Adventure Game Studio

Okay... I've been told that saying that Bible literalism is stupid is:

-Verbally punching.
-Insulting.
-Aggressive.

And

-Gives atheistics a bad name.

Now, to those who told that to me.... Why?

Bible literalism is indeed stupid. That doesn't imply that those who literally believe in the bible are stupid. Just the point that they do is stupid. It's an obsolete relict from the middle ages and it makes me wonder why it still exists. But then, on the other hand, people believe in (earth-visiting) aliens and all sort of other things. I could understand why people want to believe in such things, but I can't really get it, when people actually believe in these things.

I have nothing against religion in general, especially if it's used in a good way (like acting in a humane way). You can read some >stories< in the bible and see what you can learn of it but as soon as you take things literally better throw it away.

And personally I don't really understand why humanity or a good and healthy way of life even needs faith or religion...

I NEVER said that religious people are stupid.

Thanks for agreeing with me that Bible literalism is. A big relief after what I saw in the other topic.

Quote from: matti on Wed 19/11/2008 20:10:26
And personally I don't really understand why humanity or a good and healthy way of life even needs faith or religion...

Seconded. Some people just keep telling you "See, he's humane and good because he believes in {whatever}". I don't understand why humane behaviour must be binded with a religion.

Nacho ... I appreciate all opinions.  Thank you for posting on my question.  I did expect quite a bit of backlash more then just you really.  I feel that a basically Science(and skeptisism) and relegion(or faith) are just to complete different ways of thinking Science cannot explain faith and faith cannot prove anything scientific.  But I will say I am gald you started your own thread as mine was getting way off topic.

you just come across a big idiot who takes every oppotunity he can to attack religion, and you did so in a thread that was not started with the intention of discussing religious belief as a whole.
now, i used to do the same in religious discussions but i realised pretty quickly that if i acted like a dick nobody was going to listen to what i was saying.
and also while i remain an atheist i recognise that religion can benefit and enrich the lives of those who embrace it, and besides which i have absolutely no right to tell people what they can and can not believe in and doing so results in hostility.
i learned a long time ago that the internet is not the place for religious debate, perhaps that's a lesson you should also learn.

Oliwerko: Eeer... As far as I agree with you, I must say that this is not the topic.

The topic, I think (and I must be right, since I started it) is if has arrived the time for being able to say that "Bible literalism is stupid" without of fear of suffering an over reaction bigger than I could find after saying that "Believing in smurfs is stupid" or "Believing in dragons is stupid".

I honestly thing that this time has arrived. I am very interested in that, because there are things in the Bible that seem so ridiculous for me, that, to be honest, I don' t imagine myself labelling them in another way than "stupid" (Or silly, ridiculous, unbelierable, impossible, etc...)

Note that I am not saying "Believers are stupid", "Religious people are stupid" or "Religions are stupid". I am just focusing on the principles of any religion, taken literally.

BOYD: I ask you again... Why? Why am I a big idiot, a dick, for saying that the principles of the religion, if taken literally, are stupid and not defensible from the reason? Tell me why, and I will try to reply to you.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 19/11/2008 20:34:52
BOYD: I ask you again... Why? Why am I a big idiot, a dick, for saying that the principles of the religion, if taken literally, are stupid and not defensible from the reason? Tell me why, and I will try to reply to you.

Once upon a time there was a boy who was obsessed with ants. Every chance he got he would go "The ants are..."

His teachers were so fed up with him, that they kept trying to find way to stir him away.

So at one point the teacher put an essay to the kids about "The fall of communism in red China, after the fall of the Eastern block and the Berlin wall".

so the kid wrong "Red China, Berlin wall, communism. They have nothing to do with ants. THE ANTS ARE..."

Every reading of the word "religion", or "god", or anything simmilar is not a chance for a huge religious debate, whether god is there or not, or who is stupider.

Each on to their own beliefs and system. Even if bicycling 6 hours every day seems moronic to some!  ;D ;D ;D

The tendency to believe in irrational stuff (in this case: religious beliefs) is coherent with having a low IQ. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029149/Why-people-believe-God-likely-lower-IQ.html)

Since counter-arguments are on the level of "Some of the greatest thinkers through history have been people of faith.", I consider the results of the study as confirmed by the opposition.

In that light, saying that literal believers are stupid is not so far from the truth.

Having said that:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png) (http://xkcd.com/386/)

Okay... Nikolas: let' s start debating:

I DO NOT force your kids to learn "Biking" at least for 3 hours per week in school. Many countries force kids to receive "Religion", no matter if you want or not. "Biking" is not a cultural imposition given before you have the rational tools for deffending from it, Religion does.
I DO NOT ask money from contributors to keep me biking. Church does.
Biking does not involve believing in supernatural theories that are agains reason. Religion does.
Saying "Biking is moronic" does not involve social discredit. Saying "Religion is moronic" does.

And I wonder why.

Edit: KrishMUC. I will never be that dare to say "literal believers are stupid" or "Saying that literal believers are stupid is not so far from truth". I just mean that those specific beliefs are.

But here you are doing exactly the same thing again. I was mostly joking with bicycling. In fact I got a bike myself here in Greece and go everywhere, using the bike. It's healthy, I get excersize, I save money, I don't pollute. There's not much more that one would want from a commuter, right? ;)

Yet somehow you decided to compare religion with bikes? YIKES!

I don't think this thread is for attacking anyone Nikolas, just for discussion as what Nacho originally intended. Let's leave Dervish's thread and anything that happened there out of this thread, Boyd.

This thread is just to discuss taking the bible literally, and why some people would do so. Maybe there are some literal christians out there who can explain or present a good argument as to why they take the bible literally?
Personally I'm quite a strong atheist.

(Let's keep the thread on topic ;) )

@ Nikolas: Of course... Because you said "Doing 6 hours of bike per day is moronic".  :)

My point is, if you can say that, and NOTHING HAPPENS, why can' t I say the same about the most stupid set of beliefs that we can find in modern society?

@ Phemar: I am open to discuss anything I said in the other thread, and examine it, word by word, if you want...

I mean... If someone comes to you and says "I DO BELIEVE that there was a gallactic civil war, and there were Jedis, and an evil senator Palpatine conspired, creating a false threat, to have a new army to kill them all and rule the Galaxy" what would you think of him? What would you think if someone comes and tells you that he believes in smurfs? Well... I am not dare enough to imagine what would you say, but... I would definitelly think "This guy is nuts".

Maybe after knowing the guy, he is cool, and those stupid beliefs he confessed to me were just an island of crazyness in an ocean of common sense, but, hey... I am sorry. My first think would be "Wow... crazy!"

Quote from: BOYD1981 on Wed 19/11/2008 20:29:21
you did so in a thread that was not started with the intention of discussing religious belief as a whole.

Which is why I didn't bother to read more than the gist of what you only to simply understand the replying comments. But now that you've started your own thread, continue on.

I will add, that I feel that if you say that ones beliefs are stupid, it translates to saying that they are stupid. Believing is an act of the mind and heart (wow, that sounded super cheesy)

~Trent

Quote from: Phemar on Wed 19/11/2008 20:55:04
I don't think this thread is for attacking anyone Nikolas, just for discussion as what Nacho originally intended.

I'm not attacking anyone and me and Nacho are friends! :) I hope all is fine and the moronic comments was to illustrate how some people simply cannot understand the rest. Simple enough, no?

Quote from: Trent R on Wed 19/11/2008 20:56:52
I will add, that I feel that if you say that ones beliefs are stupid, it translates to saying that they are stupid. Believing is an act of the mind and heart (wow, that sounded super cheesy)

No. I think I am able to love/like/respect/admire someone with different ideas than me.

A set of ideas is just that. There are millions of set of ideas that create the personality.

I don' t understand Andail' s politics point of view. He is my friend.
I don' t understand M0ds' beliefs on UFOs. He is my friend.
I don' t understand SSH' s religious beliefs. I hope he is still my friend. I consider him so.
Nikolas doesn't understand my hobbies regarding to sport. He is my friend.
I don' t understand BOYD at all... I hope he is my friend. I consider him so.

Hope now is clear.

I won't deny I openly loathe the Roman Catholic church for so much they've done plain wrong. That plan wrong being the way they have forced their ways on people that contradict the bible, and then they tell people to follow what the bible says.

But I wouldn't call believing in this stupid. I would call it mere ignorance, or just being happy with less than you could actually get out of life. But whatever floats your boat.

There is one actually religious person I know I really respect. Truly religious as opposed to socially religious. And the reason I respect this person's views so much is that she's realised the basic fact Luther's put fourth: You're going to heaven, thus are saved, as long as you believe in God. It's very simple and effective. You can go about doing whatever you want from there on.

It's natural for people to need something to fill this certain gap in their lives. People need something in common with others, a safety net to fall on, something that will be there for them. And for most people it is religion. They're taught to needing it from a child, and the peer perssure to needing it is high.

Religion (most of the time) is not stupid, but you can do extremely silly things with it.

Do I really need to repeat that I never said that believing in stupid?

Quote from: Ishmael on Wed 19/11/2008 21:17:02
It's natural for people to need something to fill this certain gap in their lives. People need something in common with others, a safety net to fall on, something that will be there for them. And for most people it is religion. They're taught to needing it from a child, and the peer perssure to needing it is high.

Yeah, I think this is what religion is basically about and it makes sense in a way. But it has nothing to do with genuinely and literaly believe in the bible which I consider plain stupid (and which is the topic here).

Quote from: Ishmael on Wed 19/11/2008 21:17:02
It's natural for people to need something to fill this certain gap in their lives. People need something in common with others, a safety net to fall on, something that will be there for them. And for most people it is religion. They're taught to needing it from a child, and the peer perssure to needing it is high.

The morality, or the need, to have such belifs once you realised that they are not real is something we will discuss in abother thread.  :)

Quoteshe's realised the basic fact Luther's put fourth: You're going to heaven, thus are saved, as long as you believe in God. It's very simple and effective. You can go about doing whatever you want from there on.

I wish people wouldn't toss around the word 'fact' so freely.  This doesn't happen to be true for many Christians.  Being saved, for many, is not some mythic get out of jail free card.  It's not a fact unless a vast majority of Christians believe this way, and if and when they do, I think I might just become an atheist.


Also, contrary to what many of you might think, saying people who follow the bible literally are stupid is insulting.  Some people actually view the bible as a historical document and see the writings inside as factual; granted, there are parables and such written within that are meant to tell a moral story rather than to tell you exactly how to behave, but there are certainly aspects of the bible that are absolutely crystal clear on appropriate/inappropriate behaviors.  Calling people who choose to observe those behaviors stupid (or in InCreator's case, of low IQ) is just so utterly, insanely ridiculous to me that I refuse to continue participating in this discussion if this is going to be a prevailing mindset.

Have what opinions you will on either side, but stop passing them off as though they are absolute fact for everyone everywhere.  That goes especially for you, Nacho, and no -- I quite understand where you're coming from in this argument and haven't misunderstood you.

Quote from: matti on Wed 19/11/2008 21:23:24
Yeah, I think this is what religion is basically about and it makes sense in a way. But it has nothing to do with genuinely and literaly believe in the bible which I consider plain stupid.

I wouldn't personally call it stupid, I'd just say misguided. Sure, you can try, but following what the bible says literally is pretty impossible. Of course you can look at it this way: You'll be missing out on a lot, which is plain, voluntary stupidity. As is, in connection, not standing against those who tell you it'd be wrong to think otherwise. Everyone has the right to think and act as they see fit. Some people just don't realise it or have the guts to take up to it. Which is, yes, stupid.

In short, giving up your human rights just because someone else tells you to do so is in my opinion stupid.

QuoteI wish people wouldn't toss around the word 'fact' so freely.  This doesn't happen to be true for many Christians.  Being saved, for many, is not some mythic get out of jail free card.  It's not a fact unless a vast majority of Christians believe this way, and if and when they do, I think I might just become an atheist.

Did Luther say so or did he not? It is a fact in the sense that he did indeed teach that and not something else. If you run an office and you tell your workers they can have two coffee breaks a day but most of them think they can have four, does it disband the fact that they are allowed only two?

Sorry Prog, but some things in Bible are plain stupid. I wish I was that comprehensive to hear that someone REALLY BELIEVES in the deluge passage and think "Ok... he... he might be right!"

But I can' t. It' s fisically impossible. It' s impossible to build that ark, it' s impossible to bring all the animals in, it' s impossible to storage the food, it' s impossible to...

Well... Almost everything in those chapters is impossible.

Earth? 6,000 years old? Sorry, man. I hear it and I automatically think "Impossible".

I am talking of literally believing in bible. You mention literallity, and after that you mention me "moral stories". Are you sure we are talking of the same? I think we must define what are we talking about, because I honestly believe we might agree.

Ishmael, this ties more into whether you are a Lutheran (one denomination).  Martin Luther had a lot of contradictions in his own teachings (and I myself choose the lessons of Jesus over Luther) that make him unappealing, at least to me.  For instance, he also wrote things like:

”The pope is the devil; if I could kill the pope, why do I not want to do it?”

And he also advocated having Jewish property seized and burned (and worse).

I don't really consider Martin Luther a shining or credible example of the religion, by any means.



Nacho:  There are things that are happening today, right now, that people once thought utterly impossible or musings of an agitated mind.  Robotic legs, space shuttles, airplanes.  There are moral stories in the bible and then there are events it claims to be true that you either take on faith (like the entire of the bible) or you don't.  The ark is one example of this because it's not explicitly told as a parable (though it is in there as a warning and to establish the covenant between man and God).  Do I believe it happened as written?  Probably not precisely as written, in that figures and events can be exaggerated over time.  Many legends are based on fact and in the same way distorted over time, and I think that can explain at least some of these events.  For the rest, as I said, you either have to have faith or not, and that's the very foundation of religion, anyway. 

I'll just ask you this:  If it's not stupid for people to believe in a superior being, why is it so stupid for them to believe he is capable of a great flood?  To turn water into wine?  To part the sea?  You seem to take issue with these literal beliefs but don't take issue with the actual belief in God itself. 

To me it seems an all-or-nothing argument.

But prog... How can you argue to me about the morale aspects of Bible when I haven't commented any of those so far? I have given evidences of the way I think, but atm I was just talking to Bible literality.

I said nothing about what I think of the paraboles, the morality, the meaning of the figures or the exaggerations... I said that "believing it happened as is written is stupid".

So... if anybody agrees, I can MOVE and talk about Christian Religion as a Religion based in a book that has errors.

The ideas all spanish people have are stupid.

Not that all spanish people are stupid....

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 19/11/2008 19:53:45
Okay... I've been told that saying that Bible literalism is stupid is:

-Verbally punching.
-Insulting.
-Aggressive.

And

-Gives atheistics a bad name.

Now, to those who told that to me.... Why?

Because there's such a thing as picking one's battles. It isn't the fact that you said bible literalism is stupid, no one is trying to persecute you for having an opinion, and if they are, forget about them.

It's the fact that the thread was about a person just trying to find people who were interested in making a game about {subject}.

In this thread here you told someone what the topic of your thread was so you know the concept of going off topic or even derailing, the topic of Dervish's thread was "Hey guys, anyone interested in this?"

If you pick your battles you can see that that particular thread was not the place for what you were doing and was potentially offtopic/derailing.

I understand that you are strong in your convictions and that's cool, but you can't pretend that people getting upset over things you KNOW will make them upset is surprising. If you're looking to have a debate, pick your battles and have respect for the other viewpoint especially if you consider all these people your friends.

I had written a very long and cross reply, but I decided to summarize it thus: "Be respectful of other people's beliefs and they'll be respectful of yours."

Well, Eric, I was being quite moderate about how skeptics would react against the game, and how could he do it to make it appealing to an skeptic audience. I must confess that I missed the line when he specifically asked not to receive ideas in that direction, that he was not going to take them into consideration. My apologies.

Read the thread again, check it by yourself.

Then, someone told me that I was being a coward, and that FC Barcelona fans are child molesters, comparing religion with football... after that I started debating seriously, because religion is not like football... Maybe it's as childish, but it is not a statal imposition which receives the taxes EVERYBODY pay.

Then the problems started :).

***EDIT: Saying, projecting and lying, that I told "All believers are stupid" didn't help, either***

And yes, Voh, thanks for your reply. When "Church" finishing receiving money from taxes I will respect it. When all kinds around the world can go to school and not receiving a false point of view of creation of earth, universe and the life, I will respect it. When all the countries in the world became secular I will start respecting it.

When religion starts to respect my atheism, I will respect religion.

voh: "Only respect other peoples' religious beliefs in the sense that you respect that they believe they have a beautiful wife and intelligent children." ;)

Quote from: ProgZmax on Wed 19/11/2008 21:29:52[...] but there are certainly aspects of the bible that are absolutely crystal clear on appropriate/inappropriate behaviors.  Calling people who choose to observe those behaviors stupid (or in InCreator's case, of low IQ) is just so utterly, insanely ridiculous to me that I refuse to continue participating in this discussion if this is going to be a prevailing mindset.

InCreator hasn't participated in this thread yet, so I believe you're referring to my post.
The gist of the mentioned study isn't that "believer = low IQ", it says that, in my own words, social environments with a low average IQ have a higher percentage of people with religious faiths, and the other way around, whether that environment is a country or a university.

The bible revokes and revamps its own rules from chapter to chapter, so finding a coherent set of crystal clear rules is very different in itself (obvious evidence of this are the tons of different, partly contradicting churches all based on Christianity).
Additionally, following the bible on what's (in)appropriate would make much more sense if this wasn't the 21st century. Many of the so-called liberal Christians might state a belief in a survey but don't act accordingly in our real, rational, modern world, which in my eyes doesn't only make them quasi-atheists but, more importantly, makes perfect sense.
What we understand as western civilization has undergone many drastic changes in the last 2000 years, most of them for the better and most of those since we stopped burning people at the stake whom the church considered to be heretics.
The obligations people have according to the bible are what should be considered ridiculous, apart from outdated, misogynistic and cruel.

Take the simple example of not being allowed to have premarital sex: common sense and experience tell me it's the main (if not only) cause of
a) people getting married way too early (both too early in life and too early in a relationship) because they want to be allowed to have sex
b) unjustified, horrible guilt about something wonderful and completely natural
c) unwanted children and 25% of American teenagers suffering from an STD (because their parents didn't have a birds'n'bees chat with them)

In short: if people didn't follow this absurdly ridiculous rule, we'd have less unwanted children, abortions, school dropouts, people carrying STDs and divorces and more healthily happy, sexually educated, guilt-free people.

Ishmael:

Quoteshe's realised the basic fact Luther's put fourth: [...]

You were saying that Luther's belief is a fact, not that him having believed something is a fact.

Considering the popular fallacy that our modern laws are based on the bible's morality:
Modern, religious people consciously choose not to obey certain biblical rules (e.g. stoning gays).
=> They are using different morals to judge biblical morals and to determine whether to follow them or not.
=> Those different morals aren't based on the bible's.
(Those different morals are modern law / common sense / humanism)

Quote from: voh on Wed 19/11/2008 22:37:36
I had written a very long and cross reply, but I decided to summarize it thus: "Be respectful of other people's beliefs and they'll be respectful of yours."

Let me say that I am a Latter-Day Saint, or more commonly known as a Mormon. Which means the views I part are probably not the most common Christian belief, but fairly close (besides, each person is allowed to interpret scripture to their own understanding--but don't try to misquote me on that). Also know that I have my own personal beliefs mixed in with the overall religious ones, so I will try to differentiate the two.

I will be as civil as I can, and I ask for the same courtesy in return. (and I'll admit that my previous comment wasn't completely civil, so I apologize Nacho)

First off, one basic Mormon belief is that the bible is not completely translated correctly. Whereas the Book of Mormon (another book of our faith) we believe is translated completely corrected by our founding Prophet.

Second, there is a lot of symbolism and a lot of literallism. If you ask about them, I'll explain my beliefs about each.

And so:

Quote from: NachoEarth? 6,000 years old?

I personally believe in the Big Bang theory of the creation of the earth. 6,000 years is the age of man, not the planet he lives on.

QuoteEarth made in 6 days

I learned that the original bible uses a word that doesn't always mean 'day', and in this case it should mean 'time period'. The first day could've been 8 minutes and the second 24 billion years.

QuoteEve made from Adam's rib

How God made man, I'm not sure exactly. But this statement is not literal. It is symbolic of Eve being equal to Adam. If she was 'made' of something from his head, it would put her above Adam. Likewise with his feet and being below. This simply shows that man and woman are equals.


Those are a few from this and the previous thread. Any others that I can answer?

~Trent

I think the bible can be valuable as a moral guideline for some, though it might be a bit contradictory. I mean, just the Old and the New Testament are coming from very different sides...
...but it should be clear that the bible is more one big metaphor than anything else. If you take the bible literally in this day and age than you're either uneducated or ignorant.

QuoteChurch taking money

The LDS Church deals with tithes differently than most, and I hope you can respect our view. Bishops and other church leaders have other jobs. This means that they tithes aren't going towards simply supporting them and their way of life (exception to this is LDS Missionaries, which I'll get to soon). Tithes go to services such as helping the poor and needy, building temples and meetinghouses, supporting missionaries, Humanitarian Aid (we were one of the first organizations in New Orleans after Katrina), and other uses.
Ad for supporting missionaries, yes, those funds get used to support the lives of missionaries. However, they aren't just living normal lives like anyone else, they are in the service of God and the Church and have strict rules to follow. The money goes towards their food and living expenses, not entertainment or anything like that. Also, the missionary himself (and their family, if applicable) pays for a good chunk of the expenses (my mother sends a check off each month to support my currently serving brother).

Quote from: Ishmael on Wed 19/11/2008 21:36:34
In short, giving up your human rights just because someone else tells you to do so is in my opinion stupid.

People have free agency, you don't have to do anything anyone else tells you.

~Trent

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 19/11/2008 22:50:50
When religion starts to respect my atheism, I will respect religion.

So unless religion respects your atheism, you won't respect religion? Now that's funny - you're demanding something of them which you're not willing to do yourself. This makes you a hypocrite.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Wed 19/11/2008 22:51:05
voh: "Only respect other peoples' religious beliefs in the sense that you respect that they believe they have a beautiful wife and intelligent children." ;)

I understand the point you make, but I also want to clear something up that I obviously didn't state as clearly as I thought I had. I in no way intended to say that anyone needs to respect without question somebody else's belief. My intention was to say that you should be respectful whether you respect their belief or not. It's not hard to show respect to someone while disagreeing with them whole-heartedly.

Bonus is that if you act respectfully, you might actually get your point across.

Picking ones battles may indeed be the key. It's perfectly fine to consider the Bible to be a contradictory mess that couldn't possibly be taken as fact by any sane person, just as it is perfectly fine to consider Scientology to be nothing but a cult for narcissistic rich people. But declaring out loud, as it it were, ones opinions invites debate. And the fact that your feelings on spiritual beliefs may not go beyond what common sense tells us are ridiculous institutionalized ideals for easily-led fools, such opinions may need a lot of backing up in a debate environment.

As I have stated in past threads, I hold what could generally be termed as agnostic views on the existence of a god or gods. This is totally separate to my feelings on organized religion; in so much as I largely consider organized religion to be a humanity-threatening disease, to which the proven existence of a god or gods would be a hindrance, existing as it does largely as a man-made moral/social/political tool, reliant on the fear of the unknown.

But I don't present my feelings as fact. Just as I would expect people who belong to any of these organizations not to attempt to present what they believe as fact.

It's common courtesy.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 19/11/2008 22:50:50
Then, someone told me that I was being a coward, and that FC Barcelona fans are child molesters, comparing religion with football... after that I started debating seriously, because religion is not like football... Maybe it's as childish, but it is not a statal imposition which receives the taxes EVERYBODY pay.

In the UK, no religion gets tax money. Spain is not the world. Creationism is not taught in most UK schools.

I said I was making a game which was about Barcelona supporters being molesters. You found that offensive. That was my point: if someone's talking about making a Christian game and you suggest making a game about Jesus being a cheat then they may find it offensive.

Of course, many violent atrocities have happened over the years in the name of football. Of course, the TRUE football fans know that these were just idiots looking for an excuse to be violent and that football was incidental. Oh, did I say football, I meant religion.

Quote from: Trent R on Wed 19/11/2008 22:57:32

QuoteEve made from Adam's rib

How God made man, I'm not sure exactly. But this statement is not literal. It is symbolic of Eve being equal to Adam. If she was 'made' of something from his head, it would put her above Adam. Likewise with his feet and being below. This simply shows that man and woman are equals.

You know, if you believe God managed to make the whole universe and create Adam, why would he have trouble doing it in 6 days or making Eve from a rib? Not that I'm trying to say that is what happened, but the Christian God is supposed to be omnipotent. He can do anything. So maybe he did make the world in 6 days, or 6 aeons or 6 billion years: how does this affect my day-to-day faith? Not at all.

@ Voh:

No, voh... What I am NOT being is idiot. I am not going to stop throwing punches if the guys that I have in front and is punching me doesn't stop before. They started. They are the ones that are getting taxes from me. They are the ones that told me that lenguajes were made by God because he was annoyed with us because we were making the Babel Tower. They lied to me when I was a child, when I had no rational tools to deffend myself propperly (with no permanent hurt, fortunatelly) and I consider myself in the perfect right to deffend myself.

@ Trent:

I am going to be extremelly polite,you deserve it (To be honest, I missed the parts where you recognised were not completelly civil, I will skip them, then  ;)). Actually, your post opens an interesting door I' ve never explored before: "Misstranslation". Okay. What I am going to do, basically, is to jump over all the possible misstranslations and go for the nowadays "average" believer opinion:
The one who things that Big bang existed, that man evolved as the evolution theory, and that bible is a bunch of morale teachings that galvanize around paraboles and allegories, and that nothing can be taken as "real".

Okay.

Then... If you don' t thing that those things happened, how can you believe in God? Where is the evidence?

I mean... Literalistics can have "illogical" beliefs (I will, from now and ultil I remember it, change "stupid" for "illogical", ok?). Literalistics believe God created earth because they see the earth. Literalistics believe that God created manking from mud because they see men. Literalistics believe that Deluge happened because they see that there are animals, nowadays, they must be the one who survived deluge!

Literalistics believe in "God", because they see things, and someone must have created that things...

I think that natural history proves things did not happened like that... But they are being consistent, at least...

But if you are not literalistic... Why believing?

If you were, you should have the evidences (Everything should have been an evidence).
If you are not a literalistic, you have nothing.

There is no evidence that God is real. No evidence that what is written in Bible is heavenly inspired, (then, what you have there is not real), and if the stories contained there are not real, maybe the concept of "God" isn' t either.

If you are not literalistic "God" is indistinguishable from anything else invented by man.

Indistinguisable from the smurfs, from Darth Vader, Superman or Godzilla.

Of course... we have the "If I see a watch, I must think that there is a watchmaker". Sorry, no. If you believe that EVERYTHING must have a MAKER, you are in an alley, because GOD would NEED a MAKER as well.

And now... My opinion about "nowadays believers" (scientific believers, or whatever you want to call them): I respect them. I don' t know from where they happened to arrive to that point, of why they do believe, I am nobody to judge them. Maybe they need to believe, I think it' s sad needing something unreal to believe in, but that' s not my problem.
But please... Don' t try to make me believe.

SSH: As said, football is not cultural imposition. Religion is. That is my fight.

If you want to start a fight against "how, in spite of not receiving an institutional aid, it is impossible for an actual kid of my country to abstract of the influence of football" you can do it. You have my blessing... I mean... support.

Still, football would go on being real, while God, as fas as we know, isn't...

