what is his purpose? Did he create the universe and the Earth simply to give himself one? If God doesn't have a God, is that why he is so amoral that he can allow (or worse, facilitate) the kind of horrible things that happen to his own creations, who he so dearly loves yet feels the need to test for worthiness?

Is this the point he has given to his own eternal life?

On a separate note, I would dispute the point about a legacy. I submit that the need to leave a legacy is strengthened by the idea that our lives are not eternal. The larger the legacy, the longer we live.

If a carpenter makes a chair, does the chair exist for the sake of existing? Of course not; its purpose is to give the carpenter or buyer a place to sit that's more comfortable than the ground. The universe is the same way, even if God "just felt like creating," in that the universe has a purpose.

Charging God with amorality because of all the evil in the world, however, demonstrates a misunderstanding of why there's evil in the world. You are familiar with Adam and Eve, correct? Because of them and the serpent, sin and death came into creation. That's their fault, not God's, just as it's not the carpenter's fault if the aforementioned chair breaks because someone took a bat to its legs. And God didn't leave it at that, either; He sent Jesus Christ to pay the price for our ultimate error. In this way, the infamous problem of evil is addressed with total and absolute finality: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only, unique Son, that whomever believes in Him won't perish, but live for eternity. For God did not sent His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it."

So the problem is not, "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" It is, "Are you going to believe that God sent Christ to deal with the problem and put your trust in Him?"


Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossvelt (Post 9151400)
I just sorta cut out the stuff I wanted to inquire or say things about.

Pertaining to the first, atheism is not a religion but a lack thereof.

Second, may I ask if you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism? (genuine question i'm pretty curious)

Third, are you trying to incite a change in people's beliefs with the fear of being wrong for a God that is apparently all loving?

I am not trying to insult but I just wanted to reply to your post in particular.

That is actually incorrect. A religion is simply a philosophy regarding spiritual matters, how the universe came to be, why it is in the state it is in now, and so forth. Atheism claims that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct, there is no afterlife and no God, and we are the ultimate result of nothing more than random chance. Not only has all of this been debunked many times (and you can actually test this out for yourself), but I can think of no greater despair than to know that, no matter how amazing a person you are and no matter how great a legacy you leave, it won't matter because you are still a temporary thing. You do not live through your legacy, your memory does. Unless you can surpass the feats of the likes of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, you can probably expect your memory to last a century or two, but you yourself won't experience that (according to atheism), because you'll be dead. Gone. Kaput. Poof. Pushing up daisies. You'll be an ex-atheist.

...Sorry, I just love Monty Python.

Anyway, it's really not up to me who becomes a Christian and who doesn't. It has to be one's own choice, or it means absolutely nothing. For this reason, it is literally impossible for Christianity to be "forced" on someone, even if the situation was similar to that of Muslims pointing guns at Christians' heads, demanding they convert. So, if people who read my posts convert out of fear, that's up to them. What I am trying to do is show how silly (I do not mean this as an insult, but as an observation) all other faiths, beliefs, and religions are from a philosophical standpoint.

Harmonie March 7th, 2016 8:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151385)
I would just like to ask you one question, then. According to Christianity, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and human beings are (quite obviously) none of the above. Why, then, do you get to say that X "wasn't the morality of an all-knowing God"? Are you sure that you, a flawed human being like the rest of us, are in a position to tell God what's right or what's wrong?

Ah, yes. The argument that I am inferior and thus can not tell right from wrong for myself. No matter how I came about, I am a being with my own mind and agency. I did not want to go into this, I was being pretty respectful with my original post, not trying to put down your beliefs.

As a being with my own mind, I do not, for one second, see how it is 'moral' to "punish" a rapist by making him marry the woman he raped. That is punishing the victim. I do not see how slavery is and could have ever been considered moral. (Yes, slavery was a fact of matter during Biblical times, however, my argument here is that if God is all-knowing and just, then he would have never tolerated slavery at all. He is supposedly the being with the ultimate, unchanging morality) I do not see how stoning a man because he laid with another man could ever be right in any context, etc., etc.

My point here is that, if the God of the Bible were an all-knowing force of absolute morality he would have established a just morality from the beginning, no matter how revolutionary the ideals were to the time. He is the lord, he should have been able to accomplish this and convince the people of his time no matter what. Instead, what I see in the Bible are the ethics and morality of the people of the time.

Marugi March 7th, 2016 8:21 AM

How can the whole universe be a result of random chance? Just take a look at something like the human eye or brain. What about the memories stored in your brain? Doesn't it make more sense that complex things like these were created by God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonie (Post 9151439)
Ah, yes. The argument that I am inferior and thus can not tell right from wrong for myself. No matter how I came about, I am a being with my own mind and agency. I did not want to go into this, I was being pretty respectful with my original post, not trying to put down your beliefs.

As a being with my own mind, I do not, for one second, see how it is 'moral' to "punish" a rapist by making him marry the woman he raped. That is punishing the victim. I do not see how slavery is and could have ever been considered moral. (Yes, slavery was a fact of matter during Biblical times, however, my argument here is that if God is all-knowing and just, then he would have never tolerated slavery at all. He is supposedly the being with the ultimate, unchanging morality) I do not see how stoning a man because he laid with another man could ever be right in any context, etc., etc.

My point here is that, if the God of the Bible were an all-knowing force of absolute morality he would have established a just morality from the beginning, no matter how revolutionary the ideals were to the time. He is the lord, he should have been able to accomplish this and convince the people of his time no matter what. Instead, what I see in the Bible are the ethics and morality of the people of the time.

In Christianity, God does not control you. In fact, he gives you free will, or the choice to believe in him or not. God actually wants us to be like Him by living a holy life (helping others, doing the right thing etc.)

On your point about slavery, slavery for the Jewish people was a lot different than slavery in more modern times. The slaves were treated like part of their family, and people only became slaves to pay back other people.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 8:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electricbluewolf (Post 9142874)
For me there is no comfort that there is "a big guy in the sky" making our decisions and life choices.

God doesn't make decisions for people. Free will does exist. He does, however, judge everything you've ever said, done, and thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elysieum (Post 9143860)
I identify myself as an antitheist. Critical thinking has been an invaluable part of my life and has allowed me to grow in cognizance. I come from a moderately Christian family in a moderately Christian culture, so it was not a breeze to relinquish those bindings or to declare myself as a dissenter to my parents.

But I am glad I did, when I did. I live my life without the promise of paradise, which makes it that much sweeter.

This is a very common response from skeptics and atheists. It's also very misguided. Real critical thinking would require that you consider where logic itself came from, see that naturalistic atheism cannot explain it, and seek a different path. You may be happy now, sure, but this life is a mere moment compared to eternity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokemon Game Fan (Post 9149399)
The idea behind the 'brainwashing' part is that most people are indoctrinated at a young age. I mean, if we were all just allowed to make our own choices, wouldn't there be more of everything instead of Christianity being the majority?

Christianity is the majority because a lot of people are Christian, and then they pass it on to their kids, who are taught to be Christian at a young age, who then grow and do the same with their kids. Some break away into other religions or become Atheists, but for the most part people tend to stick with what they were taught as a kid.

In some sort of way, you are stuck believing what you were taught as a kid unless you break out of it. For example, if you were born in the Middle East, you'd likely be a Muslim right now.

So that's where the 'brainwashing' part comes from, not from convincing a full grown adult to join your religion. Hopefully that clears some stuff up.

It's usually other religions that try to brainwash people, atheism and Islam chief among them right now, especially in the USA. It's against the law to not go to public school, but over 99% of public schools indoctrinate children into secular naturalism through the textbooks used that claim "only the natural matters, don't look into the hocus-pocus supernatural," and the teachers aren't allowed to teach anything different whatsoever. At the very least, public schools should fairly present both worldviews and let the children choose for themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonie (Post 9151439)
Ah, yes. The argument that I am inferior and thus can not tell right from wrong for myself. No matter how I came about, I am a being with my own mind and agency. I did not want to go into this, I was being pretty respectful with my original post, not trying to put down your beliefs.

As a being with my own mind, I do not, for one second, see how it is 'moral' to "punish" a rapist by making him marry the woman he raped. That is punishing the victim. I do not see how slavery is and could have ever been considered moral. (Yes, slavery was a fact of matter during Biblical times, however, my argument here is that if God is all-knowing and just, then he would have never tolerated slavery at all. He is supposedly the being with the ultimate, unchanging morality) I do not see how stoning a man because he laid with another man could ever be right in any context, etc., etc.

My point here is that, if the God of the Bible were an all-knowing force of absolute morality he would have established a just morality from the beginning, no matter how revolutionary the ideals were to the time. He is the lord, he should have been able to accomplish this and convince the people of his time no matter what. Instead, what I see in the Bible are the ethics and morality of the people of the time.

It's simple logic. Of course a mere human being is inferior to the God of the Bible. You shouldn't be offended in any way by that, nor was I trying to offend you.

First, the rape case. Would you rather punish the child with death by having an abortion? The child is innocent. Having to marry the victim sounds to me more like making the best of a horrible situation, because at least you have a proper family unit out of it. The hope there was that the rapist would understand the error of his ways, still not escape punishment, and learn to love as God meant for people to love. And nobody's saying the woman didn't have rights, too; there were laws regarding adultery, and if the rapist went after another woman, she could leave him without any stain on her reputation. He, on the other hand, would be executed, along with his mistress.

Second, slavery was actually quite rare in those days, and it didn't work at all the same way as what Americans did to Africans in recent history. Simply put, in those times, you could sell yourself into slavery to pay off a debt you otherwise couldn't pay, or as a lawful punishment, and there were laws regarding the treatment of slaves that were in place to make sure they were treated fairly and as human beings.

God did establish morality from the beginning, and I've already shown why the problem of evil does not refute Christianity. As an aside for your post, however, I will note that murder was considered wrong even before Mosaic Law. The Bible wasn't kidding when it talks about God's law being "written on the hearts of man." However, you must also understand that free will exists. As a human being, you do have your own mind and agency. The question is whether you will use them responsibly or sinfully.

Harmonie March 7th, 2016 8:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marugi (Post 9151445)
On your point about slavery, slavery for the Jewish people was a lot different than slavery in more modern times. The slaves were treated like part of their family, and people only became slaves to pay back other people.

No matter what reason the slavery may have come about, it is immoral, and that is concrete. Slavery was NOT all sunshine and rainbows in Biblical times. Even in the Bible, it is not prescribed that way. There is one verse that states that you can beat a slave, as long as they live, for a day or two, without punishment.

Exodus 21:20-21
Quote:

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151457)
First, the rape case. Would you rather punish the child with death by having an abortion? The child is innocent. Having to marry the victim sounds to me more like making the best of a horrible situation, because at least you have a proper family unit out of it. The hope there was that the rapist would understand the error of his ways, still not escape punishment, and learn to love as God meant for people to love.



Who said a child is involved? Even if a child was involved, you absolutely do not punish a rapist by tying him to the woman he raped. It's bad enough for a woman to know her rapist hasn't been locked away, but to have to see the face of that man everyday as your husband, I can not imagine. This is a completely absurd way of punishing a rapist.

Quote:

And nobody's saying the woman didn't have rights, too; there were laws regarding adultery, and if the rapist went after another woman, she could leave him without any stain on her reputation. He, on the other hand, would be executed, along with his mistress.
Oh, so if he had a woman - who might have been completely innocent and did not know a thing about what he was going to do - she will be punished alongside him... by death. You have not done a thing to prove that women were given any rights. Quite obviously both orders do nothing but punish the woman.

Quote:

...and there were laws regarding the treatment of slaves that were in place to make sure they were treated fairly and as human beings.
You mean like the verse I quoted to Marugi above? That is absolutely not a law about treating them "fairly as human beings". I stand by my case: No just God with absolute morality would have ever supported this, much less ordered it.

Mana March 7th, 2016 9:04 AM

I tried to resist but :c.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151427)
That is actually incorrect. A religion is simply a philosophy regarding spiritual matters, how the universe came to be, why it is in the state it is in now, and so forth. Atheism claims that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct, there is no afterlife and no God, and we are the ultimate result of nothing more than random chance. Not only has all of this been debunked many times (and you can actually test this out for yourself).

I'm not really sure where your information is coming from :s It's simply ignorant to deny natural selection and evolution in this decade. Both have sufficient evidence and Natural Selection can be observed in labs, in nature, and even artificial selection practised on every farm proves the existence of genetic inheritance and speciation.

The fact that Atheist's "believe" in evolution is a horrible misuse of words on the part of religion. Atheists accept evolution/natural selection as the most likely cause due to the evidence available, Religious belief is not based on worldy facts. Since Atheists do not tend to have spiritual believes, they often fall into the "believe in the evidence suggested by decades of vigorous scientific testing" bracket.

I'm also curious if you know who your username's namesake is

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 9:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonie (Post 9151479)
No matter what reason the slavery may have come about, it is immoral, and that is concrete. Slavery was NOT all sunshine and rainbows in Biblical times. Even in the Bible, it is not prescribed that way. There is one verse that states that you can beat a slave, as long as they live, for a day or two, without punishment.

Exodus 21:20-21

[/I][/COLOR]
Who said a child is involved? Even if a child was involved, you absolutely do not punish a rapist by tying him to the woman he raped. It's bad enough for a woman to know her rapist hasn't been locked away, but to have to see the face of that man everyday as your husband, I can not imagine. This is a completely absurd way of punishing a rapist.


Oh, so if he had a woman - who might have been completely innocent and did not know a thing about what he was going to do - she will be punished alongside him... by death. You have not done a thing to prove that women were given any rights. Quite obviously both orders do nothing but punish the woman.


You mean like the verse I quoted to Marugi above? That is absolutely not a law about treating them "fairly as human beings". I stand by my case: No just God with absolute morality would have ever supported this, much less ordered it.

In that case, I hope you never get a job. After all, that would be slavery, because without the money you earn from a job, you cannot live anywhere but on the street as a beggar.

...Do you see my point yet? You're still defining ancient slavery by the same terms as recent slavery. You are also not paying any attention to our answers.

By the way, you do understand how children come to be, right? You are completely misunderstanding the context of pretty much the entire case. For one, and this is true even to this day, Jews live in a very tightly-knit community. Everyone knows who is married to whom, so it stands to reason that things like who raped whom and who had sex with whom aren't exactly things one can hide.

I stand by what I said earlier. You don't get to impose your own morality on the One who created it to begin with, no matter what you may think of Him.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 9:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151492)
I stand by what I said earlier. You don't get to impose your own morality on the One who created it to begin with, no matter what you may think of Him.

Why not? What consequence is there for questioning anything? Insofar as there is no penalty for doing something, we "get" to do something. So I don't see the problem of "imposing" morality. But "imposing" really has to be the wrong word, for I don't exactly see how one could even impose on an omnipotent god.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 9:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mana (Post 9151489)
I tried to resist but :c.

I'm not really sure where your information is coming from :s It's simply ignorant to deny natural selection and evolution in this decade. Both have sufficient evidence and Natural Selection can be observed in labs, in nature, and even artificial selection practised on every farm proves the existence of genetic inheritance and speciation.