Quote from: SSH on Wed 19/11/2008 23:23:17
You know, if you believe God managed to make the whole universe and create Adam, why would he have trouble doing it in 6 days or making Eve from a rib? Not that I'm trying to say that is what happened, but the Christian God is supposed to be omnipotent. He can do anything. So maybe he did make the world in 6 days, or 6 aeons or 6 billion years: how does this affect my day-to-day faith? Not at all.

As for Adam and Eve, completely agree. He is omnipotent. I believe that it wouldn't be written in that way if it wasn't meant to be symbolic. It's also possible that it's both symbolic and literally.

However, even though God is omnipotent, the only power he doesn't have and can't have is to control time. If he could, there'd be no point to life (as we believe, life is to be a test for the next life, but its more complex than that) because we could simply reverse time or such and undo mistakes. This also means that God can't fast forward time, and I believe that he would've have used the laws of nature and let the earth create itself naturally. At the same he is omniscient, so he could've known how to make it exactly.

I also agree with your points in comment previous.

~Trent

---

Just read through your post Nacho, but I will be taking a short break from the computer. I'll be back soon to reply.
~Trent

Quote from: LimpingFish on Wed 19/11/2008 23:13:40

But I don't present my feelings as fact. Just as I would expect people who belong to any of these organizations not to attempt to present what they believe as fact.

It's common courtesy.

Why it's courtesy not saying that bible literalism is stupid?

People would say to someone saying that the smurfs are real is stupid.

Why not saying the same to something which has the same degree of folly?

What you just posted raised an interesting point in my brain.

Religion was never imposed upon me, at all, at school through to university. I made up my own mind, to be atheist. However I know People who made their minds up to be Christians or Muslim or Buddhist.

BUT football WAS imposed upon me. From the age of 7/8 onwards, I HAD to play football at school, up to the age of 16. This made me hate football.

I don't really know how that relates to your arguments, but I thought it warranted writing down.

Okay... start fighting football.

That you would like football not to be imposed to people is your argument against my opinion that religion shouldn' t?

It's very weak as an argument... I think it actually reinforces mine.

@Nacho: You know, people that believe in god, put their faith in him, don't necessarily state his existence as a fact or are forcing other people see it that way. Yeah, there are those "conservative" idiots that call themselves christians that defend any action they take with their religion and declare every word of the bible as a fact. Personally I'm insulted by those guys out of many reasons, but one is that they call themselves something they clearly aren't. Christianity is about peace and tolerance, but they're the opposite, aggressive and intolerant. They're just a vocal minority though, so whatever.

What I wanted to ask is: Why don't you let people believe what they want?

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 19/11/2008 23:37:58
No, voh... What I am NOT being is idiot.

I never said you were being an idiot. I said you were being a hypocrite. Demanding something of another while not being willing to do it yourself (in this case: stop 'throwing punches') is hypocritical. No matter how you view it.

Sharing opinions as fact, but not allowing others to do so without calling them stupid, is another case of hypocrisy.

It's especially harrowing when you're also claiming your opinion is 100% "correct" and all other opinions are 100% "stupid".

@Ozzie:

Replying to your question: Because religion is still "oficial" in many sides of the world. The day that finishes, I will give a shit about what people does or does not indoors.

On the other hand, man, I do not agree with your first paragraph at all...

@Voh... But believing that facts in bible happened as it says is stupid. It' s not my fault.

What you are doing is: You can't say 2+2 is 4, if you don't accept somebody else' s opinion that 2+2=5.

Allow me to make you a question... What do you think of someone thinking that SPIDERMAN exists as depicted in Marvel Comics?

My point, somewhat distractedly, was that football as a direct comparison to religion doesn't stand.

I'm not arguing with you, religion, in my opinion, is illogical. To me, the existence of a God does not sit right with my perception of the world and how it works. However, I cannot account for the perception of others, nor the validity of my own. Therefore, I don't judge beliefs. Nor do I feel the need to impose my belief on others by stating "Facts according to Sam". The opposite is true, I find one of the most offensive things about some religious groups is the need they feel to tell me how wrong and bad I am, and how my only way to salvation is to sign their book.

I guess my real problem is not the opinions you hold, Nacho, but the manner in which you express them.

@Nacho: Then the separation of church and state might be a more appropiate subject matter to discuss, though.

I said I am open to change "idiot" to "illogical", Zoot...

But man... believing that a guy opened the red sea is... phew... :P

@Ozzie: We simply can't  demmand separation of church and state if believers don' t recognise that their beliefs are indistinguisable from any other belief created by man, because if they don' t recognise so, they will allways find that they have "the divine right" to keep church and state together.

Alright, let's roll.  :D


1) Even though I said I believe in the Big Bang theory (parts of it), I do not believe in evolution from monkeys. God made man in his own image (from the book of Genesis). As for the evidence of neanderthal bones, I have an interesting point that I'll make later.

2) In somethings you could call me a literalistic, but in others I am not. It depends on the issue. That's a lame excuse, but true.

3) One of the basis of any religion is faith. You believe in things you don't have concrete proof of, which shows your faith. Again, not the most concrete argument, but essential nonetheless.

4) God's Maker: This actually gets even more interesting once you throw a bit of LDS belief into the mix. A very simplified version is that we 1) lived with God as spirits, 2) got bodies and came to earth, 3) will die and go to one of 3 kingdoms, 4) if in the highest kingdom, you will become a god yourself (with your wife as a goddess) where you can repeat the cycle. Also know that it is taught elsewhere that God and Jesus has been through the trials we go through.
These together pose the abstract (and most-likely incorrect) question/assumption, "If we can become Gods, and God was once a human, then who was God's God? And who was his God?" and so forth.

I dont' tell you that to confuse you. As for the answer, I don't know and probably never will in this life. What I do know is that our perception is based off this life. God is eternal, whereas this life is temporal. Basically, God (and his God's, and our spirits) have existed forever.
Yet again, doesn't make complete sense and doesn't have concrete evidence, but that's were faith comes in.  :)

Also, I can talk about the Holy Ghost who helps in addition of faith, but that will come later.


~Trent
PS-Obviously this is just a discussion with Nacho and others. For anyone ACTUALLY interested in the beliefs of the LDS Church, check out www.mormon.org (http://www.mormon.org) which explains basic beliefs and answers questions you may have.
PSS-Lol, 9 replies in the time it took to write this one.

Quote from: Trent R on Wed 19/11/2008 23:45:27
However, even though God is omnipotent, the only power he doesn't have and can't have is to control time.

That's a contradiction. If he's omnipotent he can control everything, including time. If he can't control time he's not omnipotent.

One day, in 2000 years time, people are going to be having the exact same debate about Lord of the Rings.

Quote
@Ozzie: We simply can't  demmand separation of church and state if believers don' t recognise that their beliefs are indistinguisable from any other belief created by man, because if they don' t recognise so, they will allways find that they have "the divine right" to keep church and state together.

Oh yeah, those evil believers, they're all the same.  ::)
France has a seperation between state and church since.....well, a very long time.
How the fuck did that happen? How could it happen?  ???

To follow-up:

Let's please not talk about the separation of church and state. That topic just completely annoys me.


On believing in 'fake things', I think that the difference is that Spiderman is a creation of Stan Lee and he's proved and testified so. Same with Lucas and Star Wars, the guy that made up Big Foot, the chicks that made up ghosts (side note--I don't believe in ghosts, but I do believe in spirits), and the apparently high dude that made up Smurfs.
If you can ask the guys that 'made up' religion and they told you it's not true, then that'd be proof. Unfortunately that's not possible. (again, not a great argument, and I recognize that)

~Trent

I don't see how that comparison is meant to mean anything other than that you're out to make religion look stupid. A superhero character unarguably created by Stan Lee (as Trent R. already said - damn you, slow typing and research!) doesn't hold the same mystery that God does. And I'm not defending christanity in specific, I'm defending the freedom of religion.

If you'd taken the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Celestial Teapot, I would've understood. These are examples of how it's impossible to claim as fact that there's a 'holy entity' out there, but on the other side it also shows how it's impossible to claim that there isn't (something the creators of all those 'mock gods' realize full well).

Oh, wait, you want to know how I'd respond to a Spiderman believer. Well, if someone were to come up to me and tell me that he earnestly believed that Spiderman was real, I'd probably think about what scientific progress that would imply. Since interspecies breeding between spiders and humans is biologically impossible, it would mean that someone had been succesful at splicing spider DNA and human DNA together, to create the anomalies seen in Spiderman (the sticky hairs, for example, and the incredible out-of-proportion-to-its-body strength). I'd also wonder about the technological advances necessary to create the web throwers. I mean, seriously, the amount of web created by those things is simply not possible with current technology, especially not within the size the throwers seem to be. Well, as far as is publically known, of course.

All in all, by using logic, research and scientific proof that both the biological and technical world isn't far enough to create a spider man, I would be able to disprove the existence thereof.

Now, tell me, what science do you propose we use to disprove there is no god?

space boy, that's not a contradiction. It falls in with the 'argument' of science vs religion. It's stupid, because they in fact coincide. God used science to create the world, universe, and man. God has to follow the laws of nature (atoms, energy, etc).

This will probably spawn more flames and discussion....

~Trent

Quote from: voh on Thu 20/11/2008 00:16:53Now, tell me, what science do you propose we use to disprove there is no god?

Where's Dualnames to quote Hitchhiker's Guide for us? lol

~Trent
[Edit]: Dang, shouldn't have double posted this one... Sorry mods!!

Quote from: Trent R on Thu 20/11/2008 00:15:35
To follow-up:

Let's please not talk about the separation of church and state. That topic just completely annoys me.

Why? I'm interested to hear how this could annoy you more then a discussion about religion itself...
I mean, I didn't want to involve you into this discussion anyways, just wanted to point out to Nacho that he might be annoyed with religion and religious people for the wrong reasons.

Quote from: Trent R on Thu 20/11/2008 00:19:14
space boy, that's not a contradiction. It falls in with the 'argument' of science vs religion. It's stupid, because they in fact coincide. God used science to create the world, universe, and man. God has to follow the laws of nature (atoms, energy, etc).

Not really a flame, just an elaboration on what I believe spaceboy meant. If God is omnipotent, by definition he'd wield unlimited power. If he can't control time, he doesn't have that power, his power is therefore limited and as a result He cannot be omnipotent.

Lingistically speaking: period.

voh and spaceboy, I understand your argument and I know that mine is slightly flawed. Not my full belief, but something I thought of: Who says God is really omnipotent? It could just be a word that's been attributed to him since who knows when.

Also (not directed at you two, but to everybody), I'm 18 and therefore don't know everything. I'm just telling what I do know and believe.

~Trent

And I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that if God can't control time, the word omnipotent doesn't accurately describe his power. It's just a semantics thing. Roll with it, it's not worth a debate, really ;)

Agreed voh.

---

[Edit]: Why don't I like church/state arguments? Because I'm usually very tolerant and it's mostly the very vocal and very intolerant people that argue either side. Also, I don't care too much about politics (mainly cause I just got out of highschool)

[Edit2]: But, if you can be tolerant (which is happening so far) then go ahead. I probably won't participate.

voh, how can you not know that Stan Lee created Spiderman? You sinner!!!!
Hehehehe...

~Trent

Quote from: Trent R on Thu 20/11/2008 00:34:32
voh and spaceboy, I understand your argument and I know that mine is slightly flawed. Not my full belief, but something I thought of: Who says God is really omnipotent? It could just be a word that's been attributed to him since who knows when.

Also (not directed at you two, but to everybody), I'm 18 and therefore don't know everything. I'm just telling what I do know and believe.

~Trent

Then don't call him omnipotent if you assume that he's not. That would avoid a lot of confusion.

But I do believe he's Omnipotent.

~Trent

And you also believe he can't control time, is that right?

As far as I know, yes. I believe I already stated that.

But who knows, maybe he can and I haven't seen it. He has power of matter (fish and loaves, water to wine, healing), gravity and other forces (walking on water, separating the Sea), and life (Lazarus and others). So far there's no proof that he can control time, so I won't believe it. Also, that's what I've been taught.

~Trent
PS-Yes, I used the word proof. Please don't go back to that argument anyone...

Then don't state it. By definition, we're right as far as god's 'omnipotence' goes (edit: if god really can't control time, that is). Omnipotence means unlimited power. If someone's power is limited, he can't be omnipotent. Definition.

If you keep saying that god is omnipotent but doesn't have unlimited power, then that's a contradiction, which means it's impossible, which means that's one aspect you claim about your god that we're able to disprove. Now, if you agree that the word omnipotent doesn't accurately describe your god's powers, then we're cool.

Otherwise, I'm afraid that this is exactly the kind of rule-bending (in this situation, changing the definition of a word to fit your meaning of it, which is incorrect) that gives religious people a bad name. Think about it.

Very well. Next topic. :)

[Edit]:Due to the definition of omnipotent, I will no longer use that word. It does not change my beliefs or what I've said.

~Trent

Quote from: Trent R on Thu 20/11/2008 01:02:17
As far as I know, yes. I believe I already stated that.

I know you did, but i wanted to ask again in case i missed something. It still makes no sense to me how god can be able to control everything and at the same time not be able to control everything. If you abandon logic in favor of faith im out of the discussion.

GAH!.... I have just written a load here and accidentally deleted it... really don't want to write it all again, but it was basically in defence of Nacho's statement... although "stupid" might be a bit of a harsh term. I prefer to term it as "grossly misinformed"

My gist is, that millions and millions of children are bought up in schools that force children to pray and sing hymns and they are told stories of the Bible... They tell you that there is a God and that Jesus was his son and that he was born in crib in a stable with an audience of wise-men and sheep, and they never once tell you that you're not expected to take it all literally... How are the kids supposed to know? (I think it's organised indoctrination, but that's because I'm conspiranoid.)

Now, if you are born of a religious family then you are receiving similar messages from your parents, and other relatives... and it is an obvious fact that most religious people come from religious familys.

I didnt have the religious family (thank God Wink ) but I did have the C of E schooling.  As I got older, though, I began to question what I had been taught and realised that everything wasn't meant to be taken literally... but never once had anyone informed me of this... I had to work it out for myself...  Some people can't work it out for themselves... and lack of intelligence must surely be one of the main reasons

What I think Nacho is saying (and if he's not then I am) is that not everybody has the intelligence or independent thought needed to make this realisation that everything in the Bible isn't literal... And "stupid" people are surely more likely to grow up STILL believing this bullshit that their parents and teachers neglected to tell them was not in fact entirely true.

As for religion in school? I've never been taught anything religious in the public school system, despite living in Utah which is a very religious state. Sure, there's the mention of things (generally cultural things of Mormonism/Utahism, but not beliefs of the LDS Church) but never Bible stories or anything else. Most I've ever heard of religion while in public schooling was in 9th grade when the Earth Science teacher told us he had to teach the theory of evolution. He said that it is required of him by the state to teach it, so we had to learn it for the test and curriculum but not necessarily believe it.

~Trent
PS-Restating my edit above, "Due to the definition of omnipotent, I will no longer use that word. It does not change my beliefs or what I've said."

I think anyone who can believe, without a doubt, that every word that is in the Bible is true, is, and I'm holding back here, an idiot. I also think, that anyone who can believe, without a doubt, that there is no god, is an idiot, too.

Life it far too short for us to deal in absolutes. I prefer to hang my beliefs in limbo. That's not to say I don't think about the great questions. I just find, that my mind generally takes me to the conclusion that I don't have the answer or the ability to obtain the answer. As that's the case, I don't completely discount any belief, but I do use rational thought to guide me to probable answers to life's questions.

I think people are entitled to their beliefs, but to say without a doubt you know something, one way or the other, seems arrogant. We're allowed to have beliefs, and have strong convictions, but I think we always must reassess our core beliefs. We must be able to answer why we believe in something, and not be offended when our beliefs are questioned.

I think this is what Nacho is trying to get at. He can't understand someone who believes in something without question. I find it scary that anyone can do that.

-MillsJROSS

@Stupot: Depends on your education and where you grow up, I guess. Here in Germany we don't pray or sing hymns in school (not that I can remember at least!) and the religious education is quite open to the world of science, the modern society and their views.
We learn that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally.
So, I don't know. I can't say that I come from a christian family, but yeah, I got taken to church a few times, I was in the kids church choir (so actually quite voluntarily) and had religious class in school until the tenth grade. Then on the spur of the moment I switched to ethic. I actually was kinda surprised I did this seeing my choice of subjects after the holidays. I think I learned more there, but I never had to defend my belief or lack thereof in any way I can remember. While state and church aren't really separated in Germany religion isn't really force upon kids.

Of course, except if you parents force you to it, but well, how should society change that.

Quote from: Ozzie on Thu 20/11/2008 01:46:26Of course, except if you parents force you to it, but well, how should society change that.

And I don't think it can change(or will soon). The role of a parent is to teach and raise their kids as they know best. If that involves religion or not, then so be it. Yes, some parents literally force things on their kids. But when it comes to religion? I doubt it's forcing and more just being a parent and passing on their own beliefs.

~Trent

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 20/11/2008 01:44:56
I think people are entitled to their beliefs, but to say without a doubt you know something, one way or the other, seems arrogant.

But the argument here isn't about the existene of God.  The argument is about the 'literalness' of the Bible... there are parts of it that ANY intelligent religious person would agree are not supposed to be taken entirely literally - even the Arch Bishop of Canterbury or the Pope would agree... it is the undeniable concensus... but there are some people who STILL believe these things because of their being naive or misinformed (or stupid)... these are the people we are talking about.  They're denying the facts.

Just because some people still believe it, doesn't mean the rest of us have to respect that... some people believe Earth is flat when, again ANY normal intelligent person would agree that it's not... would you have a problem with me calling them stupid?...

Can we at least be agreed that God gave Rock N' Roll to everyone? :=

~Trent
PS-Yes this was a useless post. I'm out for the evening, so good night to you fine gentlemen.

voh:
I agree, though I have to say that IMO expecting others being respectful towards one's own beliefs has to be earned (or at least is a privilege one can loose). I don't feel the need to be respectful towards someone's belief that smurfs are real. I'll get back to that later.

Quote from: Trent R on Thu 20/11/2008 00:10:221) Even though I said I believe in the Big Bang theory (parts of it), I do not believe in evolution from monkeys. God made man in his own image (from the book of Genesis). As for the evidence of neanderthal bones, I have an interesting point that I'll make later.

First of all, man didn't evolve from monkeys; according to the theory of evolution, they have a common genetic ancestor. (You using that stupid and wrong understanding of the TofE - which is still actively misused by creationists to discredit it - doesn't exactly improve your stance in this discussion, if I may say so.)
Secondly, if you ditch parts of your religion but believe in other parts, why not ditch it altogether? Simply doesn't make any sense.
And I'd still love to hear that interesting point about Neanderthal bones.

Since I fear that this debate is going to drift off into a debate about god's existence, I'd like to throw in my two cents regarding that:
It's a completely moot point. There's no way to prove either point of view. (You all know that, I'm sure.)

This is my opinion:
A religious debate (or more accurately, a debate of religion vs. science [since they in no way coincide at all]) should center on the question whether it makes sense to believe in something that can't be proved nor disproved rather than to "believe" in something that can be disproved, until it is disproved.
Religion was born thousands of years ago when "primitive" people tried to explain to themselves how the world worked. A thunderstorm is the work of Thor, God of Thunder.
Now we have the scientific method, the perfect (and only) tool to show us how the world probably is. A thunderstorm is the result of warm and cool air clashing into each other and discharges of electricity.
A clergyman preaches the final truth according to his holy book. Cleverly contrived, these "truths" can't be disproved. The search for answers is over.
A scientist will immediately ditch a theory he regards as the truth as soon as it is disproved, in order to look for a new theory better suited to describe reality. The search for truth is pursued constantly, and while the goal might never be reached, we're taking one step at a time towards it.

I personally don't distinguish between the belief in God, Jesus, Santa Claus, unicorns or fairies. There's simply no reason to distinguish between it other than the fact that religious people might feel insulted.
Stupot already said it: the earth isn't flat. A few decades/centuries from now, it's probably perfectly acceptable to laugh at any irrational beliefs, why not start early?

Yay! Many replies! :)

I will try to reply to all of them in the best way I can:

Voh, apparently you disproved the existence of Spider-Man. the existence of God it' s supported by the same amount of evidences. If you can disprove one, and not the other, it's a mistery for me. A mistery that must have answered by you, not me.

God is a supernatural being. An evidence of a supernatural being could be an a proof that something supernatural has been made. Bible is full of "evidences" that support that supernatural things happened (Divine interventions, such creating everything, open the red sea, creating the lenguajes, send us the Deluge...). Everybody agrees that "those evidences" are flawed, so... No evidences.

We are at the starting point, we have nothing.

No archaelogical support.
No rational support.
No scientific support.

Only... "Faith".

Of course, a "common faith" sprouting in the mind of all the earth population at the same time, making everybody feel the same and worshipping the same, would be a big evidence that "something" supernatural put that "faith" there. It should be an unexplained event. As far as I know, inexplicable as well.
But we do not have that. We have "Allahs", "Jahvés", "Gods", "Vishnus", etc, etc... What I can't really understand why believers say "respect me", and are not able to respect, as somebody else said, "StarWarism", "Scientology", "LordoftheRigsosism", or "Flyngspaghettisism".

Where do you put the line? You put the line in that commonly accepted Gods are older?

Ok, that earth was flat is a quite old concept... Excuse me if I don't trust of it. The "age" of the beliefs has never been a support about its plausability.

Do we "accept this commonly accepted Gods" because they are more popular? No. At least, we shouldn' t. Truth is truth, no matter if it's deffensed by everybody or only one (or novbody).

I think that the number of people in the USA believing that the Earth was the centre of the Universe still is around 30%. Even if they were 99%, the Sun would still be the centre of our System. Faith do not move mountains, or planets...

I didn' t deny the existence of God... I just say that the amount of evidences to support its existence is equal to the ones supporting the existence of the flying spaghetti, the Smurs, Superman, or the  pink Unicorn. CERO. Since it' s impossible to proof the unexistance of something, I will not try to prove the unexistance of God. Why do believers say that "Everything but my belief" is false? I don't  know.

I' ve been asked to "respect them".

How can I?

They say "My God is real".

They don' t say "I think my God is real", or "God is real for me", or "Man, it probably does not exist after all, but I draw a set of moral techings from Bible that work for me".

They say "God is real, if you don' t believe in him, you are wrong".

Which could be ok... When you argue with someone, no matter how polite you are, you are basically saying that your point of view is correct, and the other' s side is not, let' s face it. But religion has a set of institutional and moral advantages that are unfair.

If we find that a parent is putting a set of irrational ideas into a kid's mind, with no support of logic, rationality or critical thinking we would probably complain. It is unfair, the kid can' t fight against those irrational ideas. "Man, it' s my dad who is telling me that, it must be true! It' s my teacher who is telling me that! An adult! It MUST be true!"

Why we don't complain when the set of irrational belifs comes in the accepted pack called "Religion"? We should.

At the end, the only reply, no matter how you express it is: "Because I believe on it".

And that's religion. Telling that the ones who do not believe are wrong, but with no support.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 08:15:07
If we find that a parent is putting a set of irrational ideas into a kid's mind, with no support of logic, rationality or critical thinking we would probably complain. It is unfair, the kid can' t fight against those irrational ideas. "Man, it' s my dad who is telling me that, it must be true! It' s my teacher who is telling me that! An adult! It MUST be true!"

Yeah, I think if no one would be raised in a christian way (by school and / or parents), christianity would just die, cause few would suddenly become christians as a result of a personal decision in a certain age.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 08:15:07
And that's religion. Telling that the ones who do not believe are wrong, but with no support.

That is not true. For many people religion is a personal thing and religion can respect other religions (and atheists too), the beliefs are just different.


Apart of that I second everything Khrismuc posted. Well said.

I don't think that a "real believer" can really accept that the others might be right, since "real belief" is basically, believe upon all the rest.

If believing means "Believe in me, but respect the others", then I might agree, but for belivers, the thing has allways been "Believe in me, full stop".

Can God create so difficult an adventuregame he can't solve it without using a walkthrough?

Anyhow, I think the anti-religious movement has become bizarrely hot-headed lately.

Terrorism and oppression and inquisitions aren't the results of religion; they occur for other reasons but act in its name.

Well, of course, not every religion has an evangelical imperative (i.e. feels they need to convert others). Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, for example. They accept converts but do not actively proselytize (except for a few tiny unofficial minorities within the religion).

I don't get the the whole idea of not telling your kids about your faith. Here's my reasoning.

1. I believe that Christianity is true
2. I believe that its the only sure way to eternal life
3. I don't want my kids to die
4. But, wait, I won't tell my kids what I believe is true, so I'll just let them die... NOT.

Andail: oh no, you've created a linguistic paradox, I've seen then the light and am now an atheist. :P

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 19/11/2008 23:56:58
Because religion is still "oficial" in many sides of the world. The day that finishes, I will give a shit about what people does or does not indoors.

So as long as one tiny country might exist in the world with a state religion, you will be belligerent to every religion in every country? That seems... disproportionate.

If you are right, your kids will live forever. If you do not, then it doesn't matter what they believed when they were alive after dying, they will be dead, and nothing else that dead.

So, let' s believe, a sure way to win!

It' s one of the main reasons why people belive, yes...

Quote from: SSH on Thu 20/11/2008 11:13:14
I don't get the the whole idea of not telling your kids about your faith. Here's my reasoning.

Of course you should tell your children about your faith. But e.g telling them to go to church on every sunday is something terrible in my eyes. And frightening them by saying that god gets angry if they don't (or something like that) is even worse. I guess you're not doing that but a lot of people do I'm afraid.

Quote from: SSH on Thu 20/11/2008 11:13:14
1. I believe that Christianity is true
2. I believe that its the only sure way to eternal life
3. I don't want my kids to die
4. But, wait, I won't tell my kids what I believe is true, so I'll just let them die... NOT.

You should let your children decide if they're afraid of death by not being christian when they're old enough to decide for themselves. I don't like the idea of raising children in a religious way.

Or telling them "I believe them in a complete irrational way. There are no evidences suporting my beliefs and I might be wrong".

But none, of almost none of religious parents say that to their children.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 08:15:07
And that's religion. Telling that the ones who do not believe are wrong, but with no support.

No, it's not, though I can see how you can end up with a line like that, so no worries here.

Religion is a complex thing, and it is mostly based on being told simple lies so that, in the END, you can come up with a view on the topic that is your own. When you're a kid you can believe the bible, literally, because it really is a bit like a fairy tale. Later, also in school, you're usually encouraged to learn stuff that is totally contradictionary- like evolution. And here, one thing often leads to the other- you see contradictions, you start to think, and ou see that the lie is not exactly a lie, but just a truth told in a much too simple way. Did Jesus really live? Well, I think he did. Was he the son of God? Quite possibly not, but nevertheless a wise man. And, most importantly, a man, meaning human.
I am not a religious man but I value some parts of the bible for being thoughtful and obviously included to give us some guidelines how to behave socially. And that, at least in my book, is religion- a set of rules that make our society possible. I know you can easily argue with my point of view, but since you plaster yours all over the place, well, I thought I'd do so too.

Edit:
This (thread) has obviously jumped the shark, nuked the fridge and has become troll food.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 11:26:14
It' s one of the main reasons why people belive, yes...

For someone so keen on people having evidence to back up your assertions you make a lot of statements with no evidence. Where is your evidence for this statement, please? I don't accept "Everyone I know" anecdotes here, by the way.

Quote from: matti on Thu 20/11/2008 11:30:03
Of course you should tell your children about your faith. But e.g telling them to go to church on every sunday is something terrible in my eyes.