The fact that Atheist's "believe" in evolution is a horrible misuse of words on the part of religion. Atheists accept evolution/natural selection as the most likely cause due to the evidence available, Religious belief is not based on worldy facts. Since Atheists do not tend to have spiritual believes, they often fall into the "believe in the evidence suggested by decades of vigorous scientific testing" bracket.

ICR, Answers in Genesis, and many more organizations regularly publish in scientific journals and demonstrate that evolution is a load of bunk. You should also understand that the theory of evolution is not the same as natural selection.

I disagree. The first definition of the word "religion" given by the link I posted (to dictionary.com no less) is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Atheists believe the universe's purpose, if any, is to be, that it was caused by random chance, and that it evolves slowly over trillions of years. I am not misusing the word at all, and the fact that atheism is built on blind faith in a dead man who stayed dead merely proves my point further.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9151496)
Why not? What consequence is there for questioning anything? Insofar as there is no penalty for doing something, we "get" to do something. So I don't see the problem of "imposing" morality. But "imposing" really has to be the wrong word, for I don't exactly see how one could even impose on an omnipotent god.

Okay, maybe I chose my words poorly there. From a philosophical standpoint, when you compare the typical human being to the God of the Bible, obviously He is superior to the human. Certainly the human has every right to question, but if the human's not going to accept the answers given, what was the point of the question? To take what God says out of context and try to make Him look like a villain? Because, no offense, that's exactly what everyone who is against Christianity does, without exception. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

I guess, from my own point of view, it would be better if we all remembered our place.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 9:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151497)
Okay, maybe I chose my words poorly there. From a philosophical standpoint, when you compare the typical human being to the God of the Bible, obviously He is superior to the human. Certainly the human has every right to question, but if the human's not going to accept the answers given, what was the point of the question? To take what God says out of context and try to make Him look like a villain? Because, no offense, that's exactly what everyone who is against Christianity does, without exception. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

I guess, from my own point of view, it would be better if we all remembered our place.

Aren't you assuming that God exists?

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 9:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9151509)
Aren't you assuming that God exists?

Aren't you assuming He doesn't?

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 9:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151512)
Aren't you assuming He doesn't?

Well, I have no reason to believe that he exists, so I don't. It's as if you asked me "aren't I assuming my mother is not Donald Trump?" I have no reason to believe that my mother is Donald Trump.

Marugi March 7th, 2016 9:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonie (Post 9151479)
No matter what reason the slavery may have come about, it is immoral, and that is concrete. Slavery was NOT all sunshine and rainbows in Biblical times. Even in the Bible, it is not prescribed that way. There is one verse that states that you can beat a slave, as long as they live, for a day or two, without punishment.

Exodus 21:20-21



[/I][/COLOR]
Who said a child is involved? Even if a child was involved, you absolutely do not punish a rapist by tying him to the woman he raped. It's bad enough for a woman to know her rapist hasn't been locked away, but to have to see the face of that man everyday as your husband, I can not imagine. This is a completely absurd way of punishing a rapist.



Oh, so if he had a woman - who might have been completely innocent and did not know a thing about what he was going to do - she will be punished alongside him... by death. You have not done a thing to prove that women were given any rights. Quite obviously both orders do nothing but punish the woman.



You mean like the verse I quoted to Marugi above? That is absolutely not a law about treating them "fairly as human beings". I stand by my case: No just God with absolute morality would have ever supported this, much less ordered it.

I've noticed that you are mostly attacking the Old Testament section of the Bible. Christians follow the New Testament, since the OT is the Jewish law. Jesus never told people to own slaves, or kill people as a punishment. However, Christians do follow the ten commandments.
I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, I'm just defending mine.

Mana March 7th, 2016 9:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais
ICR, Answers in Genesis, and many more organizations regularly publish in scientific journals and demonstrate that evolution is a load of bunk. You should also understand that the theory of evolution is not the same as natural selection.

I'm a Biology teacher, trust me I know! However, they are closely linked. Natural Selection leads to Evolution. One supports the other. Both can be demonstrated and observed in bacterial species (hence diseases like MRSA and other resistant strains) and in species with fast reproductive cycles, such as Drosophila species.

Journals equivocally support evolution, not deny it. Whilst I don't think linking specific journals and articles would help, here's some quick stats I could come up with using my own scholar.google.co.uk searches.

> "Evidence for Evolution" - 9,050 hits
> "Evidence against Evolution" - 251 hits (<3%)

This covers both scientific and non-scientific journals (philosophical journals, for instance). I'm afraid if you haven't found this yourself, you perhaps haven't looked in the right places, but from this the numbers are fairly clear.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 9:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9151518)
Well, I have no reason to believe that he exists, so I don't. It's as if you asked me "aren't I assuming my mother is not Donald Trump?" I have no reason to believe that my mother is Donald Trump.

Actually, we all have every reason to believe that He exists, so I do and the rest of you should. It's as if you're arguing vocally that air doesn't exist while expecting me to hear you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mana (Post 9151528)
I'm a Biology teacher, trust me I know! However, they are closely linked. Natural Selection leads to Evolution. One supports the other. Both can be demonstrated and observed in bacterial species (hence diseases like MRSA and other resistant strains) and in species with fast reproductive cycles, such as Drosophila species.

Journals equivocally support evolution, not deny it. Whilst I don't think linking specific journals and articles would help, here's some quick stats I could come up with using my own scholar.google.co.uk searches.

> "Evidence for Evolution" - 9,050 hits
> "Evidence against Evolution" - 251 hits (<3%)

This covers both scientific and non-scientific journals (philosophical journals, for instance). I'm afraid if you haven't found this yourself, you perhaps haven't looked in the right places, but from this the numbers are fairly clear.

Then I would challenge you to demonstrate evolution to me with a simple experiment. Go outside, set up a video camera that I can connect to from my home, and train its focus on a pile of rocks lit by sunlight. Then all we have to do is wait, and the rubble should eventually become life. After all, that's what the theory of evolution claims happened, so surely you can just demonstrate it again, right?

If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. All that can possibly result from such an experiment is rubble, potentially dust if we waited long enough. If we add design to the equation, however, presto! Life! Thank science for the addition of information!

Except that for design, you require a Designer, which is an idea you and every other secularist seems to hate. Oh well.

By the way, since when does the majority dictate what is true? If a society as a whole unanimously decided that 1+1=892365892375892738947293857892345789023748923798523, would that make it true? Of course not. I think here I can refer back to the reference to Galileo in the thread about homosexuality.

Furthermore, as a biology teacher, how do you explain the existence of animals such as the beaver or giraffe from an evolutionary standpoint? The way I see it, they would have had to have been created as they are today in order to survive at all. Evolution claims small changes happened over time, but if that's true, these animals couldn't have survived at all.

Anyone who supports evolution either does so blindly or hasn't looked at the ridiculous assumptions made by the theory itself. I do not state this as an insult, but as a fact, no more or less charged than "1+1=2."

Elysieum March 7th, 2016 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151457)
This is a very common response from skeptics and atheists. It's also very misguided. Real critical thinking would require that you consider where logic itself came from, see that naturalistic atheism cannot explain it, and seek a different path. You may be happy now, sure, but this life is a mere moment compared to eternity.

I am going to ignore the smug pedestal you've put yourself on and ask you to introduce some humility in the way that you write. Telling people they are on the wrong path (and I suppose you are ready to tell me about the right one too?) is unpleasantly preachy.

I see you imply that your god is where logic comes from. That a vast number of people live and have lived their lives according to it without ever having heard of your god is evidence enough that the two are unrelated.