My kids LIKE to go to church. We have a great church. I quite understand that some of you may find this harder to believe than the idea of a god, but some churches do exist that are fun for kids!

Quote
You should let your children decide if they're afraid of death by not being christian when they're old enough to decide for themselves. I don't like the idea of raising children in a religious way.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to deny my beliefs just to make you feel better. However, they have already looked at what other religions believe, so they're not ignorant of other religions and belief systems. I'm not trying to keep them in the dark.

And Nacho, there IS evidence (evidence, not proof), its just that you don't like it and dismiss it. That doesn't stop it being evidence. Have you ever attended a court? No evidence is 100% reliable: people's memories, documents, etc. can all be corrupted but these are quite rightly used to convict people of crimes. Why do you hold religion to a much higher standard?

Show me that evidences.

One different to "I believe it and I know it's true", please.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 11:44:20
Show me that evidences.

One different to "I believe it and I know it's true", please.

I asked for your evidence for you assertion first. Stop avoiding answering the difficult questions that people put to you.

But here's a taster: my personal experience of God, many other's personal experiences of God. Miracles. Healings. The Bible.

My evidences about my statement that people believes because it's a "jocker" they can use in the unlikely case that life after life exist are:

My personal experience about believers, many other's personal experiences about believers, because they have told to me, because there is no rational reason to believe in it other than that, that the Bible is full of lies and nothing on it shows it has been inspired by something else than man.

If you're just going to mock my response rather than give a proper answer then why bother?

In what way is "the Bible is full of lies" evidence rather than an assertion? I'm not sure how that is evidence that any believers only believe as a back-up. And are you saying that a believer told you that he only believed for that reason? Would this be one of the believers that you yourself said wasn't really a believer but went to church because of the conventions in Spain?

So, your "evidences" work, and when I reply exactly the same, on the other side don't?

Mmmm... I thought this was about being respectful... Apparently RELIGION does not accept what it asks the others to accept. It' s not respectfull.

And yes, that "the bible is full of lies" is an evidence. It' s full of things that are impossible from the point of view of physics. Want me to start?

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 12:17:43
Yes, it' s an evidence. It' s full of things that are impossible from the point of view of physics.

But how is that evidence for people's motivation to believe, which is the statement you made that I'm asking you to provide evidence for?

Quote from: SSH on Thu 20/11/2008 11:39:27

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 11:26:14
It' s one of the main reasons why people belive, yes...

For someone so keen on people having evidence to back up your assertions you make a lot of statements with no evidence. Where is your evidence for this statement, please? I don't accept "Everyone I know" anecdotes here, by the way.

What I ask, is, that I am told to accept someone' s beliefs even if he ask not further evidence than "They are mine", they must accept my beliefs of not believing. Since the original belief is "You must believe in God, and the ones who do not are wrong" that's a believe that I can't accept.

EDIT: Oh, you don' t accept my "anecdotes" te believe me when I say that a lot of people believe because "it is easy" but I must accept your "anecdotes" when you tell me that "God is real"? How is that?

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 11:26:14
If you are right, your kids will live forever. If you do not, then it doesn't matter what they believed when they were alive after dying, they will be dead, and nothing else that dead.

So, let' s believe, a sure way to win!

It' s one of the main reasons why people belive, yes...

Please answer the question I've asked 3 times already and provide some, any, evidence for the last sentence you posted that I quote above. Anecdotes would prove that SOME SPANISH people believe for that reason, which hardly qualifies as a "main reason" out of over a billion Christians worldwide.

My personal experience tells me that many believers believe just because of that. It doesn't work for you? Perfect. Your personal religious experiences do not work for me, either.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 12:26:12
My personal experience tells me that many believers believe just because of that.

So you're saying that you've had a few Spanish friends tell you that that's the reason they believe? And that you're extrapolating from that to over a billion Christians worldwide?

Thanks. Your point is clear.

You want me to accept your beliefs giving me the same level of evidences you would consider insufficient if coming from me.

THAT, is RELIGION.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 12:32:48
You want me to accept your beliefs giving me the same level of evidences you would consider insufficient if coming from me.

No, I'm saying that I've had a personal experience of God. That is evidence there is a God in the same way that one persons's testimony in court is evidence. You may not believe it but it is still evidence. It is not evidence that MANY people have had an experience of God but then I am not claiming that. 

You are claiming that a few experiences of believers describing motivation (which you seem VERY reluctant to confirm so you probably made it up anyway) extrapolates to applying to the whole world across diverse cultures. Your supposed experiences ARE evidence that there are people who believe for that reason, but then I wasn't disputing that.

You really should study about logic and debate because you spend your time knocking down strawmen, avoiding answering questions and completely missing the point.

I might not know much of debate, but at least I know about physics... And I know that Bible is full of impossible things... and I know that believing in something without having more evidence that "believe it because I say so!" is not the correct way to procede (It opens the door to "Black people are infra humans! Why? Because I say it!" or "Women are less intelligent! Why??? Because I say it")

Do you believe in something? Prove it to me.

Your "evidences" are the experiences you had with God? Okay. I can testify that there is people who had experiences with things that you wouldn't consider as divine, and the result on them is indistinguishable from a "relgious experience". You don' t believe my word? Okay... I don't believe yours.

<sigh>





Ps. I know enough about Quantum Physics to know that nothing is impossible (with the exception of objectivity).

Pps. When we're done bashing each other we should all sit down in a circle, hold hands, and sing 'blowing in the wind' together...I think that's a safe non-religious/non-non-religious song. Oh, and don't forget the flowers. We need flowers. Lot's of flowers.

Ppps. I wanted to be part of this thrilling discussion as well. ;)

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 12:55:45
Your "evidences" are the experiences you had with God? Okay. I can testify that there is people who had experiences with things that you wouldn't consider as divine, and the result on them is indistinguishable from a "relgious experience". You don' t believe my word? Okay... I don't believe yours.

But, I do believe that people in other religions have had such experiences. I don't deny that there is also evidence against the Christian god and evidence for other gods. I am persuaded most by the evidence for a Christian god and so that's what I believe. You are persuaded most by atheist evidence and so that's what you believe.

You still haven't answered the point about the validity of your extrapolation. Its this avoidance of yours that makes your assertions look suspicious, not the fact that they differ from my experience.  Oh, and while we're on silly extrapolations:

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 12:32:48
You want me to accept your beliefs giving me the same level of evidences you would consider insufficient if coming from me.

THAT, is RELIGION.

So you've extrapolated from your debate with me to billions of people of every religion. Hmmm.

There's a lot of stuff in the world that we believe in without hard evidence. Does Coca Cola exist? What is it? A man? A building? A piece of paper? Whatever it is, it's certainly not a soft-drink. Coca Cola has good days and bad days, it hires and fires, it has a massive impact on many people's lives far beyond what a bottle of sugar-water can possibly have. It's basically just an ongoing tale, or collection of stories, told and kept alive in the business section of newspapers. How about me, the "I"? Does the word "I" point to something? In many cases it points to a body, but "my" in "my body" suggests the body is a property that belongs to someone, just like I am not my hand (it's "my hand"), I am not my brain (it's "my brain") and so on and so forth. "I" might also "just" be a collection of stories that binds together a number of factors, my physical body, my actions, my experiences, my influence on other people, etc. Some will say "I can't see it, so it can't possibly exist," others "it's the basis against which other experiences are even possible." Religious debates always fail because we act as though the religious question at its core concerns *how* the world is (which would put it in direct competition with natural science), when it is actually *that* the world is (which no science comes close to addressing). Why not nothing at all? That's the one irrefutably proven miracle, if you subscribe to that point of view.

@SSH. I was not talking of "people in other religions having such experiences"

(I don 't know from where you took that, since I wrote: "There is people who had experiences with things that you wouldn't consider as divine, and the result on them is indistinguishable from a "relgious experience", but it' s okay)

I was talking of people who had important experiences based on friendship, people who has been touched by movies, books, by love... Yes, even experiences based in following a football team.

Those experiences, from outside (I can' t tell since I never had a religious experience) look indistinguishable from religious ones I've witnessed. I can't tell which ones were "more vivid", since I was not "inside of that person" to know what he/she was really experiencing, but, from outside, they look equal.

And if in "experiences B" I know there is not "divine intervention" (Unless you tell me that you really believe there is something divine on crying after seeing Darth Vader dying for the zillionth time or seeing how your football team wins the Champion's League), then, with "experiences A" (The religious ones) there' s nothing telling me that there actually is a divine intervention. If the divine experiences are different from the "normal" ones I could say "Hey, it' s true, there is something unexplained there, it must be God".

But they are not.

Unless you say "My experiences are better than yours". Well... You can' t, because you can' t know what I feel. If, even with that, you go on saying "I can't  feel what you feel, but, even with that, I know that my experiences are more valid than yours", then, you should feeling superior to me (Because you would be assumimg that you can do something I can' t and because you would be assuming that something we described in simillar words is "better" when "felt by you", and not "when felt by me").

And that' s another thing religion is. Feeling superior to the ones who do not believe the same things you do.

I've already addressed why I think that religion in itself, i.e. the notion of believing in something without evidence, let alone proof, is bad. Sort of the theoretical side.

Now for the practical side, i.e. why religion is bad for people:
One main argument constantly brought forth by the random religious person off the street as well as high-ranking clerics on TV is that a life without God is bound to be sad and pointless. They even go so far as to say, if there's no God, why would anybody feel motivated to do good at all? Implying that all hell'd break loose if there were no Judgment Day eventually.
Apart from this argument being BS in my opinion, it's very revealing: it implies that many Christians are only doing good because they fear consequences.
Or let me put it this way: if an atheist does a good deed, you can be certain he does so because he wants to, not because he wants to make sure he doesn't go to hell.

Another often used argument is this: the church engages itself in charity work, helping starving people in Africa, etc.
This argument implies that religious belief is needed to help other people, or that there aren't any non-religious organizations doing charity work, too. Of course, that's BS, too.

An example of why religion is explicitly bad for people: it's used to oppress people and to control people. A popular example: Muslims use religion to oppress women.
And of course, the equally popular counter-argument is just around the corner: just because a knife can be used to kill somebody doesn't make the knife a bad thing itself, the knife is neutral, it's the person who's using it to kill that's bad.
The thing is: if somebody murders someone using a knife, he's regarded as a bad person and locked away. But if someone uses religion to oppress people, you have to respect his belief.

An even better example: raising a child religiously is child abuse. Nobody would label their child as being liberal or conservative, or as being pro-life or pro-abortion. The general public acknowledges that pushing those ideas onto a child is an unnecessary burden and every responsible  parent will agree that their kid has to make up their own mind once they're old enough. Somehow though, this isn't the case with religion. It's somehow perfectly acceptable to label a three-year-old a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever. And somehow, it's perfectly acceptable to raise a child accordingly, pushing ideas onto them they can't and won't possibly question objectively.
A child can't distinguish between "Don't bathe in the river, it's full of crocodiles" and "Don't have premarital sex, it'll end you down in hell".

No

I mean, this conversation is hilarious. It got all 6 pages in 2 days, and I read through it all while I was supposed to be studying for my linguistic exams. Oh well.

Nacho, my man... Your atheism is starting to sound like a fundamental religion, though not believeing in a deity but an ideology. I think a lot of people have the right to believe in God's existance if they wish to, or they can belive otherwise, but it's hard to exclude yourself from a belief at all. especially as long as you have an ideology or a belief that is contrary to yours. I'd call it "believing that there is no god", if the opposite is still called "believing in God". You could as well call them believing the negative and the positive point of view about the existance of this said deity. Doesn't make you more or less a believer in that sense. Also, your last statement here. Do you not feel superior to everyone else, that believes? Because earlier on this thread you said the bible is full of lies and that's just because they are lies and stupid because they are stupid, and there's no denying that.

Also, I used to call myself an atheist before I realised, that the group of atheists that have organised around here are doing the same work as the christians, going around, converting religious people to follow their views. I thought about it and realised I didn't want to have anything to do with such a division between people who really have no need to argue. I emphasize those words because that's the reason I left church. I don't believe in God, but I don't believe in preaching his inexistense either, and that's what you seem to be doing.

As far as evidence goes, I myself decided I'd rather listen to evidence that say something isn't true than ones that say something is true. That's being a sceptic in some sense, isn't it? OK, I might stray from my path if the evidence is obvious. But I remain sceptic towards something that hasn't been proven. I take medicine called Deprakine, and on the brochure it says it helps here and here, but the reason why it does so isn't known. Funny, huh?

The main problem with religious debates on internet going to stick quickly is because many do not realize that it is internet.

To stay normal, one should make a clear difference between stating a fact/call to arms and expressing personal opinion... and realize how (un)important that statement or opinion really is. This is where those threads fail. And usually, it starts from a believer who is obsessed with an idea that his almighty God, whatever its name is, really needs a protection from this particular moron in an internet forum.

For example, my personal opinion is that religion - any kind - in our time - IS kinda stupid, and people who go around hating and trying to change the non-believers are total idiots.
However, if religion helps one to be a better person or find confidence in life, I find it really positive and instead of stupid, a clever psychological choice to enforce yourself doing something good and ensure willpower all the time do keep on doing it. Religion is a free choice, after all. If you chose to believe, you had a reason for it.

So I find stupid stuff not about religion itself really, but people who practice religion. If they're stupid, there's nothing to do unless you play same game and try to change THEM in exchange. Ok, maybe religion too. God in a form of burning bush? Come on...

Now surely, some of you agree, some of you call me ignorant, and so on. Isn't that the whole point?

That's why I see no problems with religious debate threads. It's a free world.
And problems/hate are natural part of those threads, till mentioned group of believing people does exist and participate in those threads. I choose to ignore it.

Tuomas, what I repeteadly said is that religion has to be taken out of any official institution. I don' t care what people believes indoors. It's a pitty they tech their kids something irrational, but that' s their problem.

I never said anyone "Don't  believe". What I say is that there is no evidence, that it' s irrational, and that you must not try to convince me.

If you think I am saying something else... Read the posts again.

I just wanted to repost in order to say thank you to Bicolli for the MOST SUCCESSFUL post of this thread ever! YAY! My signature is IN this debate! How excellent!

huge thanks to emerald as well for making this lovely reply of his! ;D

Now, Nacho, I would suggest the following: Relax, talk about other things and then come back to read what you say. There is a weird bichotomy, but your passion AGAINST religion is giving some extra strength to your posts! ;) You keep saying that you don't mind what other people believe, etc, etc, but it can hardly be seen through your posts.

(posted in reply to KrisMUC's post, but it seems by the time I'm hitting post my post has become obsolete. But since it's taken me so long... I'm posting it anyway :P )

I think that to really have a fruitful discourse on religious beliefs or any other kind of belief/opinion-based issue, you have to try to understand the opposite side's point of view, not set forth to assert your own. That's not really happening in this thread. If you tell somebody, "I don't agree with you. Make me agree with you", it will never happen. You have to go find out about his point of view yourself, and keep your mind open enough.

That said, regarding Nacho's original question - if you have read the Bible, you'd know that Jesus himself never took the Bible literally. It says in the Old Testament to stone adulterers. Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." So yes, it's pretty fair to say Bible literalism is stupid. Agreement all round.

On the other hand, it's indeed true that many, many many MANY things in Christianity are contradictory. It's the nature of man to be contradictory and in some cases, irrational. And anyone who says that religion today is not corrupted in some way by man hasn't been following history very closely. So, make of that what you will.

Now for the latest points discussed in this thread:

Religion as a catch-all concept is very confusing. Many so-called major religions are more like a philosophy, for example Confucianism and Buddhism. I realise that you guys are all coming from a Western-centric view of religion, which usually has a single God as its focus, but I just wanted to straighten that out. Because, saying something like "all religion is bad" is simply showing ignorance of the many different kinds of religion in the world.

I do agree with KrisMUC that many Christians give the impression that they do good things out of a fear of consequences. Very sad. It's the kind of thinking that leads to the hellfire and brimstones kind of sermons. On the other hand, let's look at whether this is really what Christianity teaches. Anybody remember the parable of the good Samaritan? The Jews hated Samaritans because they believed in different things. And yet it was the Samaritan who did the good deed. So, if you come across Christians who think people have no morality if they have no religion - point them to the good Samaritan and tell them to think about it. (There are no examples in the Bible of people with no religion doing good deeds, probably because of the times then - this was the closest I could find.)

Again, I agree too that it's not only the church that does charity work. In fact I think quite the opposite - churches nowadays seem far more interested in filling their own pockets and expanding their power. It's quite scary to think about sometimes. But since religious and non-religious organisations alike do good deeds, this is not a good point to argue on.

QuoteThe thing is: if somebody murders someone using a knife, he's regarded as a bad person and locked away. But if someone uses religion to oppress people, you have to respect his belief.

If a religious person murders someone, he's locked away too. This is the case in Singapore, where I live, and where there is a large number of religious people. I assume this is the case in the US, UK and many of the Western countries. The only time his belief is "respected" is if those who write the law are of the same beliefs as the murderer. Whether that is religion's fault depends on whether you are willing to paint a whole religion with the same brush, or whether you're willing to allow that even within a religion there are many different ways to interpret its laws.

The children thing is rather complicated. Let's say we have a father who is a lawyer. His father has been a lawyer, and his father's father, and his father's father's father etc. He can't imagine that his son would want to be anything other than a lawyer, and raises him as such, drilling him in debating skills since childhood, sending him to law school and everything. The kid may or may not want to be a lawyer when he grows up, but the damage is done - the training to be a lawyer in his youth has shaped his personality. This does happen often, and so it happens with religion, and everything else. Parents naturally bring up their children in the best way that they know how. I don't think it's fair to blame the parents for this, unless they were willfully negligent or abusive. Ignorant parents, well, there's a dime a dozen of these, religious or otherwise.

QuoteUnless you say "My experiences are better than yours". Well... You can' t, because you can' t know what I feel. If, even with that, you go on saying "I can't  feel what you feel, but, even with that, I know that my experiences are more valid than yours", then, you should feeling superior to me (Because you would be assumimg that you can do something I can' t and because you would be assuming that something we described in simillar words is "better" when "felt by you", and not "when felt by me").

Damn straight. No one can establish that something exists just because "I've experienced it". Otherwise ghosts, Bigfoot, fairies and all the rest would be cold hard fact.
On the other hand, SSH has a point too. You would normally believe a person even though he/she can't prove something. If you ask someone "Were you at the concert the other day?" and they said "Yes", you'd take their word for it. Take that a step further, and if that person said "I was at the concert, and I heard the singer insult the audience!" then that person's word would be a piece of firsthand evidence. You can only correlate it by asking some other concertgoers. If they all said "yes" you would generally believe it, wouldn't you? It's not DEFINITE proof until someone produces a recording of the concert (and even then, how far would you take your skepticism? "The recording might be doctored"? Heck, why not ask if the concert really existed - if the whole thing wasn't some kind of mass hallucination?).
So it is that until facts are provided to prove/disprove the existence of God, you'll just have to believe some people when they say they have religious experiences, and some other people agree.

I noticed that what atheists are most aggrieved about are the evangelists. Let me tell you that hardcore evangelists are probably disliked by many, many many people, including other Christians. I once met a bunch of people who were trying to convince me to attend their church. I asked them "so why should I attend your church if I already attend one?" They said "oh, but there are false prophets..." I gave up on them immediately. Calling other churches "false prophets" (actually, they said "fake goods" - eurgh) is so far from what I understand of Christianity that I still have trouble wrapping my head around the concept.

As for miracles... there are big miracles, and then there are the little everyday ones. Some people believe in the big miracles, like faith healing and whatever. I believe in the little ones, like being alive, aware and breathing. These are the things I thank God for. Some people believe that this is the result of randomness and chaos, and not some intelligent superbeing - that's all right. The world does truly seem to be randomness and chaos at times.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 14:29:26
And that' s another thing religion is. Feeling superior to the ones who do not believe the same things you do.

You must be religious, then, Nacho. Or at least very bad at conveying that you don't feel superior to people who believe things you call stupid.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 20/11/2008 15:10:23
An even better example: raising a child religiously is child abuse. Nobody would label their child as being liberal or conservative, or as being pro-life or pro-abortion.

Funnily enough, I bet most fetuses are anti-abortion. Perhaps they change their mind when they pass through a cervix.

I do not abuse my kids, KhrisMUC. I find it offensive that you say I do. I raise them, telling them what I believe to be true. Funny how you were complaining about double standards: if I tell my 4 year old to turn off lights to save the planet is that child abuse even though many people don't believe in global warming? If I tell them not to watch too much TV because I believe its bad even though studies are ambiguous on this, is that child abuse? You have your own double standards.

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 20/11/2008 16:00:19
I just wanted to repost in order to say thank you to Bicolli [...]

Mhhh, Bicolli, I somewhat like it.  [grin]

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 15:51:08
Tuomas, what I repeteadly said is that religion has to be taken out of any official institution. I don' t care what people believes indoors.

If that's the case, I should really read through your posts again, because I saw almost no words referring to that. Basically what I thought you said was, that the bible is stupid and everyone who believes is stupid. Perhaps I was then mistaken... Don't see how though.

Quote from: auriond on Thu 20/11/2008 16:11:33

QuoteThe thing is: if somebody murders someone using a knife, he's regarded as a bad person and locked away. But if someone uses religion to oppress people, you have to respect his belief.

If a religious person murders someone, he's locked away too.

Sure. But the parallel I wanted to draw is using a neutral tool in a bad way.

SSH: It's abuse in the sense that tales of hellfire instill a horrible, real fear in children, while tales of melting pole caps or the prospect of becoming stupid by watching to many cartoons doesn't.
I fail to see how that makes me have double standards.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 15:51:08I don' t care what people believes indoors. It's a pitty they tech their kids something irrational, but that' s their problem.

I never said anyone "Don't  believe". What I say is that there is no evidence, that it' s irrational, and that you must not try to convince me.

By using the term 'irrational' you imply that no one (in his or her right mind) can come to the conclusion that - after rationally weighing the 'data' - the existence of God as a creator of everything is more likely than no creator at all. While I believe that you with your knowledge and (preconceived) ideas might - by means of reason - come to the conclusion that there is no God, I also believe that other people with their knowledge and (preconceived) ideas can - by means of reason - come to the opposite conclusion. And no. I don't think these people lack knowledge.

By using the term 'irrational' you imply a judgement of value, where you say: "sure, you're allowed to believe that, but I know better". Personally I think that answers your original question 'why?' - Why do people think it's verbally punching, insulting, and aggressive? - Because you make people who do believe this feel you judge them, and consider yourself to be superior to them. Which - by the way - is the same thing you accuse religion of:

QuoteAnd that's another thing religion is. Feeling superior to the ones who do not believe the same things you do.

And since you frequently stated that you do not what to be treated like that...why should religious people want to be treated in that way?

It's a vicious circle. :)

Ps. But at least I got to answer the original question 'why'. Maybe not to anyones liking, but I answered it nontheless.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 20/11/2008 16:33:16
SSH: It's abuse in the sense that tales of hellfire instill a horrible, real fear in children, while tales of melting pole caps .... doesn't.

The thing is, global warming REALLY SHOULD SCARE YOU.

My kids aren't in fear of hellfire. They're believers, so why should they worry about that?

Quote from: SSH on Thu 20/11/2008 16:42:56

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 20/11/2008 16:33:16
SSH: It's abuse in the sense that tales of hellfire instill a horrible, real fear in children, while tales of melting pole caps .... doesn't.

The thing is, global warming REALLY SHOULD SCARE YOU.

My kids aren't in fear of hellfire. They're believers, so why should they worry about that?

Woah, sorry if I have to come in at a point where most of the discussion has already been laid out to a good extent - but I am rather shocked by your argument there, SSH. Are you really going so far as to say that non-believers should be in fear of hellfire?

Quote from: kaputtnik on Thu 20/11/2008 17:07:31
Are you really going so far as to say that non-believers should be in fear of hellfire?

No, I said that believers don't. I have no idea what hell is like. Some say annihilation, some say separation from god, some say fire and brimstone, some say Milton Keynes. And I also believe that God is a god of mercy, but I also believe that believers don't need to worry about that.

The generalization in this thread is driving me nuts.
It may be a personal weakness to believe in god or to cling to a religion.
But then, many big questions are still not answered by science, so how should I answer myself things with that I don't have the faintest idea how they could work or could have happened without believing in god, maybe?

But even if at some point in time all those questions will be fully answered, people would still need to know, understand and accept them. They may choose simpler explanations, though.

Whatever, people are imperfect by definition, and I'm glad it's this way.

But how are you making things better by telling them that they are stupid for believing in a god?

Am I stupid because I am ridiculously bad in sport or can't think abstractly?
Because I'm incapable of good english or have a relatively short attention span?

Every person has its strength and weaknesses, and if people believe and pray to a higher spirit to make them feel better then you shouldn't have a fucking problem with that.

Quote from: SSH on Thu 20/11/2008 17:54:58

Quote from: kaputtnik on Thu 20/11/2008 17:07:31
Are you really going so far as to say that non-believers should be in fear of hellfire?

No, I said that believers don't. I have no idea what hell is like. Some say annihilation, some say separation from god, some say fire and brimstone, some say Milton Keynes. And I also believe that God is a god of mercy, but I also believe that believers don't need to worry about that.

Alright, so if you define hell as a personal state of mind rather than a fixed concept, I think I'll be fine with your argument. Losing your belief can lead you into trouble, everybody has a kind of belief to some extent. Even if it's only a fierce belief in the nonexistence of any god whatsoever.

In my opinion, nobody has the right to doubt or to take away this belief, as long as it is not a belief that interferes with other people or is imposed onto them. I'm not an expert when it comes to world religions, but I think that most common religions do so.

Misj:

"Irrational: Not rational; unfounded or nonsensical.
an irrational decision"

So, basically... Yes.

Religion is the most irrational popular belief. If people changes and start believing more in some other irrational thing, I will start fighting against it, meanwhile...

Quote from: SSH on Thu 20/11/2008 17:54:58

Quote from: kaputtnik on Thu 20/11/2008 17:07:31
Are you really going so far as to say that non-believers should be in fear of hellfire?

No, I said that believers don't. I have no idea what hell is like. Some say annihilation, some say separation from god, some say fire and brimstone, some say Milton Keynes. And I also believe that God is a god of mercy, but I also believe that believers don't need to worry about that.

Just curious if you've thought how you'd handle your kid being depressed or saddened if they come home one day afraid for a friend who doesn't share their belief and they are afraid will go to hell or whatever.

Not trying to start something but my roommate and friend in college told me that he gets very depressed when he thinks of all his friends that will not go to heaven and I had nothing to say that could make him feel better. The only thing that would have helped is if I converted to his religion and he believed that I was sincere in my conversion. I personally wonder how one can enjoy a heaven knowing that loved ones aren't there without just plain old getting over it like humans do when someone dies.

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 20/11/2008 18:24:17

Quote from: SSH on Thu 20/11/2008 17:54:58

Quote from: kaputtnik on Thu 20/11/2008 17:07:31
Are you really going so far as to say that non-believers should be in fear of hellfire?

No, I said that believers don't. I have no idea what hell is like. Some say annihilation, some say separation from god, some say fire and brimstone, some say Milton Keynes. And I also believe that God is a god of mercy, but I also believe that believers don't need to worry about that.

Just curious if you've thought how you'd handle your kid being depressed or saddened if they come home one day afraid for a friend who doesn't share their belief and they are afraid will go to hell or whatever.

Not trying to start something but my roommate and friend in college told me that he gets very depressed when he thinks of all his friends that will not go to heaven and I had nothing to say that could make him feel better. The only thing that would have helped is if I converted to his religion and he believed that I was sincere in my conversion. I personally wonder how one can enjoy a heaven knowing that loved ones aren't there without just plain old getting over it like humans do when someone dies.

That's exactly what my girlfriend told me once: When she was very little, maybe seven or eight years old, they learned about heaven and hell in school. Now her father always told his kids at home that he did not believe in god and that he did not see any good in doing so, so she became so worried and depressed because she thought her father would go to hell someday that she had to visit a psychologist for some time to straighten this out.

That's one of the big problems of Religion, too, and now I am strictly talking from the point of view of the "users".

I mean, for SSH if you are good you are saved, no matter if you believe or not (I think it's a quite sensible belief).

Some others think that, no matter how good you behave, if you don' t believe you can' t go to heaven.

Some others think that the message is that "Christ paid for our sins, so, we are forgiven".

Some people think that what Bible say is "Behave with the others as you want the others to behave with you"

So... which is the value of the Bible if any person reading it takes different conclussions?

Does it make sense to you that, after reading a flight manual, the angle of approaching to the landing track is:
12º for 3 of the guys who read the manual.
16º for 7.
01º for 12.
05º for 4.

For me, the value of that book, as a manual, would be 0.

A sensible post from Nacho, woo! Sorry for my sarcasm, but I am surprised...

Anyway, it's true that it's quite weird to how many different conclusions people come through reading the bible.
Maybe it's often too vague, outdated or just too difficult to understand for some people? Can't tell, never read much of it.
Anyway, christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the basic principles he preached are all about peace, selflessness and tolerance. So anyone who deviates drastically of those is morally not a christian in my opinion.

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 20/11/2008 13:18:00
<sigh>
Ps. I know enough about Quantum Physics to know that nothing is impossible (with the exception of objectivity).

In singularities and in microsmall scale. Does that mean that you can out a couple of each animal kind in a boat? No.

And Ozzie, i think you should say "A post from Nacho that is, in my opinion, sensible" :) From my point of view, all the post I do are sensible, otherwise I wouldn't post them ^_^.

Most of the confusion that comes out of interpreting the bible this way and that way and finding some gospels that say this, while some letters say that, come from the way the whole thing was compiled, I guess.

How should you probably rely on a book that has been written by so many people over so many years and has undergone so many translations? It can't possibly be a source of law, or even information, it should be regarded as a compilation of stories that are maybe interesting as cultural evidence of that time, or as moral guidelines valuable at that time, but not as a kind of "law". It's just like nobody would possibly refer to 16th century law of war or law of trade anymore, and that's only some five centuries ago.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 18:52:45
And Ozzie, i think you should say "A post from Nacho that is, in my opinion, sensible" :) From my point of view, all the post I do are sensible, otherwise I wouldn't post them ^_^.

Your definition of sensible certainly differs from mine then.

Obvious.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 18:35:39
I mean, for SSH if you are good you are saved, no matter if you believe or not

Can you read? I didn't say that.

Obviously not.

Quote from: kaputtnik on Thu 20/11/2008 18:53:23
How should you probably rely on a book that has been written by so many people over so many years and has undergone so many translations? It can't possibly be a source of law, or even information, it should be regarded as a compilation of stories that are maybe interesting as cultural evidence of that time, or as moral guidelines valuable at that time, but not as a kind of "law".

QFT

Yes, Andrew, you repeteadly said (not in this thread) that the message of the new testament is that "we are forgiven".

I can read, and I can remember.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 22:15:34
Yes, Andrew, you repeteadly said (not in this thread) that the message of the new testament is that "we are forgiven".

I can read, and I can remember.

Perhaps neither, as I was saying that Christians are forgiven.

Cool, so, no matter how good you were, if you were born BC, you are fucked.

So, no matter how good you are, if you are an Australian aborigen who never had contact with Christian Church, you are fucked.

Of course, if you are Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Sinthoist, Hindi... fucked.

I think that what you have in your head is not a religion, dude... It's  a private social club.

How you get that from "Christians are forgiven" I'm really not sure. You sure do love your extrapolation.

I took it from here:

QuotePerhaps neither, as I was saying that Christians are forgiven.

From a post written by SSH 13 minutes ago.

I explain: If you say that "We are forgiven" is not correct, and that the correct sentence is "Christians are forgiven" you are saying that "Christians, and only Christians are the only ones that are forgiven". If you said "Christians are forgiven" without correcting my "We are forgiven" you should leaving the room "I said Christians are forgiven, but I didn't mean other who are not Christians are not" opened.

But you didn't.

You specifically meant that "Christians, and only Christians are forgiven".

Maybe my confussion is that I don' t understand religion very well (That anyone can read the Bible and extrapolate from it whatever he likes doesn't help, I must say) so, I humble ask you:

Non forgived people can enter in Heaven?
Can non Christians enter in Heaven?
All christians enter in Heaven, since they are forgiven?
Isn' t unfair that an Australian aborigen can' t enter in heaven for not being Christian, and spite of having less sins that a Christian?

More questions come to my mind:
Does becoming Christian one second before of passing away count for being forgiven?
If a Christian renegates of his Chrisitianity one second before of pasing away, without time to do a sin, is he forgiven, since he was a Christian when he did the sins?

Please, answer.

The paradox that most non-believers can't get past is the New Testament paints a God who is merciful and forgives the sins of man. Which renders the concept of Sin moot. Why fear Hell if God forgives all? How can a God who forgives all allow that which He created to suffer for sins that He himself allowed His creation to perpetrate? But if God forgives us, why fear His wrath?

If Heaven is such a great place, why bother with the Life part of our existence at all? Why torture His creations with a hundred-odd years of mental and physical anguish, before allowing them to lie in fields of Elysia? To prove a point? To who? Those who achieve this feat can't come back to tell the rest of us, and God has no-one to brag to because He is the ultimate being. He has no peers. Even Satan, His arch-nemesis, is himself part of God. Satan can corrupt Man, but God will forgive Man, which leaves Old Nick as a bit of a third wheel.

Why all the rules, then? No homos, no lust, no this, no that. Rules which came to us through the mouths of men; those easily corrupted automatons that Satan always had a eye for. Why trust those who speak of the wishes of an unknowable power, when they themselves are no closer to ultimate enlightenment than the rest of us? If all these holy men claim to follow the wishes of God, why do these wishes conflict so horrendously? I mean, either somebody is lying, or God is doing it for shits and giggles.

What does Man learn from life? And again, what use is such knowledge in the Afterlife, where concepts of memory or pain are supposedly alien?

Even as I type this post, there is a small part of me that fears God. I fear that the lies that were instilled in me by a church-controlled school system, aren't lies at all and that God will smite those I love just to prove a point. That is what we as children were told by priests, who themselves were corrupt child-rapists or closet homosexuals or secretly married or whatever. Men who paint a picture of pain and sadness in small malleable minds, with redemption contained in the robotic repetition of rhymes while you kneel before ultimate judgment. Be good, do what you're told, because if you don't...

Is it any wonder the words "shepard" and "flock" are used in the Christian and Catholic church?

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a Supreme Being. Shit, I'd be happy as a clam if a God really did exist, and He had some salient points to relate about why he did all this. A Heaven would be a nice surprise too. To join all those people who went ahead of us, and spend eternity in bliss.

But to give credence to what some geezer in a gold hat says from on high? Baa.

Quote
Non forgived people can enter in Heaven?

No. Only those who have been rendered blameless can enter.

Quote
Can non Christians enter in Heaven?

Not anymore. God chose Israel (both the man and the country) to bring forth a savior for the world. Before the savior came, people who followed the God of Israel would be saved, but the atonement  was not yet complete. When Jesus died, all those who believed -and will believe- were forgiven.

Quote
All christians enter in Heaven, since they are forgiven?

All who call on Jesus to be saved will enter. Not everybody who considers themselves to be a Christian will enter. (E.G. "I'm a Christian because my parents were", or "I believe in a god, so I'm a Christian") I actually like to avoid using labels for people, anyway.

Quote
Isn' t unfair that an Australian aborigen can' t enter in heaven for not being Christian, and spite of having less sins that a Christian?

The Australian Aborigen needs Jesus as much as anyone. We are all born with a sinful nature as a result of the fall of man.

Quote
More questions come to my mind:
Does becoming Christian one second before of passing away count for being forgiven?
If a Christian renegates of his Chrisitianity one second before of pasing away, without time to do a sin, is he forgiven, since he was a Christian when he did the sins?

Yes and maybe. The second question depends on what doctrines you accept.

Such a beautiful book, the best stories man will ever write and literature all revolves around it.
But the Bible, as we know it, was not the first book to tell those stories.
The main characters name change but the essence of it remain the same. Good and evil, redemption, sacrifice.
All the issues with religion these days have a common side: passion. If you have it, then you will feel the power of the soul related things. If not, then you will probably judge things by its scientific nature.
I personally believe that men have lost their passion on our modern days, I think that the global society everybody talks is just something to blind our eyes.
Passion remains solely on those that are being invaded and killed because they will not accept to be ruled.
I think that, in the end, they will lose, and so will humanity.

Anteater: Thanks. ^_^

One quick question: You didn' t understant well my question about the Australian aborigen (The one who needs Christ more than any other, apparently... Dunno why)

I am not asking "If he needs Jesus or not". I am saying that this aborigen has been the most humble, good, loving and polite person on earth, and now he is dead. He died without knowing the concept of "Jesus", simply because he has lived in a place where no Christian or missionere has arrived.

So, my question: Is this humble, good, loving and polite person not going to Heaven because he does not know "Christ"? Is your religion so damn unfair that a person who haven't had the opportunity to know Jesus go to Hell, directly?

If your answer is yes, your religion has a very sad ideology...  :-\

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 20/11/2008 23:08:37
You specifically meant that "Christians, and only Christians are forgiven".

Did I? I wonder, then, why you bother asking me any questions if you know what I mean without me actually saying it.

Probably you'll use your mind-reading powers to somehow interpret this as "Andrew loves terrorists" or something.

It is curious (Symptomatic, as well) that you want to focus the discussion in what I think that you think and not in replying to the many contradictions that "the message" has.  :)

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 21/11/2008 07:40:35
I am not asking "If he needs Jesus or not". I am saying that this aborigen has been the most humble, good, loving and polite person on earth, and now he is dead. He died without knowing the concept of "Jesus", simply because he has lived in a place where no Christian or missionere has arrived.

So, my question: Is this humble, good, loving and polite person not going to Heaven because he does not know "Christ"? Is your religion so damn unfair that a person who haven't had the opportunity to know Jesus go to Hell, directly?

For what it's worth, I once asked my Bible study leader the same question. She said "there aren't any places left on Earth where people haven't heard of Jesus."

I wasn't satisfied with the answer either, and it's still a mystery to me.

Alright, regarding the Aborigine: We are all born with an inherently sinful nature. Somewhere along the line, we are going to lie/steal/cheat/whatever. Therefore, no matter how otherwise humble, good, loving, and polite he is, he has still been damaged (for lack of a better word) by sin. Therefore, he still needs complete forgiveness.

I never said that the aborigen is a totally sinfull person. I assume everybody sins, even if they are just very few.

But' s let' s imagine he is "The person with less sins on Earth".

That is possible, no? Somebody must be the person with less sins on earth, or at least, there must be a little group of people with the same "X" number of sins, that is at least "X-1", compared with the rest of the world.

So, this aborigine is the person in the world with less sins, or belongs to the small set of people with the smaller amount of sins in the world.

But this PERSON never had the opportunity to join Christianism! He never heard the concept "Christ". He has seen 15 people during his life, all aborigines, no white men.

This guys can' t go heaven? If the answer is "no", it' s totally unsatisfactory.

...

And if the answer is "yes"... then, why believing???

Nacho, why not  believe?
With all respect for you and your beliefs:
Can't you see that all your arguments have an oposite side?
So is life in every single thing you may discuss.
You see, if you want to be sure of something you first have to deny all reason. Do you follow?

If you have no intention of posting an explanation of your posts SSH, I don't see why you stick around in this thread. You like to call Nacho out for putting words in your mouth but you only let 6 or 7 trickle out anyway and then seem to enjoy it and egg him on when he goes crazy over them.

Do you believe that a person who does good works and is societally seen as a good human being/humanitarian/philanthropist but is not a christian can get into heaven?

If no, why not?

If you don't want to answer the question just so say and people can't really ask it anymore and expect an answer.

And I was serious about my friend in college, just keep his story in mind when your kids get older, I'd hate for more people to go through the depression he went through because of the concept of hell.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 21/11/2008 15:43:29
Do you believe that a person who does good works and is societally seen as a good human being/humanitarian/philanthropist but is not a christian can get into heaven?

Yes, that may be the case, although I think what would matter would be if God sees them as good, rather than society. Clearly most Christians would expect various Old Testament characters to be in heaven too: Jacob, David, Daniel, Elijah, etc. although many of these men were hugely flawed characters. God provided a mechanism for the Israelites to achieve forgiveness and he provided a mechanism for Christians to be forgiven, too. Perhaps there are others. Perhaps he is merciful. I'm sure he judges each person on his merits. However, Christianity allows me to be judged on Jesus's merits rather than my own, and I know he was without sin, so that's way preferable for me and for anyone else.

Hey perhaps, like the story of Jonah and the story of the workers, God will be more merciful than any fundamentalist or even myself expect. But only through Jesus is it certain.

Miguel, if course you can believe in God.

And you can believe in superman, the smurfs, the Yeti or ghosts... Once you opened the "irrational" door, there is no way to stop the flooding.

But of course, believing in the smurfs or aliens is not very harmful (Well... It' s not usually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)))

But if you open the door to believe in something irrational, you apened the door for:

Be scammed by bastards like John Edward, Peter Popoff, and any other kind of cheater asking you money for nothing, such a "spiritual clean" (300â,¬), light on a white candle to increase the power of your aura(100â,¬) or kill a chicken to protect you from bad spirits (150â,¬), spending money in different ways to see the future, recover your lost love, etc..
Abandon serious medical tratments in benefit of homeopatic remedies, oriental medicines, acupunture, psychic surgery, hand imposition, etc... (With the following results for your health).

Maybe I haven' t been clear enough before (I' ve been, saying that I don't  consider believers idiots), but I will try to explain myself again. I respect believers. I hate false beliefs. Believers are victims. I' ve never insulted, made fun, or critizised a believer, my work during the last years has been for and because of them.

So, that's why I fight against irrational belief. Religion is the biggest one, the most accepted, the sacred cow that can' t be touched. Well... we are in the 21sth century, I think that the time to rumble that belief has arrived.

You ask me "Why not believing". Ok... Do you believe that there is a secret kind of cows that fly? Yes... they have wings, wings simillar to the ones raptors have, but bigger, and they can be found in Madagascar.

Did you believe me? No. Okay, if you come with the same story to me, I wouldn' t believe it either. There is not even the smaller trace of reality in that story. Might it be true? Of course! Although all the rational tools that our intellect has to determine if something is real or not say "no".

Every time I approached to religion I found the same. Not even a small evidence. "Healings" Which ones? "Miracles"? Which ones? Like that one that says that Saint Bernadette' s  body is uncorrupted, and you can feel the "shiver of misticism" around her when you enter in the room where she is? I' ve seen it. It' s uncorrupted because it has an inch of wax and "the shiver of misticism" actually is the shiver you feel when you enter in a refrigerated room. Like the miracle of "The blood of Saint Gennaro", that "blood" that magically licuates? That blood that is taken out of the refligerator in August and is kept between the hands of the priest for a couple of hours? Must I believe in God because of the "mystical experiences" I' ve seen in believers? The "same" experiences we can see in teenagers in a concert of "Take That" or in fans at any premiere of a new Star Wars films? Must I believe in God, "because the Bible is a very old book"? Yes, like Critias, and I don' t believe in Atlantis. Must I believe in "God" because it has a lot of followers? Well... 100% of the people believed that the Earth was in the middle of the Universe and it wasn't.

The weight of the evidence must rest on those saying extraordinary things. Religion it's quite extraordinary. They must show the evidences.

I am still here, sitting, waiting, and all I got is "It' s true! I can feel it!"

Well, you can still expect common sense from religious people.
Also, I don't like the concept that someone tells other people how they have to believe or what they have to believe in, like the pope or leader of religious sects do.

And a belief in god isn't more irrational than love.

Indeed, your materialistic view Nacho is that nothing intangible can exist: hope, love, trust, happiness...

And its just silly to say that if you believe in God then you're somehow more likely to fall prey to scams: unless of course you're just making up unsubstantiated statements to try to win the argument.

I believe my wife and children love me. I believe that God exists. All I have for proof of either is personal experience. You may think that a God is extraordinary but if God has decided to only show himself by that experience you would thus be impossible to convince. You are thus closed-minded.

Quote from: SSH on Fri 21/11/2008 09:51:03
Probably you'll use your mind-reading powers to somehow interpret this as "Andrew loves terrorists" or something.

Andrew loves terrorists?!? I'm simply shocked to learn this! And to think that I've occasionally posted on your blog!

I guess I should expect a visit from the Department of Homeland Security soon. Thanks a bunch, SSH. Here's hoping I can still access the forums in Guantanamo Bay.

And for the record, I think the intangibles are what make life worth living. Without those, it's just eat, sleep, sex, die. Notions like love, divinity, duty, and others help fill out that long stretch of road between the cradle and the grave.

I think Motorhead sang a song about that. And Lemmy is so awesome he borders on the intangible himself.

- Ponch

Hope, love, trust, happiness are supposed to have a supernatural source?

No.

A difference between Religion and hope, love, trust, hapiness...

Also, as far as I know, hope, love, trust, hapiness isn't receiving taxes at any country in the world.

Two.

Hope, love, trust, hapiness, is not teached at school...

Three.

Anyway, are you recognising that Religion is the same as hope, love, trust, hapiness? Do you finally recognise that Religion is a feeling, and nothing else?

If the answer is "yes", we can, finally afther 8 pages, end the discussion. Weeeh! Finally a believer recognises that "Religion is not actually that big".

If you say that "No, that religion is something else, something bigger..." then why you do use hope, love, trust and hapiness as a comparission? You would be recognising they are not comparable.

Sure a belief in god is not something one can debate because you can't tell me I don't believe in tables.

The tough thing is that as soon as one makes a claim of something in the physical world being affected by a non-physical, more often than not it can be tested.

It's not the belief people should be debating, it's the existence. If you say god exists because you believe it to be true and there is no other reason/physical evidence behind it, then there is no where to go with the debate. If you believe in god because a specific event happened.. Now we have something to debate.

If you believe certain claims about a physical object like the bible we have a debate.

Also it doesn't always have to be a debate. I don't see why people can't have a conversation about these things that doesn't end in debate. I know I'm not a saint [hah] when it comes to this stuff but having the age old conversation with a believer of "Why do bad things happen to good people." or even worse "Why do great things happen to terrible people." or "How do you reconcile your belief in a god with the teachings of such and such part of your religion" or "What are the punishments for breaking a commandment and are you ok with that?"or my personal favorite "Why doesn't god heal amputees?". This could go both ways, obviously "How do you define morality without a higher power to set the stage?" "..." I actually can't think of another question a religious person would really need to know from an atheistic person. "What do you do on sunday?*"

And I wouldn't say someone is closed minded if they aren't convinced by a personal experience you had. Unless I misread you.

*sleep late, draw my comic, play games at night, make out!

Quote
But' s let' s imagine he is "The person with less sins on Earth".

But he has still sinned at least once; that is all that is required to separate man from God. He needs atonement. He can never redeem himself because he is fallen. He needs a savior. We have all sinned at least once, except for Jesus himself.
I don't like to deal in absolutes. But God is big enough to deal in absolutes. Each person is either redeemed or not.

Quote
But if you open the door to believe in something irrational, you apened the door for:
Be scammed by bastards like John Edward, Peter Popoff, and any other kind of cheater asking you money for nothing, such a "spiritual clean" (300â,¬), light on a white candle to increase the power of your aura(100â,¬) or kill a chicken to protect you from bad spirits (150â,¬), spending money in different ways to see the future, recover your lost love, etc..

Jesus became angry when he visited a temple and people were selling sacrificial animals for profit. He overturned tables and yelled at the salesmen. It is made obvious in the Bible that if one has to pay for a spiritual blessing or relic, you're being ripped off. That's why when churches have offerings they are entirely optional. People who scam in the name of religion are evil.

Quote
Abandon serious medical tratments in benefit of homeopatic remedies, oriental medicines, acupunture, psychic surgery, hand imposition, etc... (With the following results for your health).

As a Christian I can say that most 'alternative' treatments should not be used. We are to take care of our bodies, and that includes being responsible when choosing medical treatment.

Quote
Every time I approached to religion I found the same. Not even a small evidence. "Healings" Which ones? "Miracles"? Which ones? Like that one that says that Saint Bernadette' s  body is uncorrupted, and you can feel the "shiver of misticism" around her when you enter in the room where she is? I' ve seen it. It' s uncorrupted because it has an inch of wax and "the shiver of misticism" actually is the shiver you feel when you enter in a refrigerated room. Like the miracle of "The blood of Saint Gennaro", that "blood" that magically licuates? That blood that is taken out of the refligerator in August and is kept between the hands of the priest for a couple of hours? Must I believe in God because of the "mystical experiences" I' ve seen in believers? The "same" experiences we can see in teenagers in a concert of "Take That" or in fans at any premiere of a new Star Wars films? Must I believe in God, "because the Bible is a very old book"? Yes, like Critias, and I don' t believe in Atlantis. Must I believe in "God" because it has a lot of followers? Well... 100% of the people believed that the Earth was in the middle of the Universe and it wasn't.

We are to go not by what we feel, but by what we believe and know. Human feelings are flawed because of our sinful nature. Many people do get mixed up in what religion feels like, but that's not supposed to be what it's about. That doesn't mean that God doesn't give us joy or happiness, but that is the result of faith, not a measure of it.

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 21/11/2008 21:13:19
Anyway, are you recognising that Religion is the same as hope, love, trust, hapiness? Do you finally recognise that Religion is a feeling, and nothing else?

If the answer is "yes", we can, finally afther 7 pages, end the discussion.

I notice that you avoided Lemmy altogether. A wise move on your part. Motorhead is all the proof of the wonder of the universe that I need.

Religion is, at its core, a set of rules and usually a hierarchy concerned with maintaining its position. Guitar music is just a series of chords.

But Motorhead is much more than just guitar chords in the same way that faith is more than just rules and priests.

Both transcend into the sublime.

Is Lemmy god? I'm not making that argument, though I know a guy who has a tattoo to that effect. I just like the notion that there's something beyond what I can see. Something that instills in me a sense of wonder in the world.

Personally, I usually feel it most keenly around Christmas time. If there were some way to fuse Lemmy and Santa, well even you Nacho might be swayed by the awesomeness. ;)

- Ponch

Anteater, excuse me if I don' t try to reply to all your arguments...

But there is one that called my attention. You say that:

QuoteAs a Christian I can say that most 'alternative' treatments should not be used. We are to take care of our bodies, and that includes being responsible when choosing medical treatment.

Jehova' s witnesses are Christians, Do we agree? They (Or Most, of at least or some of them, and based on their beliefs) don' t accept receiving blood transfussions. If you are bleeding and are about to die, you must agree with me that "the most responsible medical treatment" should be receiving the blood.

So? Two questions come to my mind:

a) How can you know that your decission (that is accepting the blood, and is based on your beliefs) is "Christian fiendly" and theirs (not taking the blood, according to their beliefs) not?

b) What do you think of the Bible as a manual of morale when two people take different conclussions of it?

And Poch, excuse if I don' t reply to your statement "Motorhead is the proof I need"... I am not really sure if you are serious.

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 21/11/2008 21:13:19
Hope, love, trust, happiness are supposed to have a supernatural source?

No.

Which doesn't make love rational, though.

Quote
Also, as far as I know, hope, love, trust, hapiness isn't receiving taxes at any country in the world.

Two.

What has this to do with a personal belief in some kind of religion?

Quote
Hope, love, trust, hapiness, is not teached at school...

Three.

What has this to do with a personal belief in some kind of religion?

We are discussing the possible need for seperation of state and church all over again. It has nothing to do with the validity of religion itself.

Quote
Anyway, are you recognising that Religion is the same as hope, love, trust, hapiness? Do you finally recognise that Religion is a feeling, and nothing else?

If the answer is "yes", we can, finally afther 8 pages, end the discussion. Weeeh!

I don't remember anyone disputing this, so you basically only imagined an opposition. Interesting!

QuoteFinally a believer recognises that "Religion is not actually that big".

Religion plays a big role in the life of some people. Do you want to dispute that?

Quote
Jehova' s witnesses are Christians, Do we agree?

Well, they're as much the same as the evangelical and catholic church are the same, or the mormons and the amish are the same, so in other words, they aren't.

Part 1: I said love is rational? Where? I mentioned three examples of why love does not annoy me, and many others, as Religion.

How does affect that Religion receives taxes to the personal belief of someone? In nothing. But it affects to me, who has to pay that taxes.

How does affect to a believer that religion is teached at schools? Of course it does not affect to believers. They must be extremelly happy, actually. But it might affect to my kids, who will have to go to school and learn, by an adult, a person who has been recognised by the state as a competent to take care of the education of the youngest, that languajes were created because God got annoyed with us because we were making a really big tower and that they have an undeletable sin with them forever because some idiot ate some kind of fruit 6,000 years ago.

Part 2: Christian: One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Okay, I am going to imagine again, based on your posts:

Jehova' s witnesses, mormons, amish do not professe belief in Christ and do not follow the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Imagining is cool...

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 21/11/2008 21:53:07
Christian: One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Okay, I am going to imagine again, based on your posts:

Jehova' s witnesses, mormons, amish do not professe belief in Christ and do not follow the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Imagining is cool...

Well, here we may have a problem with semantics. Like I said, you can't throw catholics, evangelics, mormons or Jehova's witnesses in one pot (not only because this might amount to cannibalism ;)). They all may be some kind of christian, but not the same.

Quote
I said love is rational? Where? I mentioned three examples of why love does not annoy me, and many others, as Religion.

You may not have said that, but how is one irrational behaviour better than another?

And all the things that seem to annoy you about religion don't seem to have anything to do with the personal belief, but instead with the intertwinement  of state and church. I think this discussion could settle if you managed to distinguish between these two points.

Which semantics? I asked if Jehova' s witnesses are Christians. You said no.

"Christian: One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus"

Therefore, Jehova' s witnesses (according to you) do not professe belief in Jesus as Christ or follow the religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus, and they don' t live according to the teaching of Jesus.

Where is the semantic problem?

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 21/11/2008 22:02:55
Which semantics? I asked if Jehova' s witnesses are Christians. You said no.

"Christian: One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus"

Therefore, Jehova' s witnesses (according to you) do not professe belief in Jesus as Christ or follow the religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus, and they don' t live according to the teaching of Jesus.

Where is the semantic problem?

Well yeah, I said that they aren't the same, since they deviate from the catholic and evangelical church for example. They are some kind of christians, though. You can't just generalize.

Are they Christians or not?

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 21/11/2008 22:10:49
Are they Christians or not?

Like I said, "They are some kind of christians, though."

If this is too cryptic for you, then I give you a yes.

Thanks.

Nacho, surely you agree that God and the Church are different things, don't you?
You do understand that the Bible was based on only 3 or 4 gospels that  told the beautiful story in similar ways. The same story that the world knows and always have.
Why don't you read Judas Gospel? It's amazing, it will show you things that may move you closer to something you are refusing to believe.
Yes, we are in 2008, the world didn't end and thank God for that. Because there IS a God my dear Nacho. And maybe God is just a collective, human thought that all men share since the beginning. Maybe God is that stuff scientists search endessly that keeps everything together.
And do you want a better proof than you talking about something you don't believe?
The fact that some people abuse of others faith asking for money has more to do with ignorance than anything else. Take the members of this forum, I do not believe that one did fall for that kind of stuff, I'm sorry.