Naturalistic atheism? What does that mean? Just so we are clear, atheism means without a god. Nothing more. To draw a parable, let's say Christians watch The Amazing Race on television. Catholics watch Real Housewives of Atlanta. Jews watch House of Cards.

Atheism is the equivalent of turning the television off.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151540)
Actually, we all have every reason to believe that He exists, so I do and the rest of you should. It's as if you're arguing vocally that air doesn't exist while expecting me to hear you.

Such as?

Palamon March 7th, 2016 10:08 AM

I'm Jewish, and I only believe in God because I like the feeling of someone higher than me keeping me in check. That doesn't mean I'm a diehard believer, nor does it mean I'm gonna shove god up your throat. I like the feeling that I'm not any center of power, but someone else might be. HOWEVER, I don't beleive in Jesus. I never really did. Maybe this is a bit perplexing or something, I don't know, but I just never believed that someone like that existed. I believe in God in that one sense, and one sense only--that someone with some sort of power is watching over me. But only the power, not all that other stuff in the bible, etc, just that one thought.

Mana March 7th, 2016 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais
Then I would challenge you to demonstrate evolution to me with a simple experiment. Go outside, set up a video camera that I can connect to from my home, and train its focus on a pile of rocks lit by sunlight. Then all we have to do is wait, and the rubble should eventually become life. After all, that's what the theory of evolution claims happened, so surely you can just demonstrate it again, right?

If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. All that can possibly result from such an experiment is rubble, potentially dust if we waited long enough. If we add design to the equation, however, presto! Life! Thank science for the addition of information!

Well there's one fallacy, right there. Evolution is not the theory that accounts for the Beginning of Life. That's completely different.

But then we could talk about how Scientists are working to replicate such a thing. They have already found that cell membranes can form spontaneously from their component molecules to form spherical 'bubbles' in the correct conditions. We also know that DNA can operate on an incredibly simple level. I won't go as far to say science can "prove" how life started, but we're slowly connecting together the dots.

You're suggesting that rock (not what kind of rock, but lets say calcium carbonate in general) is going to spontaneously gain atoms, deconstruct its molecules and recombine to form a rabbit. You have some huge misconceptions about what Scientists put forth as the beginning of the life - they start incredibly small.

Quote:

By the way, since when does the majority dictate what is true? If a society as a whole unanimously decided that 1+1=892365892375892738947293857892345789023748923798523, would that make it true? Of course not. I think here I can refer back to the reference to Galileo in the thread about homosexuality.

Furthermore, as a biology teacher, how do you explain the existence of animals such as the beaver or giraffe from an evolutionary standpoint? The way I see it, they would have had to have been created as they are today in order to survive at all. Evolution claims small changes happened over time, but if that's true, these animals couldn't have survived at all.

Anyone who supports evolution either does so blindly or hasn't looked at the ridiculous assumptions made by the theory itself. I do not state this as an insult, but as a fact, no more or less charged than "1+1=2."
The Giraffe is like the standard explanation of Natural Selection. Giraffe's ancestors favoured longer necks to reach areas where food was under less competition > Long neck Giraffe Ancestors were more likely to breed and pass on their genes > alleles for longer necks become more prominent > overall necklength slowly increases as the generations pass.

I have a degree in Biology, I teach it, I still study further in my own time. How can I possibly be looking at this 'blindly' when you're refuting Science that the vast majority of Scientists agree on. In the UK knowledge of Evolution and Creationism are both covered by the curriculum. I believe I've been dealt a fairly balanced hand when it comes to information.

Interestingly, I don't know any Christians IRL who outright deny Evolution or believe in Creationism as in The Bible.

manego90 March 7th, 2016 12:32 PM

maybe this will help:

We Were Once Gods
By Leo

We were once Gods,
living high in the mountain tops
Free of order, roaming the free land,
The day was young, but it had yet to grow,
Giving time the opening to run aimlessly

But then the day grew old,
Time limited itself, order became my captor
holding me with its bare hands as time marks my new boundaries,
I now sit on a flat land with no ups and downs
Restricted to travel a day's worth abroad my new land,
Never again are we to reach our beloved land

The mountains were high
And the Greenland was low,
Never again we were to access our beloved land,
Foreign to us as we now know it,
But still strong in our roots
To only serve as a reminder to what kind of life we once lived,
As our only option we helped these new Gods grow,
Nurturing the Gods because they remind us of what was once ours,
For we too were once in their land,
As we had fallen from the mountain tops,
They will do accordingly,
Side by side in the land where time age,
No longer in the Mountains where youth persist
For this is the life of us Gods

Pokemon Game Fan March 7th, 2016 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151457)
It's usually other religions that try to brainwash people, atheism and Islam chief among them right now, especially in the USA. It's against the law to not go to public school, but over 99% of public schools indoctrinate children into secular naturalism through the textbooks used that claim "only the natural matters, don't look into the hocus-pocus supernatural," and the teachers aren't allowed to teach anything different whatsoever. At the very least, public schools should fairly present both worldviews and let the children choose for themselves.

Atheism isn't a religion. Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting rocks is a hobby, or abstinence is a sexual position.

Also, I agree that they should have a religious studies class. But you do realize that would cause more people to become Atheists, right? I was a Christian until I actually started reading the bible and realized it was complete nonsense. I was a Christian cause I was raised to be one, then I became my own person and started actually thinking critically about things.
Disregarding that, religion has no place in a science class. Science is our understanding of the world through facts, logic, and comprehension. Religion is based on faith, not facts.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elysieum (Post 9151543)
I am going to ignore the smug pedestal you've put yourself on and ask you to introduce some humility in the way that you write. Telling people they are on the wrong path (and I suppose you are ready to tell me about the right one too?) is unpleasantly preachy.

I see you imply that your god is where logic comes from. That a vast number of people live and have lived their lives according to it without ever having heard of your god is evidence enough that the two are unrelated.

Naturalistic atheism? What does that mean? Just so we are clear, atheism means without a god. Nothing more. To draw a parable, let's say Christians watch The Amazing Race on television. Catholics watch Real Housewives of Atlanta. Jews watch House of Cards.

Atheism is the equivalent of turning the television off.

You should take your own advice about the humility.

Actually, no it's not. If the Bible is true, then it's also a fact that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. They'd teach all of their children about God and morality and why it's based on Him and everything else, and that would continue all the way down until about Noah's time. Then the flood happens, and Noah's family repeats the lessons until we get to Exodus, and you can just read the Bible to see the rest.

Atheism is just another example of watching the TV rather than going outside, actually.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9151548)
Such as?

I actually already gave that answer. Without God, there's no reason for reason, the laws of nature, love, morality, etc. to exist. The fact they do is proof that He exists. There is no other worldview, religion, belief, or anything else that explains that in a way that makes any sort of rational sense. As a student of political science, I'm sure you and I could argue this for eternity, but as a student of philosophy and religion, I can promise you that you aren't capable of winning this debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mana (Post 9151558)
Well there's one fallacy, right there. Evolution is not the theory that accounts for the Beginning of Life. That's completely different.

But then we could talk about how Scientists are working to replicate such a thing. They have already found that cell membranes can form spontaneously from their component molecules to form spherical 'bubbles' in the correct conditions. We also know that DNA can operate on an incredibly simple level. I won't go as far to say science can "prove" how life started, but we're slowly connecting together the dots.

You're suggesting that rock (not what kind of rock, but lets say calcium carbonate in general) is going to spontaneously gain atoms, deconstruct its molecules and recombine to form a rabbit. You have some huge misconceptions about what Scientists put forth as the beginning of the life - they start incredibly small.