I wouldn't want to go as far as to convert Nacho to Christianity now. ;)
I just hope that he will realize that religion or the belief in god can have value for some people.

Quote from: Ozzie on Fri 21/11/2008 23:46:09
I just hope that he will realize that religion or the belief in god can have value for some people.

So can the opposite. The belief that Man is his own master and is solely responsible for his place in the cosmos.

I'm not sure if I ever said differently...
Personally, I'm not religious at all, so I'm not arguing for myself here.

Oh, neither was I. Agnosticism allows me to please (or equally displease) both houses. :)

EDIT: In so much as I don't claim either the theists or the atheists to be "wrong".

Interesting point about Jehova's Witnesses and blood transfusions, Nacho. I think the important thing to remember is that their reasoning for this belief is an unusual interpretation of Scripture, specifically Acts 15:18-29. Most Christians have no problems with blood transfusions. In fact, I gave blood less then a week ago.

It is here that I would like to interject a little about religion being taught in schools because I have firsthand experience in this:

In America, at least, free public schools do not teach religion. Private schools and church operated schools usually charge a tuition and teach religious ideals of the church the school is affiliated with. So, at least here, if you want your children to be taught religion in a normal school, you have to pay for it.

I attended a (very small) Catholic school from age five to age twelve. It was not a good experience for me... and no... it wasn't because of the religion. I respect people with more faith than me. The school I attended was so small, there were only 7 girls and 5 boys per grade. So if one clique of girls hates you... well... they all seem to hate you. The reason that I will never send my future kids to any sort of private school is that teachers of private schools do not have to be as certified as teachers in public schools.

But anyway... that's probably another thread, another debate, and altogether as frustrating as a train wreck.

Miguel... what makes you think I haven' t read it?

I did.

And I don' t believe in God still... I' ve read Jurassic Park as well, that touched me 20 times more than any gospel, and I don' t believe that we can bring dinsaurs back to life, either.

Wow. This thread explodes..


I haven't read every single post, but here are some thoughts:


I think the latest conversations with Nacho have become very stupid and are going nowhere. Most topics were basically about what the evidences for god or certain biblestories are and who gets into heaven and the "equality" of believers and non-believers as well as who is called christian and who are just members of a sect that is related to original christianity in a way. This is all not really worth a discussion in my eyes.


I'm not really surprised that people believe in something (supernatural). But I can't help but notice: it's a strange thing that all the people are believing in one and the same god. Why do all christians call upon Jesus as well as GOD, the one, the same for everyone. Why do you believe in the same thing some other person is believing? Where is the connection? Is it because of the bible? Because of the pope? If you're going to believe something it can't be the same as a billion people have too, doesn't it? Isn't belief and religion something very personal and therefore different everytime? Why follow a certain religion, a certain church, especially when blood and lies define it's history?


Belief in God really is just belief in "something", it' basically just a way to live life, but everything else than a neccessary one. And I also think it's a kind of escapism. It helps to explain all the cruelties and the overall situation mankind has to face. I do have a real problem with people who are living in respect and care to others, just because their religion told them that god wants him to do that and he has to live that way. Shouldn't all the positive parts of christianity (or other religions) be something natural?


As I said before, I really don't have a genuine problem with religion in general. But what KhrisMUC said: Those beliefs came up when thunderstorms, stars and the moon couldn't be explained in a rational way. That is obsolete. I know that many christians see god or belief as an idea or a guideline through life, and I can understand that this can be helpful, but there's no need for churches, no need for a label like "christian", no need for mythical transfigurations, no need to pray.

Regarding those people who genuinely believe in a supernatural entity that created men and the universe I can quote KhrisMUC:

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 20/11/2008 04:19:17I personally don't distinguish between the belief in God, Jesus, Santa Claus, unicorns or fairies. There's simply no reason to distinguish between it other than the fact that religious people might feel insulted.
[...]A few decades/centuries from now, it's probably perfectly acceptable to laugh at any irrational beliefs, why not start early?

I personally would like to see a society freed of religion. But, again, I don't have a problem with those who deal with religion in a proper and mature manner.

Quote from: miguel on Fri 21/11/2008 23:38:31
And do you want a better proof than you talking about something you don't believe?

So if I say I believe in george, my invisible friend, and I have a bunch of people arguing against that, does that mean that invisible george exists?
Or you could turn that argument and say that we don't ever debate obvious stuff like gravity, so if god were so obvious why would we need to debate his existence?
It's fair enough if the gospels or personal experience prove god for you. But counting the fact that there is a debate about god as proof for god is really silly. A debate only proves that there is doubt about something, not that one of both sides in the debate is correct.

Nacho, I don't think anyone here has ever argued that you personally, in any way, shape or form, are not entitled to be atheist.  Personally, I don't even consider a person's religious stance at all when I meet or talk to them because their life is their own.  One of the oft-forgotten but greatly important parts of the bible is that (for believers) God imbued man with free will to make his own way in the world, and it's really as simple as that. 

Therefore, it's not in question about whether or not you have a right to disbelieve, and based on your frequent arguments with people you seem to be trying to force believers into thinking they are ignorant for doing so, which I am telling you is a wrong and flawed way of approaching the issue.  You can personally find belief in a deity a waste of time, and that's absolutely your right; it's not your right to tell people they are misled or stupid for doing so or to carry on like a child, looking for any and every opportunity to stab in how much you loathe religion, which in my opinion is exactly how you have been behaving with regards to this issue.

Eric's an excellent example of someone with whom I could discuss religion, whereas it feels like a colossal (forgive the pun) waste of time to enter into any such discussion with you.  Why?  The difference between you and Eric is that he can say 'I don't personally believe' and his statement ends there; with you it's 'I don't personally believe because it's stupid/ignorant/assinine to do so'. 

Does any of this seem clear to you?

Phew... I was quite decided not to contribute more to this thread... Anyway, let' s go:

If you want me to repeat that I do not consider consider believers idiots I will do it again... But it would be like the 5th time, it' s tiring.

I go on: Believing in God is not like loving. I am not against any kid of irrational behaviour, like love, or sacrificing your life for saving your friend' s life. What annoys me is that believing in God is:

a) Irrational.
b) And "comes" from a supernatural source.

Every believer I talked to (Or every except very few) tell me that the source of its faith is God.

No religious I' ve talked to told me: "I am religious because, even thinking that all the supernatural stuff is not true, the teachings I took from Bible work for me, and I like it".

Is something similar I could say from love. I don't know from where loves come, and I don' t really mind. I am happy with my girlfriend, and I want to go on that way. I don't have problems in saying that... Why believers do have? Are them so insecure of their beliefs that they need to put there a supernatural being?

But no. They tell me that the source is God. And since I don' t believe in God, the are telling me "Well, I am not going to tell it aloud, but, mate... You are wrong... God exists and I feel sorry for you for not believing it".

Also, there is the superiority complex. When I tell them if I could be able to have the same morale values as them without being religious, I allways feel that their thinking is "Well, you could probably get closer, but my morale, as comes from God, will allways be better".

So, they are also telling me that their morale is better than mine. It' s quite annoying, to be honest.

The only thing I want, from a believer is to recognise that they are not sure that God really exists, but it works for them. I would stop posting in this thread as soon as a believer recognises it.

And now I challenge you to read my posts again and see if the spirit on those posts is really forcing people to stop believing, or that I treated believers as ignorants.

man why hasn't this stupid thread been locked yet?
it's the same old pish that comes up everytime somebody mentions religion and it's going nowhere.
an adventure games forum isn't the place for this type of discussion. now there's nothing wrong with a good debate this is pure arguing with eachother.
stop feeding the troll.

But it's not as simple as saying...

Quote from: Nacho
The only thing I want, from a believer is to recognise that they are not sure that God really exists, but it works for them.

...as this is asking a "believer" to question the very foundation of their belief. I would think that most theists would find it a big deal to even consider answering that question in any negative way. It's likening the question of their faith to a child's belief in Santa Claus.

And Boyd has a point.

In a sense yes. Though if it should happen, this thread might just keep all this shit out of real threads for a while.

YAY a toilet!

It' s another example about how "Religion" has advantages between some other beliefs. We have witnessed a similar thread like this some time ago, but in that time it was not "Religion against atheism".

It was socialdemocracy between free market.

And no one complained about how long it was, or how "direspectful" one side was being with the other for not granting the right to the other side to "believe".

Of course, three "socialdemocrats" in a row asking to the members on their side to stop, that socialdemocrats must respect the free market belief (or three free market sided guys telling the guys on its side to stop, that conservatives must respect socialdemocracy, I don' t mind) should have been unimaginable...

But of course... religion is different... three atheists in a row can tell another to stop. It' s okay. If you want me to stop, I will. :)

I' d wanted believers to made the same when I was 6 and asked not to be raised in a religious society, but it' s okay... I guess I will have to assume that Religion is still untouchable.

A shame that the word "skepticism" had to be associated with this freak show.

Not untouchable, just not tangible. You're never going to get a satisfied answer, because both points of view are largely incompatible. You'd have a better chance questioning the virtues of Organized Religion, rather then the existence of God.

The disrespect comes into it because of the nature of the question, not because of any answer you may receive. I remember Yufster tried to start a similar discussion about Scientology, despite the fact that she basically claimed all Scientologists were idiots in her first post. One side of the argument is already on the offensive.

Religion should always be open to question, but ultimately proving or disproving the existence of God is futile. And any problems I have with Organized Religion  (and I have quite a few) have little to do with the existence of God.

Quote from: space boy on Sat 22/11/2008 21:15:25
A shame that the word "skepticism" had to be associated with this freak show.

Skepticism can be just as stubborn a viewpoint.

Quote from: BOYD1981 on Sat 22/11/2008 18:58:23
man why hasn't this stupid thread been locked yet?
stop feeding the troll.

Amen!

Hi again guys, yes I know most of you don't want this debate to go on, but, if I am allowed, I don't mind being the troll here,

First I'll pick on what LimpingFish wrote and I agree (disrespect comes when you simple want a debate but your first post or question is not very polite) to say that this kind of debate turn into a show because everybody wants to post the coolest answers no matter what.

Second, I respect and understand what you all wrote and like to talk to you about it.

Nacho, Jurassic Park and the Bible are very different, and you know it. Comparing both may be a form of insult, not to me because I understood what you said but you are leveling yourself down when you do it.
When you read the Judas Gospel, wasn't it clear that what happened 2000 years ago is different from what you read in the Bible? For me it was very enlightening and allowed me to understand not the story, but history! I bought some more books related and found other amazing things about Christianity foundations, the creation of the church and so.
I don't want you to believe in Jesus and God, Nacho. But I don't think Nietche and his beliefs are very credible either.

Matti, yes I do believe that religion and Jesus are personal things and are different for every person.
Try not to focus on the rituals and the candles and the prayings, those are all minor aspects of it.

KhrisMuc, are you so sure that in decades/centuries from now people will be laughing about religion? History tells us that the strongest civilizations always keep some kind of divinity on their side to control the masses. It may happen and anyway, we will not be here to see. At least, Jesus never cared for that kind of stuff and so do I.

Spaceboy, who is your friend George?
Now, De Gaule was someone that got very popular around IIWorld War, and he said something like:
"Down there, when we were being bombed and shot at, every single one of us called for God".

Did I say I believe in Nietsche? O_O

And Miguel... I want you to try to answer me with a short reply... If Jurassic Park touched me more, showed me more, shocked me more than the Bible, why is it an insult that I (Me, Nacho) considers it more important?

I am not saying "Jurassic Park should be more important to you than important to you than Bible". You are saying the opposite for me (Telling that I am insulting the Bible, blah, blah...). At least you are giving the Bible a better value than JP, since telling that one is more important to the other is "an insult" and telling the opposite it's "The truth".

You are doing, EXACTLY the same with my beliefs, and you know it. The thing is that, while I say, "Ok..." You say "You are insulting me!".

The final reply to that, even if you will never say it aloud, is that you (believers) think that your beliefs are better. And that, sorry, is quite annoying.

And don' t feel like a troll, my friend.  :) Some of these guys telling that "this discussion is shit" and blah, blah, blah, were keeping a thread at the top of gen gen for months with so interestings posts as:

"Stickam! Room: My P3n1sh" Password: Is Huge. See you there in 5 mins!"

[Off Topic]Well you bring up a good point. This isn't the first time where moderation is gen gen is needed. So yeah where the fuck is a moderator when you need one?[/Off Topic]

I'm not going to dive in to this debate but...

I don't see any reason why this should be locked.

This is an Adventure Game forum, yes.

But this is the General Discussion board and it's why it exists.

This is clearly a topic that people feel strongly about.  It hasn't (for the most part) turned to petty insults and childish quips and as such should remain unlocked (just my opinion).  The moderators are doing just fine.

Nacho and I are now going to go hang out in hell for our all our heathen's sins!!! Oh wait ... I meant Valencia :P

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 23/11/2008 11:19:01
And don' t feel like a troll, my friend.  :) Some of these guys telling that "this discussion is shit" and blah, blah, blah, were keeping a thread at the top of gen gen for months with so interestings posts as:

"Stickam! Room: My P3n1sh" Password: Is Huge. See you there in 5 mins!"

Although the discussion might probably have been stoned to death by now by the people who complained about it - I wanted to emphasize that I absolutely did not feel like Nacho was behaving a troll. He came off pretty rough in the beginning, but then started to discuss this important topic very objectively (unlike some other people here who - in my opinion - just wanted him off their backs).

I think there is a right to discuss religion, even if common business and small talk laws might advise against this. But this is not a business forum, nor is it a small talk forum, at least I hope so.

And, concerning Nietzsche: He did not only say "God is dead", but he also said "we have killed him".

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 23/11/2008 11:19:01
"Stickam! Room: My P3n1sh" Password: Is Huge. See you there in 5 mins!"

[hindi accent]
Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well.
[/hindi accent]

*smiles and bows*

I don't understand why Stickam was brought into this.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sun 23/11/2008 14:56:29

I don't see any reason why this should be locked.

I never said lock it. Maybe move it to popular threads :=

Thanks for the support, Kapunttnik and Darth ^_^

Space boy, I don' t know what telling to you, because I don' t undertand what you said, but it' s ok.

And I must say that, yeah, I made the mistake of saying that what is told in Bible, if taken literally, is stupid (The belief, not the believers...) If I don' t remeber bad I changed it for "irrational" and/or "illogic" after realising of my mistake.

I don' t think I said that literalistics or not literalistics believers are stupid, though. If I did, it was a mistake, I don' t think it and I apologize, deeply, humble and sorrowed if I did. But, to be honest... I don't remeber telling people not to believe, either.

So, I am basically going to leave this die, without answers, I fear.

10 pages and all I learned is that Religions are indistinguishable from any other popular thing massively followed by humans, like Star Wars, Scientology or Star Trek, but, unlike the others, I can' t criticise it...

<sigh>

At the moment I consider both sides of this discussion irrational, illogical, and some other words starting with and 'i' (you may all guess which words I'm thinking of).

Fact is: what may be the most logical conclusion after weighing 'everything' to one may be illogical to another (even if they have the same 'everything' to weigh). What is well thought out to one, may be childishly naive to another. As long as people cannot understand (or comprehend) the other person's opinion, any subject is indiscussable...at least in a rational, logical, educated, understanding, and emphatic manner. This is what I observed...

So my final conclusion is this: <sigh>

Ps. I'm not here to advocate closing this thread, or not to discuss 'delicate' subjects like this.
Pps. This was in many ways a general remark concerning 'delicate' debates, and not the judgement of the people in this thread. I hope no one feels personally attacked, for that was not my intention.

I also apologize if my terms were not correct to any of you, specially Nacho, who I take in great consideration.
By the way, Kaputnik, did you know that Nietzsche spent the last days of his life pretending to be Jesus?

This thread is way too long.

I think idea behind Christianity reminds any random national epic very much. People doing big, unbelievable things, walking through sea and so on.

What I don't buy is "meeting your homies in heaven after you die" part. My reason for skepticism...

Look--

1) Where is heaven?

* Priest in Russia points skywards and says "up there"
* Priest in Africa points skywards and says "up there"
* Pope in Vatican points... so on.

Okay.

2) Facts:

* we cannot see heaven, guess our telescopes are not up to task
* we've been in space. There's no heaven there!
... So it should be so far we cannot see it
* farthest known point in universe is something near 10-20 billion light years away (according to quick and messy google)
* since Earth is round and heaven is always directly upwards from earth's center, by logic, Heaven must be a sphere around earth, with radius of 10-20 billion light years and its center point being the center point of Earth

(http://www.increator.pri.ee/i/pull/whoo.png)

That puts heaven far, far away.

Now, let's assume you die and be buried.

* Your relative gets buried near you, 1 meter away.
* Both go to heaven, using this superlong vector
* Since earth is round, and offset is 1m, the vectors don't traverse to exact same point in 3d space
* At first, you will be travelling quite close

3) How far are you from each other when you finally get to heaven? It's quite simple school math to calculate the arc that comes between you...
...it'll be HUGE

4) So you've both arrived. Time to meet!

5) How do you travel in heaven? Walk? Get wings and fly?

Since walking is out of question, let's assume you fly.

6) How fast would you fly? twice walking speed? triple? Let's say 60 km/h. Really quick flying for a human...

Even at this speed, how long would it take to actually meet?
One year? Two? Trillion? Way-way-WAY longer than you lived, being good and worshipping God to get to meet your buddy?

Ain't that a bad deal or what?
.......
* anyway, this is even without considering travel time of your soul to the heaven...
* what if your relative/buddy lives on opposite side of earth?

Funny post, Increator, but I doubt any christians believe that heaven is a physical location somewhere..  ;)

Now that was taking a mythological plain of existence to the extremes.  Some math and a diagram.  :P

(I'm Atheist, but that doesn't matter)

But you're looking at life after death as if people were in their human forms (but with wings ;)).  Which from what I've heard from Christians, isn't the case (I wouldn't know, I haven't read the bible).  Supposedly what you know now wouldn't matter in this 'Heaven' because you're not connected to people like that.  Love and Hate take us to the biggest forms of 'Eating the Apple from the tree'.  They cause wars, murder, suicide, etc.  All things that are frowned upon in this 'Bible'.  Love is just another form of greed.  You get the idea.
In this 'Heaven' (sorry for quoting everything in apostrophes, but I feel less connected to the religion when I do that), there wouldn't be room for the Pandora's box of emotions.  Otherwise 'Heaven' would just be another battle ground like Earth.  If it's this place of 'peace', you COULDN'T be human.  It's impossible.  Every 'spirit' would have to be connected as one.

I've said what I've needed to.  Haven't read even half of what is in this thread, I thought it was a little childish. 
Have a good night.

I must base my logic around known things.

You know, people believe Bible and such. Whatever craziness is there, they believe because it's written so.
And listen to holy men.
Holy men say heaven is above our heads.
If they say so, it is so. Not believing would be a blasphemy!

So maybe I got my math wrong.

Assumption 2:

* Heaven is not beyond visible space.
* Heaven surrounds earth at the height of clouds. We simply don't see it.

- This gives us a sphere slightly bigger than Earth
- Christianity is what, 2000 years old? More?
- if heaven's full of good Christians who have gotten there and live eternal, died during last 2000 years, boy... should be quite crowded there... All on a sphere almost as small as earth...
And more to come? Wiki says in 21th century, there's 2 billion people on the list?

So I don't want to get there anyway. It's even soulless desert (version 1) or crowded market(version 2)

you know, it is possible to not like religion without being a dickhead about it.

I did not read this whole thread., but I'm pretty sure I don't have to. If I want to listen to a circular argument about religion for 2 hours I'll sit in a college-town coffee shop.

That being said, I must comment a word InCreator brought up:

Logic.

If you could simply apply a logic that is based in the human world, our world, where our minds are contained and bound by rules set in stone far before our own... If you could apply those same rules, that same logic to the afterlife and whatever it contains... Then what point would there be in believing in it? What point would there be to have faith?

The whole idea... The whole point in faith in a world beyond our own, a higher level of being, whatever you want to call it... Is that it's completely different from what we hold true on earth. The rules of flesh do not apply in the afterlife. Otherwise we'd still be alive. So why waste time trying to prove or disprove its existence. Either you think it's there or it's not. Whatever you think, it really shouldn't affect anyone else's life but your own.

Anyway... On a slightly different note, the common misconception I witness in these arguments every single time stem from combining religion and faith,  and using the terms interchangeably. Let me just say that I am not a religious man. I dislike religion because religion are simply a set of rules based around a belief. These rules are created by man, and man is not perfect. Rules made by man will have weaknesses and ulterior motives. Rules in religion lead to death and desrtruction. I.e. Catholics and their crusades, Islam and their jihad.

I am a man of faith. I believe in a God (yes, the one based in Christianity). I believe there is an existence after death. I believe we were created by a power beyond our comprehension. This belief, this faith, it works for me, and me alone. I don't feel the need to push my beliefs on anyone else, nor even share them. However, if I am asked about them, I will of course share. That is all.

Basically, here I am saying: how dare you call me stupid or less of a person because of what I believe. How dare you lump us all into one category and condemn us for ignorance. It is your arrogance that will always trump the shortcomings you find in others.

You don't know what I believe in or don't believe in. And if you do, and you still have a problem with it, then that is just it: you're problem. Leave me out of your inferiority complexes and your need to put others down. The day I choose to judge others for their personal beliefs is the day you can judge me for mine.

I don't take offense for what you think about my faith. Instead I take offense that you somehow think I am less intelligent than you because I believe in something you do not. I also take offense that you feel the need to slather your non-belief onto those who do believe whenever the topic is even only slightly broached, especially when you are the same people who despise us for doing the same. Most of us like to live our daily lives without spreading the word of Jesus to everyone we see. And those that do do not speak for the majority.

Most of all, however, I take offense for your lack of tolerance and your lack of acceptance of that which is different from yourself.

Edit: When I say "you," I don't mean anyone in particular.

"There is a troll, this thread is shit, the same old pish as ever, some atheists here are dickheads as well..."

I don' t know, BOYD, but according to the posts, the only troll I see in this thread is not arguing about Religion or atheism...

You tried to calll the attention of moderators for this to be locked. You not only failed, but also received a post by a mod telling that this is still being interesting or funny (InC's last posts are being quite interestings and funny, IMO).

I think it' s time to retreat, politely, before looking (even more) ridiculous, my friend...

EDIT: LGM, please, I  politelly ask you to quote where people here called you, or any other believer "stupid". He/she should receive a big warn by moderators, but, as far as I remember, you won' t find one.

QuoteBasically, here I am saying: how dare you call me stupid or less of a person because of what I believe. How dare you lump us all into one category and condemn us for ignorance. It is your arrogance that will always trump the shortcomings you find in others.

You don't know what I believe in or don't believe in. And if you do, and you still have a problem with it, then that is just it: you're problem. Leave me out of your inferiority complexes and your need to put others down. The day I choose to judge others for their personal beliefs is the day you can judge me for mine.

THUS I SHALL BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY!!!1

How dare you...blah blah.

People dare to judge themselves and others on daily basis.

To any matter, I can apply whatever approach I want. I believe in.

I believe in physical world, what I can see, hear and touch -- therefore laws of physics.
This gives me hope and sense of security dealing with world and life. This keeps me safe. Like your religion keeps you.

How dare you to tell me I cannot have my beliefs and explanations?

Don't I deserve way to understand and deal with matters I cannot understand fully? Don't I have right to deal it with my way to not be lost in a world of things beyond our comprehension? Am I forced to follow the way Holy Bible explains those things?
What if my Bible has "Physics for 8th grade" written on its cover? Are you saying that my beliefs are worse than yours?

So my religion renders yours highly unlikely. Does that mean I'm judging you?

By not believing what you do, and calling it impossible or stupid, I'm practicing my religion.
EXACTLY what you do when practicing yours, denying all science.

How come you can do that, and I'm automatically a dickhead and evil when I dare to do this?

I am so, SO terribly offended.
Heartbroken.
I won't post in this thread anymore.

:'( :'( :'(

Whoo hoo, sniping. What does the Stickam thread and moderator behaviour have to do with this thread? I don't really care about this thread's length and tone- it's refreshing to see an argument going in circles, but really, do you need to drag everything in here, Nacho? And of course you will now tell me that you didn't, using quotes and everything.

The discussion itself is okay, really. Have fun. But stop the sniping, yes?

Ghost, please, go 3 pages ago and start reading... Then see who started with the "This is shit, you are being dickheads, blah, blah, blah..." thingie...

The biggest act of "sniping" I did was telling: "Stop being ridiculous". Wow!

If I brought the "stickam" thingie into discussion is because, "surprisingly", the ones who started telling that this threa was too long and needed to be locked, blah, blah, blah, were the ones who get "their thread" moved to popular... And, apparently, even telling in that time that they had no problem with that, they are annoyed... It' s not my fault. I think this thread can still be interesting, but if mods consider it can't, I have no problem with it to be locked...

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 04:43:42
Ghost, please, go 3 pages ago and start reading... Then see who started with the "This is shit, you are being dickheads, blah, blah, blah..." thingie...

Very well, though I still think there was a *bit* of personal reason for your remarks. Never mind, it really doesn't matter.

But allow me to add a little spin here. As I said, I don't consider myself a religious man, but I understand why religion can play an important role in our lives. I don't think the bible is a record of events that happened, but a collection of, for a lack of better words, fables. In pretty much the same way as the Ulysee gave a background to Greek history and mythology, showing how a good man acts, so does the bible. What the *church* did with that book is another thing. I feel that in this discussion there's a mix-up between religion, the THING, and religion, the INTERPRETED THING.

Can we say that religion is one thing, and the church's behaviour another? Because then I could see some sense in entering the discussion.

Can we do that? Because "Religion works for me for being a better person, it is a set of moral rules, etc, etc..." is an argument believers constantly say. Of course, when the "church" pisses it off, they inmediatly claim "THAT is not religion!!!"

And I am not talking of paedophiles, etc... I think that has nothing to see with religions, but about some "weird" idieologies of things done by the church (No using condom, not to abort at any case, not to extra-matrimonial relationships, not predicating with the example of sharing their goods with the poor, etc...) They can say all that things "ARE Religion" because the Bible is a big "Roschard". It can work for justifying almost everything... If you want a paragraph for beating someone, you can find it, if you want a paragraph telling you can not masturbate, you will find it, if you want  a paragraph saying that you may not marry people of your same gender, you can do it... But if you want to find paragraphs saying JUST THE OPPOSITE, you will find them, and if you do not, you can quote some Christ quotes about "free will, I am here to make men free" and that "do the others what you want the others do to you" and you got it. YOu can use bible for everything!

So, another point of mine is that Bible didn' t made anyone better... People who was good, stills being good with the bible, because bible just pops out what you really had inside. If you are a bastard and you really want to blow a Bus in Tel Aviv, it' s not the Coran which tells you to do it... You wanted to do it, and sacred books confirmed what you wanted to do.

Same with "church". We can' t say "What church is doing is not approppiate according to the sacred books", because "sacred books" don't really say anything clear... Everything is just too vague. Jehova's witnesses example is, IMO, good. They took a greek version, they translated it, and they feel that' s the propper version. If there was a line in that original version that, twisted, implies that you can' t receive blood, then, it' s God' s word: Let's obbey.

But it' s not God' s words... Who knows what that line orginally said.

Bible is invalid as a source of anything because it' s vague, imprecise and had lots of misstranslations... That is, IMO, almost out of discussion.

Bible works wonders, calming down people and giving them a reason/guidance/confidence to live. Whatever is written there, however absurd it wouldn't be, important is that it works. So does religion.

...When it works.

But when it doesn't...

...believer starts to associate himself with his/her god.
"How dare you--..."

Like I can't like you if I don't like your god at same time?
Are you god?

Also found in the bible is a recipe for baking bread. Seriously, Ezekiel 4:9 talks about making bread in hard times.

Also in the bible is a recipe for meat and how to build the world's best tent.

I don't see how anyone can take every single thing in the bible literally... anything that has been translated that much is going to see some deviation. I personally take it as a collection of fables, notes, stories and cultural stuff from a time that is ripe with history and general "stuff going on". It's the same way you can't take everything in the Illiad and the Oddessey seriously... otherwise you'd think there were monsters everywhere.

If the bible was boring in any way (and by boring I mean straight-forward and logical) then it wouldn't be the only book that can't be included on the top-seller's list because it always sells #1.

Quote from: MantraofDoom on Mon 24/11/2008 08:29:47
I personally take it as a collection of fables, notes, stories and cultural stuff from a time that is ripe with history and general "stuff going on". It's the same way you can't take everything in the Illiad and the Oddessey seriously... otherwise you'd think there were monsters everywhere.

Yeah, that has been said before and I think we all agree on that. And I don't think there are many people who literally believe in the bible, that's why I don't see a point in discussing that further.

Quote from: InCreator on Mon 24/11/2008 03:25:14
THUS I SHALL BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY!!!1

How dare you...blah blah.

People dare to judge themselves and others on daily basis.

To any matter, I can apply whatever approach I want. I believe in.

I believe in physical world, what I can see, hear and touch -- therefore laws of physics.
This gives me hope and sense of security dealing with world and life. This keeps me safe. Like your religion keeps you.

How dare you to tell me I cannot have my beliefs and explanations?

Don't I deserve way to understand and deal with matters I cannot understand fully? Don't I have right to deal it with my way to not be lost in a world of things beyond our comprehension? Am I forced to follow the way Holy Bible explains those things?
What if my Bible has "Physics for 8th grade" written on its cover? Are you saying that my beliefs are worse than yours?

So my religion renders yours highly unlikely. Does that mean I'm judging you?

By not believing what you do, and calling it impossible or stupid, I'm practicing my religion.
EXACTLY what you do when practicing yours, denying all science.

How come you can do that, and I'm automatically a dickhead and evil when I dare to do this?

I am so, SO terribly offended.
Heartbroken.
I won't post in this thread anymore.

:'( :'( :'(

Now what's your problem anyway?
LGM wasn't ignorant of your views, attacked them or talked to you specifically.

Quote
Can we do that? Because "Religion works for me for being a better person, it is a set of moral rules, etc, etc..." is an argument believers constantly say.

Not their religion or faith. Look, did you read what LGM wrote, he had a good point and actually his post was one of the few here that I found to be enlightening. Some people follow what the church, the pastor and the pope has to say, yes. Others just believe in god, other also in the bible, but don't care about what those clerical authorities want you to believe or to follow.

QuoteOf course, when the "church" pisses it off, they inmediatly claim "THAT is not religion!!!"

Huh? Who does that?? Maybe they say that it's not their religion/faith/belief whatever. Or maybe they say that it's not christian/jewish/muslim/whatever.

What I'm getting from all what you write here is that you generally think that religious people are suspect, you're skeptical of them and assume the worst. You throw them in one pot and you won't stop doing that so there's no point in discussing it.

When I read your post in full length, though (which is hard because your stereotypical world view disgusts me a bit) I see that you have some valid points.
Yes, it's evil to act in the name of religion, like starting a crusade or doing terror acts. There's not question about it. I think this is the main criticism you can throw at the Bush administration.
Also, I'm not sure if anyone said that religion is about making you a better human being? Is atheism about that? I don't think it's either.

@InCreator: Who the fuck are you talking to?

Quote
Yeah, that has been said before and I think we all agree on that. And I don't think there are many people who literally believe in the bible, that's why I don't see a point in discussing that further.

Dito.

Quote from: matti on Mon 24/11/2008 09:25:18

Quote from: MantraofDoom on Mon 24/11/2008 08:29:47
I personally take it as a collection of fables, notes, stories and cultural stuff from a time that is ripe with history and general "stuff going on". It's the same way you can't take everything in the Illiad and the Oddessey seriously... otherwise you'd think there were monsters everywhere.

Yeah, that has been said before and I think we all agree on that. And I don't think there are many people who literally believe in the bible, that's why I don't see a point in discussing that further.

Because that's what the thread is about.

Nacho suggested that the people who DO take every word of the bible literally were "stupid", and he's been trying to defend that statement for 11 pages.  If you really beleive that Jesus actually turned water into wine, that he fed 5000 with two loaves and a fish, that Adam and Eve were tempted by a talking snake... then you certainly can't be called 'intelligent'.  But just because the word 'stupid' might be a slightly harsh term doesn't make it untrue... it VERY true.

And as you say, we've all already unanimously agreed (even the Christians among us) that the bible is NOT meant to be taken literally... and that's because we are not stupid.

Actually, not, Stupot. I said that the facts are stupid. I never said that literalists are stupids, I can' t judge them all... Some will be, for sure, as at any segment of society. Some of them will not... Some of them will be even more intelligent than me, probably in a similar percentage that at any other segment of society...

They (Literalistics) might have no other chance than believing in what they do. Maybe they have been educated that way, or they had an experience that can easily turned into "supernatural" without the appropiate training, being "converted" in that way. Man, even I have seen "UFOs" and made "astral travels" that should have been extremelly convincent without my personal training!  :)

If I am told that RGB=250,0,0 is "Green", in spite of the most common aception of "green" (0,250,0), I will keep saying it' s green for the rest of my life. If I'm told that when I am a kid, by someone who I totally trust, like a teacher, my parents, or any other adult that RGB 250,0,0 is green, 250,0,0 will allways be"green" for me.

That' s another of my main compliments about "Religion". It' s something we tell to kids, when they have no tools to set a propper deffense, and they don' t really "accept" it. They simply "obbey". Actually, I know the case of a friend whose parents decide not to talk her about religion till when he was a teenager (Her father was Jew, her mother is Christian). When she was adult and she was asked about "what religion to chose", she said: "No one". I know it' s probably not enough to use it a rule for the rest of the world, but WE CAN'T KNOW untill we test it. Something simillar happened to me, and, in spite of receiving Religion at class, I decided to be atheistic. My point is that if you are raised "neutrally", in the XXIth centuty, you' ll be, 90% of the cases, atheistic.

Question: Anyone of the believers here was raised "neutral" and became believer when adult?

And Ghost, you seem to keep saying "Nacho wants to focus this debate if Religion should sepparate from the State". No. I' ve mentioned religion classes, but the parent telling to its 3 years old kids is not "The State".

And no. I am not going to reply LGM because, according to what he posted, he is the kind of discreet "spiritual" man whose beliefs do not enter in confrontation with mine. He gave enough evidences about a personal conception of spirituality that I can't argue with, because what he basically said is: "I believe in something and it works for me, full stop". I can' t argue with his beliefs because I don' t exactly know in what he believes... I can' t argue with him because I agree with him.

Not with his "inferiority complex" phrase, but I think that was directed to InC, anyway... And if it was directed to my, I am not going to discuss it either, since some people here intoxicated this thread enough ("Nacho believes all believers are stupid, Nacho says it' s time to finish with religions, Nacho thinks Religion is the main problem of the world, and that it must be terminated, blah, blah, blah...") that I can't blame him either...

Quote from: Stupot on Mon 24/11/2008 09:37:40...that Adam and Eve were tempted by a talking snake... then you certainly can't be called 'intelligent'.  But just because the word 'stupid' might be a slightly harsh term doesn't make it untrue... it VERY true.

Actually...talking animals are not that weird. As an example: chickens have something like thirty to fourty 'words' for danger (depending of it's location/direction). So the fact that you cannot understand them does not mean they can't talk. It just means you are not able to understand them (if Adam and Eve did exist, it is not impossible (or irrational or illogical)  to imagine that they could understand the animal languages). And we're only talking about animals here. It has been shown that even plants communicate (and feel pain...sorry PETA, plants feel pain. So that would make slaying plants as brutal as killing animals).

The fact that things go beyond your imagination...well, I would blame your imagination (and in a lesser extend a lack of knowledge).

This doesn't mean of course that the story of a talking snake is historically sound, nor does it say anything about the other passages of the Bible. It does however indicate that believing such a thing has nothing to do be being 'stupid'. Saying it is IMPOSSIBLE might.

That is why I perfer agnosts over (fanatic) atheist or (fanatic) theists...agnosts tend to have more imagination, and see possibilities whether or not they believe in them themselves (bear in mind, I did generalize here, and am not talking about ALL atheists or ALL theists...just the ones who managed to hook up a computer, and get on the internet (and even some of those are excluded) ;) ).

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 10:13:38
Actually, not, Stupot. I said that the facts are stupid. I never said that literalists are stupids

In the same way that saying "Your mother sells herself" isn't saying she's a whore, she just does whorey stuff.

Quote from: Stupot on Mon 24/11/2008 09:37:40
And as you say, we've all already unanimously agreed (even the Christians among us) that the bible is NOT meant to be taken literally... and that's because we are not stupid.

I don't think I agreed that. I really don't understand why its hard to believe in a talking snake, for example, if you believe in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient God. Now, I don't think its necessary for the whole Bible to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean there's any reason why an omnipotent God couldn't have done things just as it says. Of course, this is predicated on the belief in an omnipotent God so I don't expect atheists to understand.

Man... Do I really have to say again that I don' t consider (even literalistics) stupids?

But, sorry... even your decided deffense of the 40 words chickens can say, the whole paradise story is a complete no sense... It' s a irrational story. The history of God alone in the "nothing", who become bored, created earth and created man from mud, then a woman, from his rib, because the man needed irrational story.

Saying it is irrational is not stupid. Saying that 2+2=5 is irrational and saying 2+2 is not equal to 5 is not. You can' t use the "respect my beliefs" argument here.

That "recpect it all" actually has never done. We do not respect one man who believes that killing virgins is good for his Karma, do we? We do not respect people telling Jews are fags and that we must gas them all, do we? We do not respect someone denying holocaust (We don' t... In many countries we imprison him even...) Which is good.

I am not trying to say that religious people are virgin killers, antisemites or holocaust negationists, ok? My point is just that "We never respected EVERYTHING".

As we shouldn' t happily accept that "irrational stories", per se.

Quote from: SSH on Mon 24/11/2008 10:59:31

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 10:13:38
Actually, not, Stupot. I said that the facts are stupid. I never said that literalists are stupids

In the same way that saying "Your mother sells herself" isn't saying she's a whore, she just does whorey stuff.

No, it isn' t... But it' s ok.

Portaying yourself as a victim is the only way to get something of this, since if you enter in the rational side of the discussion, you are lost, and you know it...But it' s ok. It' s sad that you want to throw me to the lions with that tactic, saying that I mean what I don't mean, but it' s ok...

Oh! An edit!

QuoteI don't think I agreed that. I really don't understand why its hard to believe in a talking snake, for example, if you believe in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient God. Now, I don't think its necessary for the whole Bible to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean there's any reason why an omnipotent God couldn't have done things just as it says. Of course, this is predicated on the belief in an omnipotent God so I don't expect atheists to understand.

Preciselly... Read your post again, and if you can' t see something weird in "I really don't understand why its hard to believe in a talking snake" discussion is over.

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 11:01:20
Saying it is irrational is not stupid. Saying that 2+2=5 is irrational and saying 2+2 is not equal to 5 is not. You can' t use the "respect my beliefs" argument here.

Actually, 2+2=4 is PROVABLE from first principles, based on work by Bertrand Russell. You are unable to PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of anything metaphysical. They are hardly comparable. Love is irrational, but I bet everyone here believes in it. The story of Oscar Schindler is irrational, but I believe it. Irrationality is a STUPID reason to dismiss something.

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 06:04:57
if you want a paragraph telling you can not masturbate, you will find it, if you want  a paragraph saying that you may not marry people of your same gender, you can do it... But if you want to find paragraphs saying JUST THE OPPOSITE, you will find them

Where?

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 11:09:14

Quote from: SSH on Mon 24/11/2008 10:59:31

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 10:13:38
Actually, not, Stupot. I said that the facts are stupid. I never said that literalists are stupids

In the same way that saying "Your mother sells herself" isn't saying she's a whore, she just does whorey stuff.

No, it isn' t... But it' s ok.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now you've decreed, I realise how wrong I was.

Quote
Preciselly... Read your post again, and if you can' t see something weird in "I really don't understand why its hard to believe in a talking snake" discussion is over.

Ah, if we're going to quote partial sentences to try and make the other people look stupid:

Quotethrow me to the lions

If you insist!

Guys, if we're not gonna lock this, maybe step back and take a little break?

You're like spitting out posts right now and they're getting increasingly personal.

Quote
That "recpect it all" actually has never done. We do not respect one man who believes that killing virgins is good for his Karma, do we? We do not respect people telling Jews are fags and that we must gas them all, do we? We do not respect someone denying holocaust (We don' t... In many countries we imprison him even...) Which is good.

I am not trying to say that religious people are virgin killers, antisemites or holocaust negationists, ok? My point is just that "We never respected EVERYTHING".

It's one thing to have a personal faith/belief, but another to use it as a motive for your actions. Like I already said, it doesn't excuse crusades, terrorism or some actions of the Bush administration "in the name of god".
I wonder why you come back to this point, though.

@Andail: Not me... (The personal stuff, I mean)

Okay I reply:

A) 2+2 is 4. I don't think it' s necessary to develope that more...

B) Okay... I think we all agree that there are sentences in Bible against masturbating and homosexual behaviour, no?

"Thou sall not throw your seed", "And Sodoma was punished because of its behave", etc, etc...

Ok: Sentences that can work for someone looking into the Bible looking for phrases supporting masturbation or homosexuality:

Jesus: "That, free of sin, throw the first stone". "Love one each other, in that way they will know you are my desciples"

Want more? We can look for "Sentences saying it is ok to kill" and "sentences saying it is not ok to kill", and go on, forever.

C and D are just rants, so, I don' t mind, I just accept it...

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 11:01:20
Man... Do I really have to say again that I don' t consider (even literalistics) stupids?

But, sorry... even your decided deffense of the 40 words chickens can say, the whole paradise story is a complete no sense... It' s a irrational story. The history of God alone in the "nothing", who become bored, created earth and created man from mud, then a woman, from his rib, because the man needed irrational story.

Mi no comprende this reaction (and mi no speake Spanish, but that's a different story (and I appologize if I just offended Spanish speaking people...or people who know Spanish speaking people)).

When would it be non-irrational in your opinion? - If one could show a possible mechanism by which such a cration were possible? - If one were to weigh all the options, and consider a creation (in the order as described in Genesis - to keep it Judeo/Christian (but we can also go to what the Hara Krishna believe if anyone cares to...I don't mind)) the most likely conclusion, would it than be non-irrational? - It is only irrational if you cannot come to a particular conclusion by rational means. Personally I believe that either origin idea (whether by a supreme being or not) is equally rational, since I can imagine people comming to either conclusion based on the knowledge of the life, universe, and everything that I have.

Fact is: I still don't understand your raction to my chicken story. So that makes me wonder: what is it you have against chickens? - Were you ever attacked by chickens when you were little? - Does El Pollo Diablo hount your dreams?

Ps. I'm so proud of myself that I managed to slip a Monkey Island reference into this thread :D

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 10:13:38
And Ghost, you seem to keep saying "Nacho wants to focus this debate if Religion should sepparate from the State". No. I' ve mentioned religion classes, but the parent telling to its 3 years old kids is not "The State".

I didn't say that. And I can't "keep saying" something when my total posts in here amount to three (I think), each one having a different topic. Sorry for trying; I'll leave it be.

I don't  mind your attempt to speak in Spanish, I appreciate it, actually! (It' s "Yo no comprendo" or "Yo no lo entiendo", though)

So... you want me to say why Genesis is irrational?

*Phew* Okay.

According to what we know about physics, Universe was created from a infinitelly small spot of infinite density and infinite gravity. It' s a physical inditermination, which means that physic laws do not exist there. It is an indetermination that was the beginning of time, and created our physic laws, which means that, if anything existed before that t-1, it was totally erased.

So, even if there was a God in the Big Bang, he was killed. Which means that he had no control over nothing from t=0, so, even what we thing if "IT" must be false, since he was not there to inspire us.

And because I know that the earth was not created in 6 days. And because I know all animals were created at the same time along those 6 days. Because I know (Or "all evindences tell me that..." if you preffer, and you can apply it to all the "I knows" you see here) that some other animals were extinted before the actual ones. Because I know that man was not created by mud, but by history of evolution.

Happy? I guess not, since you believe... :)

And well... You mentioned Hare Krishna... I don' t know why, a "deffense of christianism because there are even more nuts religions over there"? Some people tried that tactic... Which is a weird deffense, I think... You would be accepting "religion is nuts" (note the quotes), I don' t mind if there are another that are even more... If that is your argument, I agree... Some are more "unreal" than others, and some are more dangerous than others. I talked of "religion" and it it has moved to "Christianism" or "Bible" it' s been just because of the momentum of the thread... I could change "Christianism" for "Religion" if you want...

@Ghost: If you didn' t said that, I am sorry... That was the perception I had of your posts, a perception that can be totally flawed. I am sorry... I post from memory. There' s no need of you the leave this thread, if you don' t want.

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 11:54:09
According to what we know about physics, Universe was created from a infinitelly small spot of infinite density and infinite gravity. It' s a physical inditermination, which means that physic laws do not exist there. It is an indetermination that was the beginning of time, and created our physic laws, which means that, if anything existed before that t-1, it was totally erased.

So, even if there was a God in the Big Bang, he was killed. Which means that he had no control over nothing from t=0, so, even what we thing if "IT" must be false, since he was not there to inspire us.

And because I know that the earth was not created in 6 days. And because I know all animals were created at the same time along those 6 days. Because I know (Or "all evindences tell me that..." if you preffer, and you can apply it to all the "I knows" you see here) that some other animals were extinted before the actual ones. Because I know that man was not created by mud, but by history of evolution.

Well, all this is based on the concept that if you look at the current state of the universe (or biology, in the case of evolution) and look how it has changed since mankind has been measuring these things reliably (lets say a few hundred years to be on the generous side of the term "reliably") and then keep extrapolating from that backwards through time indefinitely. This makes some HUGE assumptions: that everything has always behaved the same way physically, that there isn't some huge external effect that is making things look like this but that earth is in some localised anomaly, etc., etc. But lets ride with those too at the moment. If there was a God capable of making that singularity that exploded in the big bang, why couldn't he have made every particle have the correct velocity and position AS IF that had happened some time before but actually hadn't? And why couldn't that have happened 600 years ago or whatever. Or with evolution, why couldn't he make it look as if there's been millions of years of evolution, but he made it look like that 6000 (or 34 as far as I'm concerned ;) ) years ago?

I'm not saying that this did or didn't happen like that and of course it leaves the question of WHY do it like that, but  the point is that Christians believe in an all-powerful God, so deciding that X or Y is far fetched is missing the point.

1) Comparing the existence of love and the existence of god is silly. Plus, the believer doesn't want the existence of love to be proved, he wants proof that the non-believer loves e.g. their parents.
The important difference is that there's tons of evidence that a deep emotional bond we call love exists (even if it's just a chemical reaction of some kind), as opposed to zero evidence that a god exists.
Thus, no sane person would (should) deny that love does exist, and saying that there's very probably no god is equally logical, regarding the amount of evidence for both hypotheses.
In my book, believing in whatever deity you chose is fine, as long as you don't live life differently because of it. It all breaks down to Pascal's Wager, which is flawed in many ways. Look it up.

2) I'd like to remind everyone that the current bible was put together by people. Many centuries ago, church leaders got together and decided what's going to be in the book and what isn't.
Much more importantly: arguing about whether this or that bible passage is true is completely pointless.
This thread is about skepticism, i.e. "doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)".
Why don't we stay on topic and a few believers start telling us why they chose to believe in God, if they DID choose consciously, at a mature age, that is. What I'd like to hear from the other believers is whether they think they'd still believe in their god if they were raised in another environment (an African tribe, or a Muslim/Hindustan country), and if not, why not?
The first step to understanding atheists is realizing why one doesn't believe in Shiva or forest wraths.

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 11:54:09Happy? I guess not, since you believe... :)

When did I ever say or indicate that I believe? - I just said that I can understand why someone would rationally come to either conclusion.

QuoteSo... you want me to say why Genesis is irrational?

No, I wanted you to say to which criteria an explanation should apply for you to be considered non-irrational. That is actually quite the opposite. I was challenging you to not to defend your own opinion, but to give an opening for other to explain you theirs. If you re-read my posts you will see that all I try to do is to be the 'voice of reason' (and yes, there is a pun there).

QuoteAccording to what we know about physics

I take your physics, and raise you quantum physics: it is known that an observer can change and even create (and create can be described as 'creating order') by observing (actually...it's even worse, the observer always changes the observed; so objectivity is actually impossible according to quantum mechanics and quantum physics...this again implies that quantum physics is not a true science, since science 'demands' objectivity. But that's a whole different story). 'Creation' on a quantum physical level occurs every day. This is nothing new. So that means that I can come up with a rational mechanism that would allow the creation by an intelligent being (were he to comprehend quantum physics in it's entirety...something which is way beyond the scope of human possibilities at the moment). Since there is an explainable mechanism (quantum and physical) even by means of our current understanding of the universe, I cannot consider anyone who accepts the story of creation as irrational. Anyone who sais that it is IMPOSSIBLE is (or lacks knowledge). That being said: the fact that something is possible does not mean that it also actually happened. That is a whole different ballgame.

QuoteAnd because I know that the earth was not created in 6 days. And because I know all animals were created at the same time along those 6 days. Because I know (Or "all evindences tell me that..." if you preffer, and you can apply it to all the "I knows" you see here) that some other animals were extinted before the actual ones. Because I know that man was not created by mud, but by history of evolution.

So based on the evidence you interpret it in a certain way. But that does not mean than if someone has the same evidence he or she will interpret it in the same manner. That would - thus - make you two equally irrational or rational.

QuoteAnd well... You mentioned Hare Krishna... I don' t know why, a "deffense of christianism because there are even more nuts religions over there"? Some people tried that tactic... Which is a weird deffense, I think... You would be accepting "religion is nuts" (note the quotes), I don' t mind if there are another that are even more... If that is your argument, I agree... Some are more "unreal" than others, and some are more dangerous than others. I talked of "religion" and it it has moved to "Christianism" or "Bible" it' s been just because of the momentum of the thread... I could change "Christianism" for "Religion" if you want...

The reason why I mentioned the Hare Krishna is because this I talk about creationism vs non-creationism independant of a religion. I did not judge the Hare Krishna (I did not say they are more nuts than christianity), I was objectively (as objectively as humanly possible) talking about creation or not. There was no judgement, there was no defence. There was only reason and objectivity.

Ps. I don't want to attack your believes, nor am I here to defend relgion or not. I'm just discussing whether or not someone can be religious (or if you want to pin-point it down: believe in the judeo/christian/muslimic deity) from a rational or intelligent background. And I do think that one can (although that doesn't imply that it also has to be true). And I do think that people who disagree (with the possibility of a rational faith) lack imagination. This was the original subject, and I try to stick to that.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Mon 24/11/2008 12:22:26
The important difference is that there's tons of evidence that a deep emotional bond we call love exists (even if it's just a chemical reaction of some kind), as opposed to zero evidence that a god exists.

I've already explained how there is evidence. You need to perhaps understand what the word evidence means, as you are confusing it with proof.

Quote
In my book, believing in whatever deity you chose is fine, as long as you don't live life differently because of it.

So as long as I don't talk about it, go to church, pray or spend any time thinking or reading about theology its OK with you. Nice to see this tolerance you have come to the fore.

Quote
It all breaks down to Pascal's Wager, which is flawed in many ways. Look it up.

I'm sure I'd heard about it before you were even born. You're assuming very bad faith on the part of all believers on the basis of what, exactly?

Quote
I'd like to remind everyone that the current bible was put together by people. Many centuries ago, church leaders got together and decided what's going to be in the book and what isn't.

And an all-powerful god would be completely unable to influence that in any way, of course.

Quote
What I'd like to hear from the other believers is whether they think they'd still believe in their god if they were raised in another environment (an African tribe, or a Muslim/Hindustan country), and if not, why not?

Whatever people say is in answer to this likely to be biased and supposition anyway. It's easy to say "Yes, of course I would still believe". Its easy to imagine a situation where one could meet a missionary or see TV or something. Its easy to imagine a situation where that never happened, too.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Mon 24/11/2008 12:22:26
1) Comparing the existence of love and the existence of god is silly. Plus, the believer doesn't want the existence of love to be proved, he wants proof that the non-believer loves e.g. their parents.
The important difference is that there's tons of evidence that a deep emotional bond we call love exists (even if it's just a chemical reaction of some kind), as opposed to zero evidence that a god exists.
Thus, no sane person would (should) deny that love does exist, and saying that there's very probably no god is equally logical, regarding the amount of evidence for both hypotheses.
In my book, believing in whatever deity you chose is fine, as long as you don't live life differently because of it. It all breaks down to Pascal's Wager, which is flawed in many ways. Look it up.

I'm sure everybody believes in love. Just as we all believe in belief.
....ehm, wait, this doesn't sound right, though that would be the right comparision.
So I think you missed the point there.
I compared love to faith, because the latter was deemed irrational. I thought this didn't describe the problem if there was any.
So it's not about believing in love, but the irrationality of it.
Faith in god is irrational, love is irrational.

QuoteNacho suggested that the people who DO take every word of the bible literally were "stupid", and he's been trying to defend that statement for 11 pages.  If you really beleive that Jesus actually turned water into wine, that he fed 5000 with two loaves and a fish, that Adam and Eve were tempted by a talking snake... then you certainly can't be called 'intelligent'.  But just because the word 'stupid' might be a slightly harsh term doesn't make it untrue... it VERY true.

No, damnit, no no.

Want to know what's stupid?
Taking an old book and saying that you have to do whatever book says.
Decide over good and bad, people and things over this book.

I see NOTHING harsh in saying that doing this is stupid, if you're really obsessed with idea that every single word is pure gold. In case of Bible.

But it's not all black and white. Humans have always set themselves a "book" to live by. What about constitution? Laws? We all follow some book.

Now, believing into greater forces than man, I see nothing stupid here.

Modern science classifies as a religion too. At least in terms of believability. The more you learn chemistry, physics or whatever from same area, the less you see holy aura of "very important and concrete" and much more than it's all so theoretical and every law is actually relative, and there's more exceptions than proof in any scientific base.
People who say "science knows all" are stupid also. No, I don't think the bible knows it all - but neither does any alternative. Like science. Simply, one has more to touch and feel, so I chose this one.


I'm personally not against religion or following the Bible or whatever book of that matter. From my rock, people who live in wonders of modern era and still think that god took 6 days to create all matter, damn, be as offended as you want, I think you have a screw loose. I think so. I don't ask you to like me or be happy with this, I don't hate your or try to change you or anything. This is simply how I feel. Look, sorry, ok? If you don't agree with me, do whatever you like and be happy as you want.

But for my hysterical post above, well. I took random "oh god I'm so offended, must protect my almighty lord with my wise and angry word over internet"-type of religious poster here and replaced <insert religion name> with "science".
Sarcasm? Likely.
There's a bit truth in it anyway, I feel. And addressed anyone who would go for idea that me (and similar thinkers) being not politically correct over the issue is being a "dickhead".