The Giraffe is like the standard explanation of Natural Selection. Giraffe's ancestors favoured longer necks to reach areas where food was under less competition > Long neck Giraffe Ancestors were more likely to breed and pass on their genes > alleles for longer necks become more prominent > overall necklength slowly increases as the generations pass.

I have a degree in Biology, I teach it, I still study further in my own time. How can I possibly be looking at this 'blindly' when you're refuting Science that the vast majority of Scientists agree on. In the UK knowledge of Evolution and Creationism are both covered by the curriculum. I believe I've been dealt a fairly balanced hand when it comes to information.

Interestingly, I don't know any Christians IRL who outright deny Evolution or believe in Creationism as in The Bible.

The assumptions in the theory of evolution are often given as conclusions, so it can be tricky to see them. They are as follows.
  • The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
  • Evolution is a universal principle.
  • One should not drag in a creator.
  • This world, including all living organisms, is based exclusively on matter and materialistic principles.
  • Matter is taken for granted.
  • As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and of all life.
  • Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.
  • The following factors are assumed as the driving forces of evolution: Mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing.
  • Death is an undisputed essential factor in evolution.
  • There is no plan in evolution, neither is there any purpose.
  • There are no definite beginning and end points on the time axis.
  • The present is the key to the past.
  • There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
  • Evolution will persist in the distant future.
From what I understand of science, nothing should ever be taken for granted, and everything is free game to be studied and dissected, whether logically or empirically. However, it should be mentioned that there has never been an instance of a beneficial mutation, nor has there ever been an instance of a mutation adding information to the genetic material that was already there, both of which are assumed by evolutionists to be obviously there. What we do see are harmful mutations and the changing/rearranging of genetic information that's already present.

So, because evolution is wrong, why do we exist? We have that answered in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."


Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokemon Game Fan (Post 9152047)
Atheism isn't a religion. Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting rocks is a hobby, or abstinence is a sexual position.

Also, I agree that they should have a religious studies class. But you do realize that would cause more people to become Atheists, right? I was a Christian until I actually started reading the bible and realized it was complete nonsense. I was a Christian cause I was raised to be one, then I became my own person and started actually thinking critically about things.
Disregarding that, religion has no place in a science class. Science is our understanding of the world through facts, logic, and comprehension. Religion is based on faith, not facts.

Atheists have a blind faith in their own capabilities, so much so that they believe there's nothing that they can't see. Christians have a rational faith in God, because He's already proven Himself several times over. If we say that a religion is based on faith instead of facts, then atheism is much more of a religion than Christianity is, because Christianity has both while atheism has nothing but blind faith.

I would say it would be more likely people would become Christians, actually. It's simply too easy to poke holes in any other worldview. You claim to have come to atheism through reason, but in fact you've misled yourself.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152282)
I actually already gave that answer. Without God, there's no reason for reason, the laws of nature, love, morality, etc. to exist. The fact they do is proof that He exists. There is no other worldview, religion, belief, or anything else that explains that in a way that makes any sort of rational sense.

Be that as it may, you haven't explained anything that makes any sort of rational sense. How do the laws of nature, love, morality prove that God exists? Is there a mark of his creation on them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152282)
As a student of political science, I'm sure you and I could argue this for eternity, but as a student of philosophy and religion, I can promise you that you aren't capable of winning this debate.

You haven't been arguing. You've made claims that you haven't supported. Apparently the existence of nature, love, morality = God exists, QED. Surely, as a student of philosophy and religion, you're aware that an acceptable standard of argument is much higher than what you've offered so far.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9152316)
Be that as it may, you haven't explained anything that makes any sort of rational sense. How do the laws of nature, love, morality prove that God exists? Is there a mark of his creation on them?

You haven't been arguing. You've made claims that you haven't supported. Apparently the existence of nature, love, morality = God exists, QED. Surely, as a student of philosophy and religion, you're aware that an acceptable standard of argument is much higher than what you've offered so far.

Simply put, it's a matter of worldview. My ultimate standard by which I interpret and interact with reality is the Bible, and I have several secondary and tertiary standards that go along with that. For example, you cannot prove that your physical senses are reliable, you can only assume that they basically are. I say "basically" here because everyone knows physical senses can be fooled (just stick a straw into a glass of water for an example). Your ultimate standard is empiricism, which is great as a secondary standard, but fails as an ultimate standard because you cannot empirically observe a truth claim, so the entire world of the abstract goes unexplained rationally as a result.

Just in case readers don't know what I mean by "worldview" here, it's a set of presuppositions that are necessary to be.

At any rate, because the Christian worldview better explains the abstract, because the empirical evidence confirms the Bible is accurate, and because I refuse to accept assumptions that are contradicted by the empirical evidence, I am a Christian and a creationist.

Earlier, you said you didn't have a reason to believe God exists. I'll refer again to Pascal's wager as a reason you do have: it's the safer bet.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152331)
[COLOR="Crimson"][I]Simply put, it's a matter of worldview. My ultimate standard by which I interpret and interact with reality is the Bible, and I have several secondary and tertiary standards that go along with that. For example, you cannot prove that your physical senses are reliable, you can only assume that they basically are. I say "basically" here because everyone knows physical senses can be fooled (just stick a straw into a glass of water for an example). Your ultimate standard is empiricism, which is great as a secondary standard, but fails as an ultimate standard because you cannot empirically observe a truth claim, so the entire world of the abstract goes unexplained rationally as a result.

Just in case readers don't know what I mean by "worldview" here, it's a set of presuppositions that are necessary to be.

At any rate, because the Christian worldview better explains the abstract, because the empirical evidence confirms the Bible is accurate, and because I refuse to accept assumptions that are contradicted by the empirical evidence, I am a Christian and a creationist.

But why would you assume that the Bible is true? There's so many things to question there. The Bible is a document - documents can be forged. The Bible is the word of God, but compiled by man - how do we know if it faithfully represents God's intent, should he exist? How do you know that you know God, should he exist? How do you know that you haven't merely created an image that misleads you from the true God, should he exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152331)
Earlier, you said you didn't have a reason to believe God exists. I'll refer again to Pascal's wager as a reason you do have: it's the safer bet.

If I were to believe in God, then I would be ashamed in myself if that was the reason I had. Pascal's wager would be the cause of the most faithless belief.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 7:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9152343)
But why would you assume that the Bible is true? There's so many things to question there. The Bible is a document - documents can be forged. The Bible is the word of God, but compiled by man - how do we know if it faithfully represents God's intent, should he exist? How do you know that you know God, should he exist? How do you know that you haven't merely created an image that misleads you from the true God, should he exist?

If I were to believe in God, then I would be ashamed in myself if that was the reason I had. Pascal's wager would be the cause of the most faithless belief.

The Bible claims that a man rose from the dead, and yet it survives to this day. How would that be? Couldn't the government of the time simply produce the body? Don't people know that you can't raise people from the dead?

I believe this is referred to as the "embarrassment principle." The church simply couldn't survive if the Resurrection could be proven to be an error. Paul even points that out in the Bible itself. And yet, Christianity survives.

The only logical answer for that is the Bible is correct, and if that's true, that changes everything. Suddenly it's no longer a question whether homosexuality is or is not natural, to use the topic's example.

Consider Pascal's wager a starting point. I'm sure someone with a mind as inquiring as yours (and that's a good thing) would find plenty of additional reasons.

Also, thank you very much for being as courteous throughout all of this as I should have been. I apologize for my rudeness earlier. Hopefully there will be no hard feelings, whether from those who posted or from the person deleting posts with comments like "let's not stoop to his level."