As I said in first response in this thread, a grand soap opera is default way those threads tend to play out.

For my math and logic posts, to be honest, I tried to bring some fun into this really long and unreadable thread...  ::) and sabotage Nacho's crusade  ;)

But I can take advantage from this now saying that from this simple scientific standpoint, I don't see heaven as a possibility. From higher science, it's actually possible I think... how many dimensions we know exist?

So to suggest anything, take it less seriously, please. No internet word could stray a true believer and if I was religious, I wouldn't really give a damn what atheists say. I would still argue, argument or joke about it like I do in whatever debate, but for exploration and pure fun of it. Not to change people or world or something.

SSH:
Are you trying to say that there's evidence a god exists? Please clarify. I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing evidence with proof, btw.

When I say "as long as you don't live life differently because of it", I'm saying it shouldn't influence your life in a negative way, how is that intolerant? It's my view of going through life like this (http://bash.org/?431987).

Pascal's Wager is often cited by believers, and since you've mentioned you believe to be saved because you believe, your argumentation for why you believe is very similar to his (and equally flawed IMO, of course).

Are you implying an all-powerful God made the church guys behave in such a way that the resulting book reflects his word? Why would an all-powerful, omniscient God "create" such a self-contradicting, time-specific book as the bible? Why didn't He formulate a simple, clear message that can be understood by everyone? Why an ambiguous collection of rules that can interpreted practically any way you like?

QuoteWhatever people say is in answer to this likely to be biased and supposition anyway. It's easy to say "Yes, of course I would still believe". Its easy to imagine a situation where one could meet a missionary or see TV or something. Its easy to imagine a situation where that never happened, too.

How does that counter the point I was trying to make?

I don't know if I'm allowed to do this, it is technically on the topic of scepticism but there is something else that has been bugging me in this thread, and I wondered what other people's opinions were, especially some of the religious members.

Nacho mentioned something earlier about "thou shalt not throw your seed"
He also equivocated this to mean that you shouldn't masturbate. But it doesn't actually say that. Couldn't it just be about throwing away valuable crops or something?

The interpretation of the bible and other religious texts is something that has always confused me, where do the interpretations come from, and what gives them authority. I mean, in my opinion the Bible itself cannot possibly be the direct word of god, it is at the very least (supposing a God's existence of course) going to be the writer's own interpretation, so it is surely subject to bias from the outset? And then if it is interpreted wrongly by preachers/religious believers, how do the texts retain any value?

I am in no way trying to undermine the authority of such texts, it would just be interesting for me to know what people think of this?

Also I thought it might be a nice way to get away from personal feuds?

Feel free to tell me to eff off.

I am happy that this debate is being re-conducted into something profitable!

I am specially happy that SSH used an emoticon (This one--->  ;) )in a post directed to me. It is the way I wanted this discussion to go, and I deeply apology for the times where my behaviour made it not going that way, if I did...

Now...

@SSH: Physics allways behave in the same way. In the way particles behaved in the initial instants of big bang there was hidden a secret code of how things would be in the future.

In time=0 everything could have happened. If any particle changed it' s possition, things could fall up, and not down, in this universe, and we wouldn' t see it like "weird". In time=0.000....1 the rules for how the biggest were going to behave were set. In an instant our physic model was here. There'  s no room either (IMO) to say: "See? God was there to make this complicate indetermination in order, directing it to take us preciselly to the place where we are" because if that indeterminations behaved different and physics were different, there would have been another "Universe" where everything would be seen as "normal", even if "weird for us, (The "things falling up" example).

There is no room, according to what we know now, and apparently that knowleadge can be increased, but not substantially changed, to say "Assuming everything behaved the same allways is a HUGE assumption". It is not... things allways behaved the same, physically, in non microscopical terms. That theory also implies that, if there was something before Big Bang, it' s been erased. Big Bang it' s a "tabula rasa".

The "We don' t know what happens in indeterminations" thing (Sorry, I can' t recall who said it) is not a valid example. What happens in indetermination, like Hawking radiation that can escape from Black Holes travelling at hyper-lightspeed, does not affect us, but the smallest particles. It is like if you tell to me that a cell in my brain is going to explode because a fish in the Chinese sea is swimming south. It simply does not affect. Its range is limited. It' s like saying that you can get burned by the shine of the star that is out of the solar system, and I was there, measuring it' s radiation and telling you "Meassures say 0. Atmosphere does not allow the tiniest effect of that star to enter here".

They are not good examples, since the light of the stars would be entering in my eye, I couldn' t see it otherwise, or "the fish could affect you in a weird "butterfly" effect", but my point is that indeterminations, or what happens in quantum mechanics can't "affect" us.

My last point is about the "You can' t explain love either". Well... I can' t, because I haven' t focused on this, but love has a rational, evolutive and cultural explanation. "Love" is explained by something happening in our body, (difficult to explain), but not inexplicable. Please, don' t make me google for "Physiological explanation for love", but I will if you want. That "happening in our bodies" has been turned by the evolution and our culture into the Occidental idea of gentle, platonic love. But that physiological thing happening in another places of the world did not end in the same place where we (Occidentals) are. Muslims can marry three women. In certain tribes of Africa "real love" is just between males, women are just to lie with them for a night and have babies. Love is not equal everywhere because "love" is not something metaphysical that sprouts magically in our souls.

Like God. If you want to explain the concept "God", using "Love", think it twice because you are opening your own tomb. God was not an unique concept that magically sprouted in the minds of everybody, at the same time, as we could expect of something "superior" to happen. "God" is cultural.

First Godesses were fat ladies (Paleo Venusses). Troglodytes thought that God was giving women big hips to have healthy strong kids. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vestonicka_venuse_edit.jpg/307px-Vestonicka_venuse_edit.jpg)

In some other places "God" was a thunder. In some others "God" was a river... Centuries after we had the polytheism and some centuries after we had the Monoteism. Nowadays some people believe in Allah, some other in Yahve, some others in God (This three are supposed to be the same, but we hate the other sides more than any others...), some others believe in Vishnu, some others in Druidism and some others in Manitou. How can "a real Omniscent God" allow that? All the evidences show is that we are facing a cultural developement, perfectly documented. Like love...

So, if you want to go on with this "Love and God is the same", I concur. Both are cultural conventions, one took us to marry with a person of the opposite sex, and the other took us to look to the skies and tell "there' s someone there superior".

And Zoot... don't show your ignorance in such a obvious manner please... :P The "seed" thing was told by God when punishing Onan when He caught him performing a "coitus interruptus". So, yes, God was meaning "semen" when He said "seed", and he was punishing him for that. Every "sperm" is sacred for God, and every wasted drop is a Sin...  :P

So instead of asking questions I should pretend I know everything?

What a wonderful idea.

I have tried to join in this debate in a constructive manner, but you seem to be determined to prove yourself the most intelligent person here, so I'll leave you be.

Googling a bit before assuming that I was wrong could save you from showing your ignorance, yes... I mean a "Which is that episode of the bible you are talking about, Nacho" should have been better that "You are a silly idiot who doesn' t know what is talking about, man... I am sure the Bible was talking about crop, or something else. I mean... it said "seed". It had to be something vegetal!!!"  ;)

You are addictive to argue with.

I wasn't assuming you were wrong, not at all, that wasn't my question, I was just trying to find an example in the thread of somewhere where the bible is open to interpretation. I did that so I could raise a question that I genuinely think about. I thought that was clear from my post, evidently not.  ;)

So, as to my earlier question, does anybody have any opinions?

EDIT: With added secret sarcasm code!

Man... When somebody wants to argue does not use this---->  ;)

Got it?

;)

[off topic]

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 14:06:10The "seed" thing was told by God when punishing Onan when He caught him performing a "coitus interruptus". So, yes, God was meaning "semen" when He said "seed", and he was punishing him for that. Every "sperm" is sacred for God, and every wasted drop is a Sin...  :P

A. Coitus interruptus is not the same as mastrubation (unless you call having sex but not finishing the job masturbation).
B. Was the spilling of the seed punished by God, or the fact that he (after his brother had died) was not willing to fertilize his brother's wife in his brother's name to make sure his brother's line would continue...even though he was willing to have sex with her. (it may be a weird custom, but in a world where bloodlines and offspring are more important than ours, it does make some sense...I guess).
C. I had to look it up, but the 'every "sperm" is sacred for God, and every wasted drop is a Sin...' idea is not in the text that I read

Nacho refers to: Genesis 38:7-10 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0138.htm#7) "And Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan: 'Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.' And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the LORD; and He slew him also."[other translations] (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Genesis&verse=38:7-10&src=)

Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) "Certain interpretations of the narrative concerning him have led to the use of the term onanism to refer to masturbation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation) or to 'pulling out'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus)"

Quote from: Zooty on Mon 24/11/2008 13:43:57Nacho mentioned something earlier about "thou shalt not throw your seed" He also equivocated this to mean that you shouldn't masturbate. But it doesn't actually say that. Couldn't it just be about throwing away valuable crops or something?

Whenever someone references anything I try to go back to the source...in this case the Hebrew text (a good thing we have the internet). While the word seed is used in these verses, the translation would be 'child'. The verse that Nacho quoted 'thou shalt not throw your seed' does not exist in this Bible passage. The thing that comes closest is 'he spilled [it] on the ground', which does not contain the word seed, nor is it a commandment but merely a description of what a person did. So basically the text Nacho referred to does not exist in the Hebrew text, and he still owes us the passage in the Bible that concerns masturbation and considers it sinful (because Google did not give me such a verse, so I couldn't go back to the source, so I couldn't investigate what he said).

Ps. The reason why I always try to go back to the source is because of things like this: people (both believers and non-believers) claim so many things about the Bible. So at one point in my life I decided to make sure I could at least check whether their claims make any sense or not. In this case I would dismiss it.

[/off topic]

Man... If what God was punishing was sperm wasting, masturbation is, may lightning strike me where I stand if it is not.

And I didn't went into "That line punishes bestiality and homosexuality" as well, because, even considering that it is, I didn' t want to put "Bible" into that unpopular position... Everybody likes fuckin' animals.

Misj, that raises a question from me then, is there not concern over the hebrew word for virgin and the hebrew word for young girl?

Stating that Mary was not a virgin when she had jesus, just young, which isn't so miraculous.

Does that make the difference between Jews and Christians boil down to a mistranslation? Going back to the source, that is.

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 15:04:29Man... If what God was punishing was sperm wasting, masturbation is, may lightning strike me where I stand if it is not.

Or you could just re-read my previous post and ponder for a few minutes until you saw that the text isn't about mastrubation... :P

I kinda wonder why I'm arguing when my arguments get ignored all the time. So I'm outta here.  :-\

But Misj, if you go even a bit further and read my posts you' ll see that I didn' t wanted to talk about what the book says (Basically because my point is that the book does not say anything in clear). My point is that Bible brings as much different teachers as readers. You don' t think God punishes Onan for wasting the seed (I don' t know why you do think Onan is punished, though? Because he dissobeys God?)  but I, when reading that, think he is.

Two people, 2 teachings.

So... what to we do? Easy. Go to the "authorities" and ask... And here comes the teologycal congress, makes a meeting and say "Ok... Misj was right, Nacho not... God punishes Onan for disobbeying God, not for wasting sperm".

BUT

Those people who decided who was right or not ARE NOT GOD. So... I am going even to consider that, yeah, Bible is sacred and was inspired by God.

How can we, even with that, follow it's beliefs since the teachings are made by mere, flawable man? Impossible. At least I wouldn' t.

And if God was punishing Onan not for dissobeying him, but for wasting the seed, he was pursuing masturbation and homosexuality as well.

And Ozzie... we all know you were a sabotager :) It' s okay, don' t be sad!  :D

[more off topic]

Quote from: MrColossal on Mon 24/11/2008 15:12:30
Misj, that raises a question from me then, is there not concern over the hebrew word for virgin and the hebrew word for young girl?

Stating that Mary was not a virgin when she had jesus, just young, which isn't so miraculous.

Does that make the difference between Jews and Christians boil down to a mistranslation? Going back to the source, that is.

Well...in Matthew 1:23 it is said: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel". This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14 which states: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.". The Greek word used in Matthew is parthenos, which means (according to Strong's (G3933)) 'a maiden; by implication, an unmarried daughter:--virgin.'. So nothing special here: virgin is the correct translation of the word. However, since it's a reference, we may assume the the Hebrew word in Isaiah was the original. The Hebrew word used was almah (Strong's H5959), which can be translated as virgin, however the primary translation is young girl. So...while few Christians will accept this (since they will consider the Greek Matthew translation as inspired by God, and thus correct), young girl is - indeed - a valid translation, and the virgin birth as such not a necessity based on the source.

At least...as far as I've been able to understand it. But I may be wrong of course.

But the difference between Jews and Christians is caused by the difference between Greek and Hebrew philosophy.

[/more off topic]

---

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 15:29:52But Misj, if you go even a bit further and read my posts you' ll see that I didn' t wanted to talk about what the book says (Basically because my point is that the book does not say anything in clear).

My pont is that Bible brings as much different teachers as readers. You don' t think God punishes Onan for wasting the seed (I don' t know why you do think Onan is punished, though? Because he dissobeys God?)  but I, when reading that, think he is.

That doesn't make sense: you don't want to talk about it, because it isn't clear. But if it IS clear you don't want to talk about it either. The text states that God slew him because the thing that Onan did was evil according to God. This part is still simple: Onan did something, and God punished him. So what did Onan do - according to the text - "and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother". So he had sex with the woman, but in order to prevent fertilization (for he did not want to conceive his brother's child according to the text) he spilled the seed. That is what the text says: no where does it mention masturbation...unless you're Bible is different from the ones I found on the internet.

QuoteTwo people, 2 teachings.

Which is actually a good thing, so I don't understand why you're opposed to it.

QuoteBut Misj, if you go even a bit further and read my posts you' ll see that I didn' t wanted to talk about what the book says

But Zooty asked as question, you didn't answer it...or at least not very well, since you quoted the Hebrew Bible about as good as the apostle Paul...maybe even slightly worse. This is bad for your credibility, and would reflect on the other things you referred to as well: one might wonder that if you didn't think about checking this, even though this is easy (since it took me a few seconds in Google looking for Onan), then how much of what you state is checked (and well thought out). And since this thread is about rationality and logic, fact-checking is a major part.

This was actually the only way to help/defend this thread. If I hadn't stepped in, it would have been easy to dismiss you...I decided to prevent that (hopefully that was the right decision, so please don't disappoint me  ;) ).

As I said: I'm here as the voice of reason (I always wanted to be someone's voice of reason, but no one in his or her right mind ever listens to me :D )

So, the Sin why God punished Onan finally was "eyaculating without intention to procreate" or not?

Man, if masturbation is not "Eyaculating without intention to procreate", then, what it is?

I didn' t want to discuss about that because I assumed you were not thinking God punished Onan for "spilling the seed without intention to procreate" but because Onan dissobeyed God. I assumed that because, from, the beginning you said "God did not punished Onan for this", and you quoted the entire paragraph, allowing people to take any decission about the meaning of it... If you really think that God did punish Onan for "coitus interruptus" then, that God dislikes masturbation is a logical consequence. It' s like saying "my dad does not like me to hurt animals... I will try killing one, I am not sure if he will dislike it" Of course he will.

If God "forces" a person to lie with a woman he does not like because some ancestral law, and punishes him because after that, because he did not finish the act, we have three possibilities:
a) God punished the man for dissobeying him. (YOU said this is not the case)
b) God punished him for lying with a woman, and eyaculating without will to procreate. Why? I don' t know. Maybe because of this ancest law of not spilling the seed, or because he lied with a woman without wanting to procreate (Both work for punishing masturbation, as well... Wasting voluntarilly semen is wasting semen voluntarilly, no matter if it's a coitus interruptus, a wanka, making love to a cow or to a man)

And that raises a question to me... Does that paragraph tell you that you can make love to your wife if she has been told to be unfertile? Making love to her would be wasting your sperm with a woman which can't have kids...

I don't want to follow such an unfair "Omniscent God", sorry.

Wow, you guys are arguing about what's depicted in the bad copy of a bad copy of a bad copy of a Rorschach picture...
It's so pointless.

Can't we talk about skepticism, pretty please?

It' s important, Khris... I want to bring the point that "X Bible readers, X teachings" (Something that Misj sees as "good"). I said it before... If I ask 20 pilots how does the manual of the Boeing 767 tell about wind speed in wings 2 in two miles of distance to the landing track, they will say "40 knots". If I ask the altitude at that point, they will say "1000 feet" (Or whatever, I don't mind... they will all reply something reasonabily similar). I don' t think 20 different replies should be seen as "good" here. Why when we talk about religion it is? Religious amnisty, again.

If I ask a priest about that Onan passage, and what it means toward masturbation or homosexuality, I will probably have as much as replies as priests asked. Can' t you (believers) see then that "religion" can be taken individually, with no need of more ceremonies?

KhrisMUC, you asked (a few pages ago) for believers to explain why they believe in God.
Well, some of the non-believers here showed me lots of scientific facts about why is just not possible for God to be.
I understand and appreciate the effort but, to them I ask:
Do you not think  believers asked those same questions?
Do you not think they did some research and read the books and googled like some of you did just to answer on this forum?
I mean, what is the source of your rage against believers?
"If God is so powerful why doesn't he..." - is that it? Are you still at that point?
Some of you guys are fathers and mothers, most aren't. When things aren't going well, who do you call when you are sitting on your toilet with a handful of bills? Ghostbusters? Space Boys's friend George?
To all non-believers, I believe in God and I don't take it that serious, I just feel that this generation thinks that to believe is to be uncool or something.
Look at the life of Jesus and even if you don't believe in all that stuff, how much would you give up just to be near such a person?
I love you guys and I probably should dress my avatar when talking about this things.

Quote from: miguel on Mon 24/11/2008 17:54:40
Do you not think  believers asked those same questions?
Do you not think they did some research and read the books and googled like some of you did just to answer on this forum?

A lot of the time the answer is 'no'.  The majority of believers are only so because of their upbringing, and by the time they are old enough to ask questions they don't feel the need to, because they have faith and to question it would be doubting that faith (which they have naively and unwittingly inherited anyway, rather than making a concious decision about it).

And yes, before anyone argues, I'm aware that some people DO make the transition from non-believer to believer, but these people are few and far between.  They normally have some kind of special case such as they 'miraculously' survived an accident and suddenly have no way of explaining it other than to ask themselves if God did it (when most of the time if they asked an expert he could have explained it easily).

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 24/11/2008 17:20:22if God "forces" a person to lie with a woman he does not like because some ancestral law, and punishes him because after that, because he did not finish the act, we have three possibilities:
a) God punished the man for dissobeying him. (YOU said this is not the case)
b) God punished him for lying with a woman, and eyaculating without will to procreate. Why? I don' t know. Maybe because of this ancest law of not spilling the seed, or because he lied with a woman without wanting to procreate (Both work for punishing masturbation, as well... Wasting voluntarilly semen is wasting semen voluntarilly, no matter if it's a coitus interruptus, a wanka, making love to a cow or to a man)

I seem to be missing a third possibility, but anyway (I'll give one later on based on the text): As for [A] could you please direct me to the post where I said this was not the case? - I seem to have misplaced the post where I said that. I reread my posts on this subject and it's not in any of them, so could you please point me to a direct quote.

QuoteSo, the Sin why God punished Onan finally was "eyaculating without intention to procreate" or not?

I'm really starting to wonder now whether you actually read the text in the bible. Or, and that's the second option, you just don't want to read the actual words. It says literally: "And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother." - This is simple reading of the text completely independent of your or my believes, the text states that Onan spilled his seed because he didn't want to conceive a child for his brother. No interpretation here. The story is simple: Onan was supposed to do something (conceive a child with his dead-brother's wife in his brother's name), he decided that while he was willing to have sex with her (he went in unto his brother's wife) he did not want the bloodline of his brother to continue (lest he should give seed to his brother). God then punished him. Whether this story is historical or not, and whether you or I believe in it doesn't matter, the story states simply what Onan did was evil, and what Onan did was (basically) killing his brother's bloodline even though it was his duty to continue via his brother's wife (read Dt. 25:5-9 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0525.htm)).

QuoteIf you really think that God did punish Onan for "coitus interruptus" then, that God dislikes masturbation is a logical consequence.

But if you read the verse (literally, but I know you are against the literal reading of the bible, because that's irrational and stupid, since in your first post you stated 'Okay... I've been told that saying that Bible literalism is stupid' (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=36135.msg473882#msg473882)) than you see that it has nothing to do with spoiling seed, it has nothing to do with masturbation, it has to do with the reason why: he didn't want the bloodline of his brother to be continued (Dt 25:9).

QuoteIt' s like saying "my dad does not like me to hurt animals... I will try killing one, I am not sure if he will dislike it" Of course he will.

Then again, a better example would be: It's like saying "my dad doesn't want me to eat my brother's apples", where you say that means that you are not allowed to eat pears, since what dad said was clearly about fruit.

Ps. Neither of us has to believe this story to understand it. It was simpler than your average Day of the Tentacle puzzle. All the answers were there (and Deuteronomy was easy to find since it was the only other place where 'yabam' (levirate (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=nl&q=define:+levirate&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)) was used. The idea of leviration is not something I would prefer (my brother's wife is nice, but I don't intend to share her bed, even if he were dead (although someone might be able to convince me to donate my sperm for IVF...maybe)), but it has nothing to do with masturbation.

Pps.

QuoteIt' s important, Khris... I want to bring the point that "X Bible readers, X teachings" (Something that Misj sees as "good"). I said it before... If I ask 20 pilots how does the manual of the Boeing 767 tell about wind speed in wings 2 in two miles of distance to the landing track, they will say "40 knots". If I ask the altitude at that point, they will say "1000 feet" (Or whatever, I don't mind... they will all reply something reasonabily similar). I don' t think 20 different replies should be seen as "good" here. Why when we talk about religion it is?

If you have the problem that you can't play a game on your Vista computer, and you go to a forum, and all you get is on answer than applies only XP computers...wouldn't you have preferred multiple answers so you can make a decision which one is the most appropriate solution for your problem? - I would. So if 20 different replies is 'good' here (allowing you to play the game) then why can't you accept that it might be good in other cases as well? - If you ask 20 scientist to interpret a scientific 'fact' you will get 20 different answers. That is what keeps science alive. If it is good for science, then why isn't it good for religion, art, philosophy, etc. The only logical answer to that I can think of is: because you believe religion is static, or because you don't want it to be alive.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Mon 24/11/2008 17:35:59Can't we talk about skepticism, pretty please?

What do you think all this is about?

Ppps. Nacho, I am sorry to say - and please don't be offended by this (although I can't blame you if you are) - but based on simply reading this Onan-text all I can conclude is that you base your interpretation on preconceived ideas that are neither logical (based on the text) nor rational (researched and well thought-out). For this little piece of text it was easy to test, but it does make me doubt - and I told you that you were at risk of this - whether any of your other opinions are logical (based on 'evidence'),rational (researched and well thought-out), or mostly objective (not based on pre-conceived ideas). Consequently, I doubt whether you are truly sceptical. I'm sorry. This is all I can conclude from your recent posts. Not because different interpretation of the text, but because you have no better argumentation than - basically - 'I once heard this was about masturbation, so it must be true', and that is not being sceptical, it's blindly following other people (which is the same as many of those religious people do).

Let me just go back to my post and apologize to InCreator. I did not mean to say that you were wrong by making my logic assessment. I was merely trying to explain why some do not and will not share your viewpoint. It is my fault that I did not present it more in that manner.

I don't mean to say anyone is WRONG about their beliefs or non-beliefs in the afterlife. Faith should be an individual thing, it guides you and you alone. Yes, it's great to find fellowship in those who believe as you do, but that being said, these people must arrive to this point in their lives completely on their own terms.

As I tried to explain, as a person who has found something the works for me and me alone, it would be hypocritical and highly unfair of me to say what works for others is WRONG. It just does not apply to me. And that is fine. Part of living is accepting everyone else who are also living and the choices they make. But there is a difference between accepting something and agreeing with it. Or even liking it. You can accept something and completely hate it. For instance, I accept that Paris Hilton is a socialite beauty-queen that makes the news every freaking day... But I also hate those very same things about her.

Anyway, I just wanted to apologize. I know I sounded a bit stand-offish, but really, it's okay. And Nacho, I wasn't targeting you specifically either. I know you've been demonized a bit in this thread, but I understand we're all only human. Thanks for understanding, though. I knew you weren't as stupid as you look. ;)

Quote
A lot of the time the answer is 'no'.  The majority of believers are only so because of their upbringing, and by the time they are old enough to ask questions they don't feel the need to, because they have faith and to question it would be doubting that faith (which they have naively and unwittingly inherited anyway, rather than making a concious decision about it).

And yes, before anyone argues, I'm aware that some people DO make the transition from non-believer to believer, but these people are few and far between.  They normally have some kind of special case such as they 'miraculously' survived an accident and suddenly have no way of explaining it other than to ask themselves if God did it (when most of the time if they asked an expert he could have explained it easily).

And if you raise your children as atheists then they will continue to be atheists, the majority at least. What a surprise, really. ;)

I think it would be interesting to know then how many non-believers became believers and the other way around.

KhrisMUC brought up a point, and MrColossal again touched on it, regarding the validity of what is largely considered by Christians to be the word of God. Whether they take this as literal is a source of debate in itself, but in my opinion the Bible has been through far too many human hands to be considered the word of any one individual, be they God or Man.

Does any Christian believe that the Bible isn't the word of God?

Where in the bible does it tell us who exactly wrote the first few chapters of Genesis; written as they are from God's point of view? Genesis is in part written as though someone was there taking notes as God did his thing. Did God impart this information personally to the first Bibliographer? All we know for sure is that at some point somebody wrote something down about the light being good, etc, etc. Then we had 2000 years of peoples opinions, alterations, and what have you, leaving us with a book that nobody can agree over, agree with, or even agree that it should be taken as writ.

Faith is in essence blind, so Christians who argue, though free to argue they are, over the finer points of what, how, and why God did what he did, really have no business feeling slighted by arguments in which they have absolutely no solid counter-argument. Beyond their belief.

So it's not solid facts they are defending, but the belief itself.

And how can you argue with that?

And again, the existence of God and Organized Religion are two completely different things. The fact that Organized Religion validates itself on the basis of something that can't be proven shouldn't blind us to the possibility that Man, and not God, is the problem here.

Misj'... Finally I understand it!!! :D It' s easy when a believer do explain what he believes in spite of posting a long passage, no?

Now... Knowing what you think of it... Do you agree with me that many people doesn' t agree? Yes. Many people thought that this passage was condemning any kind of waste of sperm, no matter if masturbating, in a homosexual relationship or in a zoophilian one.

So, Bible does not work as a manual of morale, since anyone can find certain sentence to justify everything, from killing to robbery, to the opposite if they twist the words enough (And nobody said you can' t twist the words a little, since Bible does not come with intructions...)

A Roschard... if you are good, you will go on being good. If you are evil, you will go on being it, but with "divine justification".

And Ozzie... what is to be raised as atheistic? I never was told a word about religion by my parents, only "We will talk of it when you will be a teenager" and received religion at school, so, I think I was mildly religious upbrought... I was not told "anything of the die hard atheistic stuff" I said here, so, basically no... I haven't been raised as "atheistic" but as "neutral".

Well, if you're neutrally raised then you probably won't care much for religion either. It's pretty much the same, maybe only that more likely you would acknowledge religion and faith as a valid aspect in the life of some people.