Pokemon Game Fan March 7th, 2016 7:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152282)
Atheists have a blind faith in their own capabilities, so much so that they believe there's nothing that they can't see. Christians have a rational faith in God, because He's already proven Himself several times over. If we say that a religion is based on faith instead of facts, then atheism is much more of a religion than Christianity is, because Christianity has both while atheism has nothing but blind faith.

I would say it would be more likely people would become Christians, actually. It's simply too easy to poke holes in any other worldview. You claim to have come to atheism through reason, but in fact you've misled yourself.

Blind faith? No we don't. We say that we don't know the answers to everything, but we're trying to figure it out. Religion says "we don't know the answer to everything, so it must be God." That sounds a lot more like blind faith.

Being an atheist only means you dont believe in any gods. It doesn't matter what else you believe but that. How has god proven himself, by the way? What are the facts that prove Christianity is real? Almost everything in the bible has been proven to be wrong or impossible in one way or another.

No lol. We're not living in the 14th century anymore. We are entering a new age of enlightenment. Atheism is rising in numbers. Because people have more access to information and realize that religion is a load of bull. Religion can't be used to control people as much anymore. If you teach someone about the similarities between Christianity and the older Greek religions, they'll realize that they are all fairy tales. With as much access to information, more people are becoming rational thinkers especially when exposed to people who come up with irrefutable arguments like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokemon Game Fan (Post 9152366)
Blind faith? No we don't. We say that we don't know the answers to everything, but we're trying to figure it out. Religion says "we don't know the answer to everything, so it must be God." That sounds a lot more like blind faith.

Being an atheist only means you dont believe in any gods. It doesn't matter what else you believe but that. How has god proven himself, by the way? What are the facts that prove Christianity is real? Almost everything in the bible has been proven to be wrong or impossible in one way or another.

No lol. We're not living in the 14th century anymore. We are entering a new age of enlightenment. Atheism is rising in numbers. Because people have more access to information and realize that religion is a load of bull. Religion can't be used to control people as much anymore. If you teach someone about the similarities between Christianity and the older Greek religions, they'll realize that they are all fairy tales. With as much access to information, more people are becoming rational thinkers especially when exposed to people who come up with irrefutable arguments like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

It's more accurate to say Christianity says, "We don't know the answers to everything, but we have been shown that God is benevolent and omnipotent through several types of evidence, so we'll have faith in Him, come what may."

Your evaluation of the Bible demonstrates that you haven't really done any research on it at all. I have posted on this thread and/or the homosexuality thread about prophesies that were fulfilled, how science confirms what the Bible says happened, and so forth.

We're living in the 21st century, and yet we still hold to things like "murder is wrong" and "do to others as you'd have them treat you," which are concepts from much farther back than the 14th century. Just because we understand more of God's creation doesn't mean we don't need God anymore, and your claim of the opposite flies in the face of all human progress in terms of both science and morality.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9152374)
If God himself stood before me today I'd at the very least do a double take.

How do you know the Bible is inerrant? Who decides that? Did you decide it? Probably not, so where did you hear it from? I'm not putting my reason over anything. All I want to know is how we know that Christianity is true. Is that too much to ask?

Anyways, we're already having this conversation in another thread, so let's try bringing this back to homosexuality.

I apologize. The two debates tend to blur together for me.

No, that's not too much to ask. However, I've been going over logical examinations of the Bible versus several other worldviews, so I'd say you should read those over again and think about it.

gimmepie March 7th, 2016 9:23 PM

So, I'm just going to share my views a bit. I identify myself as an agnostic theist. Basically what this means is that I believe there is a higher power beyond our comprehension, I believe in the soul and I believe that there's a higher plane of existence after death. I also acknowledge that these are beliefs. I fully admit that I cannot prove the existence of God and I acknowledge that, like all beliefs, my belief in a higher power may be false.

Her March 7th, 2016 9:45 PM

I simply think that if you are spiritually inclined, you will find something to assuage your fears and give you understanding, release or control, depending on what you are looking for. There is nothing wrong with that. I prefer to analyse the world without a spiritual viewpoint and I think that works fine for me. I accept the possibility of being wrong or not seeing wonders other might, but I just have little interest in things I cannot measure. I leave the evaluation of miracles to those more qualified to understand the subject - there may be a heavenly reason why statues of the Virgin Mary cry/bleed, there might not be. I'm not particularly interested beyond simple curiosity.

KorpiklaaniVodka March 10th, 2016 4:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyroot Argument #3
Christianity’s invention of Hell is a gift to anyone seeking truth because it decisively reveals the man-made nature of the faith. Hell is not discussed in the Old Testament, but that didn’t stop Jesus from announcing it many times in the Gospels, mostly in a very threatening tone. He made sure to let us know that most people will be sentenced there to suffer unending physical pain. Here are three of the forty-five Gospel scriptures where Jesus mentions Hell:
Matthew 5:28-29:
“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Matthew 13:41-42:
“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Mark 9:45-46:
“And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
A belief in Hell is unavoidable if one is to believe in Jesus. If Hell doesn’t exist, then why would God have allowed it to be so prominently addressed in the Bible? This point cannot be overstated. If God is as most Christians claim, all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful, then he would not have allowed a concept so ultimate and absolute as Hell to be documented in the most important scriptures of the faith (the Gospels) if it was not a factual place of post-life punishment.
This elicits an unsettling comparison. Hitler dispatched Jews to the concentration camps and gas chambers for no reason other than their ethnic identity. This was a temporal punishment; it sometimes lasted only a few days. God, on the other hand, is prepared to send good, well-accomplished, and generous people to a place of everlasting punishment and torture for the ‘crime’ of not believing in something for which no credible evidence exists. The god of the Bible is, in effect, worse than Hitler.
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/God+vs+hitler+description_45928b_3714182.jpg
This brings up another interesting point. Christians claim that the Bible is the backbone of the United States Constitution. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution states that “cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted”. It should be obvious that placing a person in Hell is both cruel and unusual. Consequently, Christianity violates the United States Constitution.
Any person possessing critical thinking skills can understand that a magnificently powerful god would have no incentive, interest, or even the slightest inclination to inflict pain and suffering on dead people. Hell makes no sense and it represents an ill-fated and entirely avoidable error in the foundation of Christianity.




Let's discuss this. Do you believe hell really exists, or is this just a concept created with the purpose of striking fear into non-believers or something?

ShinyUmbreon189 March 10th, 2016 5:35 AM

If God is real and I somehow make it to him I'm going to beat his ass for putting me through this crap. I don't believe in religion because I feel religion was created by man to keep us divided. So imo, God is more of an energy rather than a person. There's negative energy in the world and there's positive energy. I'm convinced the positive is battling the negative and the evil we have inside us is the negative while the good we have in us is the positive so therefore we are battling ourselves on a daily basis. Now, I also believe Jesus was a real person and that we walked on this earth but I'm not convinced he is the son of "God". There's too many religions one can follow and if God exists all those religions have the same God if there can only be "one God". That's enough evidence to have my mind set on "religion is bullshit".

KorpiklaaniVodka March 11th, 2016 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 (Post 9156057)
If God is real and I somehow make it to him I'm going to beat his ass for putting me through this crap. I don't believe in religion because I feel religion was created by man to keep us divided. So imo, God is more of an energy rather than a person. There's negative energy in the world and there's positive energy. I'm convinced the positive is battling the negative and the evil we have inside us is the negative while the good we have in us is the positive so therefore we are battling ourselves on a daily basis. Now, I also believe Jesus was a real person and that we walked on this earth but I'm not convinced he is the son of "God". There's too many religions one can follow and if God exists all those religions have the same God if there can only be "one God". That's enough evidence to have my mind set on "religion is bull****".

I share a lot of your thoughts. I too think Jesus was a real person, but was transformed into a God by propagandists. Polytheistic mythologies are less cancerous than christianity in my opinion.

curiousnathan March 13th, 2016 12:49 AM

I don't think the complexity of this world was created by mere chance. I just can't think of how the universe with all of its intricacies have come to be due to pure fluke. I do think there's a higher being or creator of some sort. I do not however, believe that I should get on my knees and worship it, or not love the people who I love, because of it.

Alex March 13th, 2016 4:53 AM

I'm agnostic. I believe the root of religion has good intentions: they are made to give purpose in life, and to encourage kindness amongst each other. Unfortunately, narrow-minded people give religion a bad name. Most atheists and agnostics I know are some of the most open-minded people who do not care about your beliefs.

So no, I don't believe there is a God. I'm not completely closed to the idea just because there's no way to definitively prove either end of the argument. But, I'm totally OK with whatever you choose to believe - especially if it helps you lead what you feel is a more fulfilling life.

I also pity anyone who gets heated about this topic. It is simply out of our bounds of knowledge. Don't waste your energy over it.

Wicked3DS March 13th, 2016 7:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KorpiklaaniVodka (Post 9158107)
I share a lot of your thoughts. I too think Jesus was a real person, but was transformed into a God by propagandists. Polytheistic mythologies are less cancerous than christianity in my opinion.

Personally I believe that Christianity itself isn't cancerous, but narrow-minded religious zealots are.

KorpiklaaniVodka March 15th, 2016 8:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wicked3DS (Post 9162278)
Personally I believe that Christianity itself isn't cancerous, but narrow-minded religious zealots are.

Narrow-minded religious people are ridiculous and should just be ignored. Especially when they are after your money.

Toweleeeie March 19th, 2016 5:58 PM

I grew up in what I guess you could describe as an "evangelical" family. I remember being forced into attending church my whole childhood in agony. As I got older I found myself dumbfounded by some of the things that were preached and believed. Once I graduated high school and went off to college I never set foot in a church again. This experience instilled a fascination in religious beliefs, philosophy, and a passion for science. I have since spent much time researching various religious topics, especially biblical as per my upbringing.

I think that when pondering this question you have to define for yourself what specifically do you mean when you say, "god." If by "god" you simply mean some greater 'force' or 'being' existing outside of our observable universe then that is not necessarily a falsifiable assertion. However, when people begin to more narrowly define the parameters for "their" god's existence the question does indeed become one that may have a probability assigned to it.

The conclusion I have come to is that no, god(s) do not exist, at least none that have ever been postulated throughout human history. Honing in on Judaism/Christianity, I see too much in their respective holy books that would be in conflict with reason and reality; too much in conflict with a supposed omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, and too many paradoxes arising out of that situation. I also see too much ambiguity in the places that are typically used as proofs for belief.

Anything that lies in that scope spoken of earlier of the non-specific non-personal outside force cannot have any probability assigned to its existence, but then, they are a non-personal force our acknowledging their existence wouldn't really matter.

Now, when working into the consequences of belief in god(s), namely religion, my opinions vary. I don't see any problem with spirituality or religion in general, where I do however see a problem is when religious dogma is maintained when evidence points towards its nonsensical-ness, pushed on children, and used to denigrate other members of our species. As long as you can maintain a spirituality while simultaneously maintaining reason and an open mind you're probably in a good boat with me.

KorpiklaaniVodka March 21st, 2016 8:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toweleeeie (Post 9170979)
I grew up in what I guess you could describe as an "evangelical" family. I remember being forced into attending church my whole childhood in agony. As I got older I found myself dumbfounded by some of the things that were preached and believed. Once I graduated high school and went off to college I never set foot in a church again. This experience instilled a fascination in religious beliefs, philosophy, and a passion for science. I have since spent much time researching various religious topics, especially biblical as per my upbringing.

I think that when pondering this question you have to define for yourself what specifically do you mean when you say, "god." If by "god" you simply mean some greater 'force' or 'being' existing outside of our observable universe then that is not necessarily a falsifiable assertion. However, when people begin to more narrowly define the parameters for "their" god's existence the question does indeed become one that may have a probability assigned to it.

The conclusion I have come to is that no, god(s) do not exist, at least none that have ever been postulated throughout human history. Honing in on Judaism/Christianity, I see too much in their respective holy books that would be in conflict with reason and reality; too much in conflict with a supposed omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, and too many paradoxes arising out of that situation. I also see too much ambiguity in the places that are typically used as proofs for belief.

Anything that lies in that scope spoken of earlier of the non-specific non-personal outside force cannot have any probability assigned to its existence, but then, they are a non-personal force our acknowledging their existence wouldn't really matter.

Now, when working into the consequences of belief in god(s), namely religion, my opinions vary. I don't see any problem with spirituality or religion in general, where I do however see a problem is when religious dogma is maintained when evidence points towards its nonsensical-ness, pushed on children, and used to denigrate other members of our species. As long as you can maintain a spirituality while simultaneously maintaining reason and an open mind you're probably in a good boat with me.

What do you think of the concept of Hell?

Toweleeeie March 21st, 2016 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KorpiklaaniVodka (Post 9173381)
What do you think of the concept of Hell?

Haha, I think it was one of the most ingenious marketing schemes ever invented. I find it interesting that if you really scrutinize the Bible, "Hell" as it is imagined in the modern day as an other dimensional pit of eternal burning torture is not even discussed.

I think that teaching children that they'll go to hell or that their friends from school will if they commit a grave sin or even simply do not worship the same god is psychological abuse. I also find discussions of morality interesting when coming from those who use the threat of hell, because I think it's debatable how 'moral' you really are if the only thing keeping you from murdering someone is fear of punishment.

Finally, if discussing the concept itself, I also would have a few questions. Like, if you believe 'the devil' or 'demons' torture you in hell, why would they torture you for doing bad things which they'd like you to do? If it's god doing the torturing, wow... that god is a ****. And why is it fiery? It's some other dimensional spirit realm, why do spirits experience burning? Is hell an oxygen rich environment?

Caaethil June 1st, 2016 1:34 PM

At a young age I was a Christian. My school believed it and told me it, and my parents taught me it just because I wasn't old enough and they wanted me to be happy believing in Heaven or whatever. I became an athiest for quite a while. Later, I started calling myself agnostic instead, and now I'm kind of edging more towards the term atheism, because I am becoming increasingly less inclined to subscribe to the whole "be open to all possibilities thing".

My current stance: If there is no empirical evidence to suggest something exists, it does not exist. You can try to find empirical evidence to prove it exists, but until you do, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

I treat people telling me that a God exists the same as I would treat them telling me that there is a unicorn living in the core of the Sun, our major political figures are all alien reptiles and the Earth is flat.

The only difference, and I mean the only difference, is that one has been consistently accepted for such a long time that people just believe it because everybody else told them to.

If you are religious, consider this. Why do you follow your religion, and not another? If you are not a Christian, what makes your religion more real than Christianity? If you are a Christian, what makes your religion more real than Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and so on? The point I am making is that most of these religions will have just as much evidence as you do. They have a holy book, they have teachings, they have morals. They have people who have claimed to have inner experiences, and they have large cultures dedicated to their individual faiths.

So why is yours better? As the very intelligent Richard Dawkins said "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

So really, we atheists are just the same as the theists (religious people) out there. The only difference is that we deny one more God (or quite a few more, if you follow a polytheistic religion). So why do you believe in your God(s), then? I think I can identify a few reasons:

Your background - family, friends, your general society. If you grow up in the US you might be a Christian, if you grow up in India, you might follow Hinduism. But you cannot argue that you would still follow the same religion you do now no matter what circumstances you were born in - you could be an atheist, or follow a completely different religion, had you been born elsewhere, in a different family. This kind of hurts the validity of your religion. If this is your reason for following your religion, then you accept that you do not follow your religion because it is true, you follow your religion out of coincidence. But I'm sure you have more reasons, I'll try to go through as many as I can.

It has been followed for a long time. Sure, but so have all of the others. Your religion may have been accepted for so long that it must be true, but so have so many others. This argument doesn't work, but many people simply accept that their religion has been going on for too long to be false.

You have had some kind of experience of God. So here's another one. There's not really a fully factual way for me to disprove any claims of a spiritual experience. But then, the burden of proof dictates that I'm right and you're wrong anyway, since you can't prove you have. Look, I'm not calling you a liar. You may well genuinely think God has spoken to you in some way. But I highly doubt it. The human brain is not perfect, it can be fooled. You can see things that aren't real. Sometimes you think you hear your name, and you're only in a house with one other person. They have no idea what you're talking about, they didn't call you. Weird. Yeah, weird. You just can't trust your senses all the time. If you do, you're placing far too much value on your own abilities to perceive things, because you are simply not as accurate as you think you are. This isn't just me grasping at straws making up the idea that you hallucinate whenever you claim to have a spiritual experience. The fact of the matter is that this kind of thing does happen - people's minds are wrong sometimes, they muck things up and make you imagine things.

Miracles. Come on now, miracles cannot be proven to be real. Here's the thing. The universe has existed for 14 billion years, our galaxy about 13.6, the solar system and Earth about 4.5. Us evolved humans have been plodding about for about 200 000 years. In that time, it would be incredibly unlikely for incredibly unlikely things not to happen. In fact, absolutely no 'miracles' happening in that time would be a miracle in itself. Wacky stuff happens sometimes, that doesn't mean somebody made it happen.

You don't believe the universe/the stuff in it/life could be created by chance. See above. Crazy stuff. They reckon time was created during the big bang, you know. Which is weird. We don't know how exactly the big bang happened - we have some ideas, but we haven't proven any of them yet. We just know that everything, to our knowledge, was created when it happened. And there was nothing before that, we think. At least, if there was something before that, it ended, and that led to the creation of something new. So whether we assume that there is only, has only ever been and will only ever be one universe, or we assume that a universe is created as the last one dies, we know that there is a hell of a lot of time for crazy things to happen. When you're literally dealing with an infinite amount of time, saying that anything is impossible is preposterous.

You just want to believe it. Whether you're scared of nothingness or just like the thought of a creator who's looking after you and is saving you a spot in Heaven, this is one of my least favourite arguments, if not my least favourite of all, in favour of religion. It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I can understand it, but I'm the kind of person who doesn't want to believe something just because it sounds nice. I want to believe the truth and what is most likely to be the truth. I don't want to live in a bubble of happy thoughts that probably aren't real. And you should think that way too. At least, I think so. This argument seems around the same vein as believing unicorns exist. Because unicorns are cool, right?

Morals. Just adding this one on reading the above post. Come on now, you believe in God because you have morals? Well, did you know that morals can be explained in evolution? Think of it this way. Humans need to survive. That is the goal. That is what evolution does - it lets us adapt to survive. Evolution is not conscious, that's just how it works, scientifically. I'm not explaining it here. Anyway, what's a good way to survive and keep the species going strong? Well, killing each other ruthlessly, stealing their stuff and destroying their property is not a good start. No, that's sooner to get you killed back, or just drive the whole species into extinction. With this theory, we can suppose that at some point, there lived humans with no morals. Fortunately, they all died, because giving zero tosses about what anybody else thinks or feels is not a good way to be accepted. Humans are cooperative beings. They need to help each other. The ones that didn't died off, and only the ones who were nice and helpful to others could pass on their genes. Of course, we occasionally get outliers who seem to have no morals even these days, but that can't be helped - that happens all across nature. Evolution dictates one thing, but there will always be odd ones out.

Sorry if this response was a bit raw around the edges, it's really the first time I've been able to vent pretty much all of my main thoughts about religion into one argument. This is a pretty controversial topic to begin with though, so I doubt it's an issue. Please ask any questions if you disagree or are unsure about something I've written, I like a good religious debate.

I did not expect this to be so long.

ARKA9 June 5th, 2016 9:51 PM

As a indian hindu (which i am proud to be) i must say that in our religion there is a lot of stuff which has not to be and is total crap. I think that god exists but cannot be achieved by idol worship or all ritual stuff (no offense for those who believe in this). I do not fear god and think that if he is our creator , would never set a "hell" for us.
I think of god as a mentor who can help in bitter times. I think of god as a friend on whom i can trust and complain. I do not think bad for those who do not believe in god , as most of my friends and even my brother do not believe in god. But still i do feel the presence of God. If you go by our mythology... you can find some illustrations which are being now proven scientifically. As a legend goes...

A god once in their childhood though of the sun as a giant mango. Due to their mischievous nature they flew towards the sun to eat it. The sun, alarmed by this, hits him on the face with his weapon.... After this a lot of stuff happens which i am not writing here....

This story may sound very inscientific to you (also to me) but a famous poet of that time wrote about the glory of this god in his poem. Now the scientists of this century... decipher the poem and tell us that the poem tells us the exact estimate of the distance between that sun and the earth during the summer equinox (remember the legend? ).

How could have a poet calculated the distance at that time? Though this is not enough proof for the existence of god but still I believe it.

A great Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan had given the proof of most of his theories as follows:

"I dont know, just some goddess appears in my mind, tells me the theory. I just write it on a paper and publish it"

His equations are now being proven by mathematicians all over the world.
If he was speaking the truth about this then we may say that god really exists.

PS: I totally agree with ShinyUmbreon in his post. What he said is 100% truth to me.
Sorry if i hurt anyone's feelings.

Nyoxios June 6th, 2016 10:10 AM

I am an atheist, I don't think there is an all-creating and observing god. And it's true we can't disprove the existence of any god, nor can we prove one exists.

I for one am sure that in time science can and will disprove a god, it won't be in my lifetime but it'll happen. I've always figured that a god was an answer to that we don't understand. Like how Thor became a god; people couldn't grasp how lightning and thunder came to be. It's in our nature to have an explanation for everything that happens and during the time, when humans couldn't figure out how thunderstorms worked: It must be the work of a god and so creating the explanation to how thunderstorms came to be.

So, for a long time we as a species had no clue on how everything was created, thus it must be the work of a god. I know religion is way more than just the "tale" of how everything came to be, but this was an example. I'm also pretty sure that when gods are proven to be non-existant, people will still believe in it or hold on to religion.

Religion is on itself a harmless practice that helps a lot of people, I personally see religion as a guide to life. And if people want to have a religion, whichever one it is, should always be possible. I can be an atheist and you can believe in Allah, God, Buddha or whatever deity you want to believe in, for all I care you believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And to be totally honest, I've always been interested in believes of others, I find it interesting to find out how for example the Islam works. Even as an atheist, you can learn from religion or how religious people interact with each other and how they use their religion as a red line through life.

I do however hate that religion is used to manipulate people. That is never the point of having a religion in my view. And especially during medieval times religion was used as a power tool of control, which in my view is the worst way to treat a religion.

gimmepie June 6th, 2016 5:27 PM

This thread was dead. In the future please start a new thread for topics over a month old.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:37 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.