Anyway, I can't help myself, I have to post this link! Jesus is my friend! (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8)

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 25/11/2008 02:34:20Misj'... Finally I understand it!!! :D It' s easy when a believer do explain what he believes in spite of posting a long passage, no?

Well...it's not about what I do or do not believe, but what is written in the passage. In this case it's the Bible, so anyone who gives an interpretation is automatically considered religious because he or she interprets a religious text. But we could have talked in the same manner about any other text. Had we discussed about the Code of Law from Hammurabi (particularly the greatly miss-understood 'eye for and eye' passage, which is about protection of the weak and not about revenge) no one would have considered me a Babylonian.

QuoteNow... Knowing what you think of it... Do you agree with me that many people doesn' t agree? Yes. Many people thought that this passage was condemning any kind of waste of sperm, no matter if masturbating, in a homosexual relationship or in a zoophilian one.

I agree that many people don't agree. However, I think that the following Jewish explanation is better: they say that for every verse in the Hebrew Bible there are (at least) 70 possible explanations possible; the exception being the Shema Yisrael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael), which is not open for interpretation to a Jew (Christians re-interpreted it though, which is one of the reasons why a Jew cannot accept it).

QuoteSo, Bible does not work as a manual of morale, since anyone can find certain sentence to justify everything, from killing to robbery, to the opposite if they twist the words enough (And nobody said you can' t twist the words a little, since Bible does not come with intructions...)

Well, when looked into Jewish Karaism a while back I found two things:
A. In Deuteronomy 4:2 it is written: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." - So twisting the words a little would be in disagreement with the instructions given. Sure you can discuss whether this concerns the entire Hebrew Bible, only the Torah, or only the words on the stone tables (that were - according to the same Bible written by God himself (Exodus 34:1) (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0234.htm)).
B. The Karaites had the following in the FAQ (http://www.karaite-korner.org/karaite_faq.shtml)
How can you have a community if everybody interprets the Bible themselves?
This is only a problem if we start off with intolerance. Karaites have learned to have tolerance of greatly varying interpretations as long as they are derived from sound principles of Biblical exegesis and only based on the Tanach. The reason for this tolerance is that we know that it is more important to do the right and moral thing than to do the same thing as everyone else.

So the answer of these believers to your question is an obvious: 'the Hebrew Bible is very much a moral guidance'.

Oh, and just for the record: I am neither a Karaite, nor a Jew. So while I tried to answer these questions from the point of view of these believers, I cannot guarantee that they agree with me.

Ps. I can understand why a believer would say that since life is not black and white, it would not make sense to have a guide that is.

I think I have been outclassed in this debate, there are people here voicing mostly my opinions much more eloquently and efficiently than me  ;) , so as a parting shot, I present this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Mon 24/11/2008 12:22:26
Why don't we stay on topic and a few believers start telling us why they chose to believe in God, if they DID choose consciously, at a mature age, that is. What I'd like to hear from the other believers is whether they think they'd still believe in their god if they were raised in another environment (an African tribe, or a Muslim/Hindustan country), and if not, why not?

Well, googling can easily turn up testimonies of christian converts from islam (http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html), Hindu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSB97Xp5_kc), etc.

Hehe... I knew the song, Zoot, it' s great. (IMHO, of course...)

And Misj', I don't  get your point... Do you mean that if everybody followed your source should agree with your point?

I don' t think so, BUT, even with that... (next step in my reasoning) How can we recognise that *this* and not the other is the correct source? How can we know, even if we go to the oldest, most reliable version in theory, that there' s not going to appear another older source saying the opposite? We can' t.

If Religion is like that, it' s basically like science, who constantly re-examinates its believes and is able to change them if something different to the  stablished is prooven... But in the other direction. Science looks the PRESENT to see if something from the PAST was wrong. Religion looks the PAST to see if something in the PRESENT is wrong...

And, as much as I can respect hebrew shepperds, I don' t really think that they have much to tell to me...  :-\

SSH: And much more Christians converting to Muslims as well... Do we go now into "The Religion with most converssions" or "The religion with most followers" win? Then, I think Christianism is definitelly losing (Catholisicsm already did):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3653800.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3653800.ece)

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 25/11/2008 05:08:22
SSH: And much more Christians converting to Muslims as well... Do we go now into "The Religion with most converssions" or "The religion with most followers" win? Then, I think Christianism is definitelly losing (Catholisicsm already did):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3653800.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3653800.ece)

Well, Islam becoming the worlds largest religion doesn't mean its getting more converts, necessarily. It may be that more Christians are becoming agnostic, etc. Anyway, the point of those testimonies was to show that it is possible to believe something other than you were brought up with. Khris seemed to be saying that only people with Christian parents became Christians which is patently false. The fact that Christians convert too also proves this point.

But as you said, individual examples do not work much for assuming something... Some examples googled in the internet do not prove as "patently false" that most of the believers were raised in a spiritual environment (It disproves ALL were, though... A statement I never deffensed, on the other side...)

We should make a world poll to know that: "Which is the percentage of the believers who were raised in a religious envirnment and which is the percentage of the believers who did convert when they were adults".I googled for it and I didn' t get any approppiate entry... If you can find one, I would be pleased if you post it here.

Told that, I just can trust in my perceptions... And that perceptions tell me that the percentage of believers that were raised as believers is very high (All the ones I know, to be honest) and the percentage of converted when adults is very few (None of the ones I know, actually). The range might be a bit limited, but let' s say that I am wrong for how much... 20%, even 30%? Okay, then the percentage of religious raised in a religious environment is 70%. A lot. And assuming that I am 30% wrong (Which is assuming a lot...)

How many of the believers do you know are so because "converted"? Only 20 examples in the internet? Any personal one?

Let' s make a small poll here... SSH, Misj', Miguel, LGM... Were you raised in a religious environment or in a neutral one?

I am quite sure that, the most religious the education was, the most "degree of believing we have"

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 25/11/2008 05:08:22
And Misj', I don't  get your point... Do you mean that if everybody followed your source should agree with your point?

No, I say - and said from the beginning - that everybody is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the data, and that one persons interpretation is not necessarily more rational or logical just because it comes to another conclusion than someone else. This was also reflected in my example of the Jewish idea of 70 interpretations.

QuoteIf Religion is like that, it' s basically like science, who constantly re-examinates its believes and is able to change them if something different to the  stablished is prooven...

While I do not consider religion a science (neither is mathematics, philosophy, art, technique or medicine...but I should also say that I do not add some extra 'mythical' value to the word science. The scientific approach is not more valid than the philosophical approach...it's just different), there are similarities in that there are developments. Many recent books on religion (by religious people) present a different image than the ones from ten years ago...and many of these books are a lot more critical than most atheists that I've heard/read on religion (because they still seem to think that religion is stuck one to two thousand years ago...which apparently isn't the case if I read those other books). Now I do believe that there is a difference between the institute of religion and religion itself. Because if I read books that are written by institutions I feel that they are - indeed - stuck in some dogma. But the same is not only true for religion...it seems to be a common problem with institutionalization, which is why I think everyone should be sceptical about the institutes (no matter their vision of the world).

QuoteBut in the other direction. Science looks the PRESENT to see if something from the PAST was wrong. Religion looks the PAST to see if something in the PRESENT is wrong...

Science is a tool to examine the mechanisms of the universe (or in the case of biology of specifically life, and in the case of chemistry specifically interactions between molecules). The scientific approach tries to unravel these mechanisms by means of objective measurements. Nothing more, and nothing less (this is also why the before mentioned subjects are not science...even though they rely on science and science relies on them).

Okay, Misj', this is how the arguments between you and me go:

M-There are as much interpretations for the bible as readers:

QuoteNo, I say - and said from the beginning - that everybody is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the data, and that one persons interpretation is not necessarily more rational or logical just because it comes to another conclusion than someone else. This was also reflected in my example of the Jewish idea of 70 interpretations.

N-But then, Bible is invalid as a "manual of morale".
M-But I have a version of the Bible that says that God was punishing Onan not for wasting the seed, but for not wanting to continue his brother' s line. ***(Which is weird, because if Onan pregnants her brother' s wife he shouldn' t be continuing his brother' s line, but Onan' s, but it' s ok...)***
-N: But that has nothing to see with what I said about the Bible validity as a manual of morale... Let me try to know what you are thinking... Do you mean that Bible, if we go to one unique source IS valid as a manual, because everybody should take the same teachings from it?
-M: No; M-There are as much interpretations for the bible as readers:

QuoteNo, I say - and said from the beginning - that everybody is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the data, and that one persons interpretation is not necessarily more rational or logical just because it comes to another conclusion than someone else. This was also reflected in my example of the Jewish idea of 70 interpretations.

N-But then, Bible is invalid as a "manual of morale"....

And go on till the infinite. I think we should FOCUS in one aspect of the discussion and not "moving sticks" (The chinese equilibrism exercise with sticks and plates... That what you are doing to me...). And those aspects, as far as I remember, are:

-Can bible work as a moral guide if anyone reading it can take completelly different teachings?
-How many believers here were upbrought in a religious environment?

Two yes or noes, and explanations of both replies, thanks...

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 25/11/2008 06:41:51
I am quite sure that, the most religious the education was, the most "degree of believing we have"

But of course most countries in the world have large quantities of religious people in them (especially Spain). Therefore saying "Ahah, most religious people have a religious parent" doesn't prove anything as its actually quite hard to NOT have religious parents. I could just as well say "How many atheists do you know with atheist parents?" Very few? Well, that must prove that having atheist parents makes you religious. Correspondence in numbers does not prove causality. For someone who worships science, you don't seem to know much about the scientific method.

As for different interpretations invalidating the source, the orbits of the planets were interpreted by Newton into Newton's laws. Then Einstein came along an interpreted them differently. The motions of the planets must be invalid! Someone tell Saturn to stop moving in such a stupid way!

Or another analogy: Judges and juries keep interpreting the US constitution in different ways in different states. The whole constitution must be invalid and hence the USA reverts to a British colony...

Now those countries start to do have large quantities of religious people (Spain, for example). Since they parents were religious, in a degree, or definitelly more religious than kids, we can say that yeah, the less religious you uprise a kid, lesser religious he/she is.

And... Hehe... That' s funny. Why you said "Someone tell Saturn to stop moving in such a stupid way!"

If you said "Mercury", you' ve nailed it. Newton' s theories were inconsistent with Mercury' s movement.

Actually... Einstein proved that Newton was wrong. Newtonian physic do not work under circumpstances of high gravity, like happens in Mercury' s orbit. Newton was never able to explain the weird things Mercury' s orbit was doing.

Newton discovered a consequence of the theory of relativity that worked under most of the circumstances... So, basically, yes... Someone should have told Mercury to stop moving in such stupid way!

EDIT: Yes, American constitution, another good example that you think is going to help your cause, but actually doesn' t. The american constitution is reintepreted by judges everyday. When there are problems of interpretations, the problem raises till the Constitutional Court, which emmits a veredict that must be followed by anyone under the constitution. A veredict that can' t contradict any other paragraph of the constitution, and if it does, constitution is changed. A veredict that is published and publicitated so anyone can follow it. Most of the counties include a referendum if something in the constitution has to be changed.

Do religion do that? I am not sure if it has some kind of equivalent to the Constitutional Court. I guess it has, but I don' t know... There must probably a ecumenical or teological "curia" (I don' t know the English name) which takes the bible and says "Okay guys, let' s focus in this episode... Onan". After years of deliverations, arguments, consults reading different sources they came with something: "That episode means this and this".

And then it comes a difference I really know about religion and Constitution. When the constitutional says something, the message is spread so any judge at any court can know what to do, how to judge and which punishement to apply to those not following the rule. If sames happens with religions, message does not arrive, and, if arrives, most of the believers do not care. "If they say masturbation is bad but I do like it, I will go on doing it... God has an inmense mercy, he will forgive me... and those guys in Rome can be wrong, anyway!" Some priests marry gays. Some others fall in love and get married (Yeah, renouncing to go on being priests, because they can't go on being it, but doing something seen as a "sin" anyway...). Some others can even get annoyed with the central authority, nail 95 thesis in a door an start their own interpretation of religion... Yeah... all very simillar to the american judicial system...

Well...our argumentation is slightly different in my opinion:

M - There are more interpretations possible of a verse, and - as long as they are (honestly) based on that verse - these interpretations are equally valid (and rational, and logical). The same is true for any text, whether religious or not. --> The Jewish argument of 70 explanations of every verse.
N - But then, the Bible is invalid as a 'manual of morale'.
M - No, because multiple interpretations keep the discussion alive and therefore - in this case - religion alive. --> The Karaite argument against intolerance (The reason for this tolerance is that we know that it is more important to do the right and moral thing than to do the same thing as everyone else.)
N - But if there are multiple interpretations than you cannot know which is the truth, so that makes the Bible invalid as a 'manual of morale'.
M - No, because if life is not black and white, then a manual of morale shouldn't be either.
N - But if it isn't black or white than you can find arguments for whatever you want, and then the Bible is not valid as a 'manual of morale'.

And that brings us back to Do do do do (to reference the Sound of Music).

Sure, the bible - or any book for that matter - can be misused is someone wants to. And that is - of course - a big weakness of (non)religious people who are not sceptical. But on the other hand, that does not - by definition - make the bible invalid as a moral guide. I know enough theists and atheists who have misused what they claim to be science to serve their own purpose. But that doesn't mean that science is invalid because of this. It just means that if someone is telling you something you have to be sceptical.

And that brings us back to the subject of this thread: rationality, logic, and scepticism.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 25/11/2008 06:58:12***(Which is weird, because if Onan pregnants her brother' s wife he shouldn' t be continuing his brother' s line, but Onan' s, but it' s ok...)***

This is still a nice example on sceptic reading of a text. You argument here makes sense: it is illogical that it would be his brother's line. Which means that I have to have a good argument for the interpretation. So I sceptically looked at the Hebrew word yabam, which is translated as levirate (= to marry a (deceased) brother's widow), and looked for other occurrences, which I only found in Deuteronomy 25:5-9 (as I mentioned earlier (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=36135.msg474542#msg474542)), where it says in verse 6: "And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel". So yes, it may be weird, and no, it's not my cup of tea. But based on the text it's a valid explanation, because that is what the text is (from an objective point of view) about. The fact that you did not know Deuteronomy 25:6 (even though I specifically mentioned it) is poor fact-checking...and it does make me wonder whether this is a general flaw or not.

Ps. I must add that I do not know many atheists where I work. Lot's of agnostics (they don't know whether or not there is a God, and - frankly - don't really care either), some religious people (Christians, Hindu, Muslim), and only one whom I know to be an atheist (although not to extremes). I've had discussions will all of them, and I have disagreed will all of them (and agreed with some at times). I have defended either side in the past, depending on the best angle for a discussion. In this thread the best angle for discussion was to see whether logic, scepticism, and rationale can be part of researching a religious text or not. I approached this angle objectively, and presented only knowledge, not believe. From that objective point of view I can only conclude that I see no reason why 'Bible literalism is irrational or illogical', even though I may not agree with their conclusions. Objectivity is - however - the key. And I believe (no pun intended) that I've managed to remain objective thus far (concerning this problem).

So, my friend, my interpretation of what you mean is that Bible finally is a drum to amp your original moral... Then, why using it? Why not going to the original source of moral (yourself).

I do.

And if you believe that my moral is as good than yours, you must recognise that Bible does not work better than not using it.

If you think that your morale is better than mine, then, we are going back to the one of my biggest compliments about religion: Many religious people think they are superior. Quite annoying, to be honest.

Still... moving sticks: SSH and Misj'. Can I ask you about your religious educaction? Were you bred into a religious environment or not?

SSH was bred in captivity.

Apparently my words are still considered a reflection of my personal believes, so in order to create a more obvious distance, I'll start talking in the third person.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 25/11/2008 08:04:42
So, my friend, my interpretation of what you mean is that Bible finally is a drum to amp your original moral... Then, why using it? Why not going to the original source of moral (yourself).

I do.

But a religious person would answer you by saying that the source of moral is God (since - according to this religious person - God is the source of everything). He might then continue to say that God placed this morale inside of people, and therefore that your internal morale is a reflection of God's morale. Whether this reflection is a correct or a disrupted reflection is then the question, and that is one that can only be answered by critically going to the source (God). He - the religious person - will then tell you that the easiest way to look at the source is via the Bible (if the religious person is a Christian. if he's a Jew he will say the Tenach, if he's a viking he will say the Edda, if he's a muslim he will say the Quo'ran...but that's besides the point).

QuoteAnd if you believe that my moral is as good than yours, you must recognise that Bible does not work better than not using it.

This religious person will argue that his morale may be equally disrupted as yours. Which - to him - will be exactly the reason why he turns to the Bible: because, he will say, if I cannot trust that my morale is any better than yours, than I - this religious person - needs to have a reference. A reference that he believes to be closer to the original, non-deteriorated, morale as intended by the one who is the source of the morale. In the opinion of this person: God. To this religious person his morale is not better than yours, but God's morale is better than either of you. So in order to try and be the best person possible, he will say, you will have to try and reflect God's morale. A Jew might add, that from a moral point of view it does not matter whether whether you keep God's law from your heart or by education, but - as the Jew is likely to say - the Tenach (Hebrew Bible) is not only about morale, but about a relationship with God. This means, to this Jew, that while doing the right thing is something God asked from you, it is not all he asks, since a relationship is also required.

Phew...it was tiring to write in the third person (and I bet is was tiring to read it as well). But if that's the only way people can see that there is an objective distance between me and the subject, than I'll keep writing it like this.

Ps. If there are religious people here who disagree with my reasoning you may correct me.
Pps. I'm not here on behalf of religion. I'm here merely to show how someone can have a different opinion that is equally valid and thought-out as yours or mine. I defend the strength of diversity. Had I felt that - for example - SSH would batter Nacho's opinion as being irrational, stupid, and 'sheeplike', than I would have taken another approach, and argue the weakness of religious institutions and the problem of non-sceptical religious believers. I won't argue whether God exists or not, because I've never seen any such discussions being fruitful. But anything else goes...

You are right in some aspects... It is tiring to discuss this. I ask expecting a concrete answer, and all I get is mysticism... I have good stamina, though:

-Is that "Coming from God" moral  indistinguishable from non-God inspired moral?
-Can bible work as a moral guide if anyone reading it can take completelly different teachings?
-How many believers here were upbrought in a religious environment?

Quote from: Zooty on Tue 25/11/2008 08:19:13
SSH was bred in captivity.

Yes, I was bread in captivity. It's yeast the way I was raised! I needed a good roll model. Don't pitta me for it. It might make me quite croissant.   :=


Nacho, my mother is a Deaconess and my father ran the Sunday School for ages. Now you can leap out and say "ahahaha - you proved my point".

And of course multiple interpretations of anything doesn't invalidate it. As I proved before but you missed the point.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 25/11/2008 05:01:40

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Mon 24/11/2008 12:22:26
Why don't we stay on topic and a few believers start telling us why they chose to believe in God, if they DID choose consciously, at a mature age, that is. What I'd like to hear from the other believers is whether they think they'd still believe in their god if they were raised in another environment (an African tribe, or a Muslim/Hindustan country), and if not, why not?

Well, googling can easily turn up testimonies of christian converts from islam (http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html), Hindu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSB97Xp5_kc), etc.

I've skimmed through the very first one, a quite interesting read actually. The guy is brought up Islamic, his business fails, he flees the country, starts over, fails again, has to sleep on the street. He starts attending Christian sermons and ends up as janitor in a Christian church. He starts reading the bible and suddenly notices all kinds of contradictions to his own belief. For a very brief time he's on the right track, questioning his world view.
Then he approaches the pastor, who proceeds to show a few bible passages (from the book of John) aaaaand: "It seemed like if I was blind or covered by a spiritual dark veil then I began to see."
A few days later he sees a bright star that rushes down like a comet, then stops in mid-sky and remains there throughout the night. (I'm not making this up!) And BAM, converted.
Yeeahahaha, right.

It's perfectly understandable to me why somebody with one irrational belief will turn to another irrational belief, given the right circumstances.

The point I was trying to make is this: take a random Christian person and hypothetically erase their memory and put their brain into a baby in a Muslim village. They will grow up to believe in Allah. Put the brain into a baby in the jungles of Africa, and they will be raised to believe in Witches capable of transforming into animals who come out at night to steal children and eat them.

The simple fact that there's so many different beliefs in the world, most of them contradicting each other, together with the obvious fact that 99% (bear with me) of believers have a particular belief because they were raised by people having the same belief; just put those together and you'll end up here: there's a really, really slim chance that your own belief is the correct one, and a very big chance that none of them are.

Btw, that's exactly what made me become a very strong atheist at, I don't know exactly, the age of 10 maybe. Or 12. Until then, I had no idea that the whole world isn't Christian. The plain obviousness struck me hard, it was almost a religious experience. Almost.

I am not going to say "Mwahahahaaaaa, Andrew, that proves my pointaaaaa!!!" because it' s been brave of you to recognise it (Brave, since that action could prove my point, not for being raised in a religious environment... That' s not a sin, IMHO), but... but... Well... It really reinforces my point, at the moment, and till we have more data. I am sure that if we ask the same to atheistics here, many will say "Yes! I was raised in a religion environment, but went to atheism when adult..."

Without the "Mwahahahaaaaa", but it does open the door to think "Maybe people without religious would see it as irrational if told that when adults", no?

Hi again,
many of you non-believers would be amazed at what modern church is accomplishing as we write this days.
Just a few notes, first:

The Church and the Vatican reach millions of people with different status and quality of life. Some don't even have a bed to sleep. Some don't have education. So, its word must be globalized as it always been. It's meant so that everybody understand some basic points like the greatest order someone has ever told anyone:
Do Not Kill.
We all know what the crusaders, inquisition did and that the Vatican is corrupt and that priest love young kids. They are humans! Like you and me. And lets say you, a non-believer, what guarantee do I have that you're not a paedophile?

Everybody is so afraid of a bit of...I'll use a word someone wrote before some pages again, mysticism? Why?
You guys live in the XXI century and still think the world of christian is something coming out of Oliver Twist?
To like Jesus is ok, do not be afraid.

I like living in the real world better.
If people are comforted by a book or happier if a greedy organization "reaches out" to them, good for them.

The book is just a way to comunicate Khris, and it is kind of old, you know? :)
So, sure most of the stuff written is very fictional, like a phantasy epic, but it had to be written like that by the church just because they wanted to spread their word.
I wish I could write/speak better or explain myself like LMG did, just to tell you that God, Jesus and Chrisitianity is a personal thing that only You can reach and understand and feel.
I am sure I could never persuade you or anybody, not is that my intent, but I will say it again, christianity is out of fashion right now, it wasn't some decades ago and it will come back, that is my opinion.
cheers

Undoubtedly there will be some tendency for children of parents of religion X to follow that religion, just as they also tend to follow career paths, but I think there's also a tendency for teenagers to rebel against whatever their parents try and push on them, no matter what it is.  Of course, Khris's number of 99% is completely pulled out of thin air and I doubt there's any reliable statistics available on it, especially given the huge number of "nominal" Christians who don't do anything except Christmas and Easter services.

Its interesting how easily Khris dismisses a guy's testimony. And if you want to talk about going from one belief to another, here's an athiest to Christian testimony (http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html).

Probably saying 99% is pulling out... But definitelly saying "some tendency" is also a bit too kind... ^_^

Anyway, the important data, for me, is the other. How many "atheistic raised" become believers. Very few. Even the example you posted is the example of a man who was raised in a religious family.

If "God" is a supernatural being, and he has the power to put religion in every newborn baby, shouldn' t the percentage of kids believing in God, without parental intervention, even, be 100%? It isn't. It is not even close...

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 25/11/2008 12:28:53
How many "atheistic raised" become believers. Very few. Even the example you posted is the example of a man who was raised in a religious family.

Yes, but to be fair, how many people in their 30s have 2 atheist parents? Not that many, I bet. And I notice that you're pulling the old Christian trick of "Ah, but he wasn't  REAL athiest" ;)

And surely atheist parents indoctrinate their kids that there's no God just as much. In fact, 99% of them do (to do a Khris :P ). So I don't think "without parental intervention" is fair, also.

Now here's something to discuss: why do my finger keep insisting on spelling atheist athiest?

Probably for the same reason why I have been typing "Enviroment" in spite of "environment".

SSH:
Come on, seriously, where else do kids get religious ideas from other than the people that raise them (parents, relatives, school, church)? I'm talking about the average believing teenager here, nothing else.
I just meant to say that the religious stuff young people believe in doesn't come out of thin air or from religious experiences (like angels talking to them), so it's probably actually 100% and not 99%.
(If you're convinced I'm wrong here, I'd like to know where else they get them from, unless of course you've misunderstood me. English isn't my first language as you know, so that's probably the reason if you did.)

I've read that testimony in its entirety, and I can say - completely subjectively - that that person must have a serious social disorder. I've been a more or less strong atheist for many years now and neither do I lose all my friends nor do I feel I have to pursue science professionally, let alone regarding all people as walking meat bags or being plagued by a rage of questions about our existence or purpose.
There are millions of atheists leading perfectly happy lives with tons of friends, simply enjoying themselves without being selfish pricks all the time. This isn't just evidence but almost proof that the Christians' statement "atheism leads to loss of all morals" is complete, steaming BS.

If atheist parents indoctrinate their kids that there is no god, they didn't really understand what atheism is (or rather: should be) about: about being a skeptic, about questioning everything. The "ideal" atheist hands them a biology book and the Bible when they're like, 15, and lets them make up their mind themselves. Not every atheist sees it that way, another reason why there shouldn't be a label like that for a person who doesn't believe in a god (people who don't e.g. bungee-jump aren't called "non-bungee-jumpers", right?).

Talking of "converssions"... Hehehe... Apparently Gramsci, founder of the Italian communist party, also found "Faith" before dying :) It' s a funny story. ^_^

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Tue 25/11/2008 14:54:01
Come on, seriously, where else do kids get religious ideas from other than the people that raise them (parents, relatives, school, church)? I'm talking about the average believing teenager here, nothing else.

So hang on, you're changing your argument to be that 99% or more of Christian teenagers get their religion from either parents, relatives, school or church. Well, DUH! Hang on, I've got another stunning revelation here: 99% or more of all teenagers ENTIRE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE is based on relatives, school, parents and (possibly) church.

And TV.

And internet.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 25/11/2008 09:05:03You are right in some aspects... It is tiring to discuss this. I ask expecting a concrete answer, and all I get is mysticism... I have good stamina, though:

I thought that I was quite concrete as to what a religious person would answer. Of course if you define mysticism  (http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&client=opera&rls=nl&hs=MxQ&q=define%3Amysticism&btnG=Zoeken&lr=)as 'the search through various prayers and practices to achieve unity with God in life' then every argument that includes a religious world view is part of mysticism. So if you use that definition, and at the same time do now allow mysticism, than I fail to see the purpose of the thread you started.

Quote-Is that "Coming from God" moral  indistinguishable from non-God inspired moral?

A religious person will say that there is no such thing as a non-God originating/inspired moral. But while the moral might originate from God, so he will say, that does not mean that the moral is still a good reflection of God. He will continue to say that to assure whether your moral is a good reflection, you can check the Bible. And while he is talking to you, he will probably say something along the lines of: good people have a moral that is less degraded from how God originally intended it. He might even add that this does not imply that someone with a moral closer to God's will automatically be saved. He might argue this by saying either of the following: A. since no one's moral is exactly God's, you need to accept Jezus' grace, or B. since it's not only about being a good person, it is also about having a relationship with God. -- This is how I imagine an average Christian might respond to your question.

Quote-Can bible work as a moral guide if anyone reading it can take completelly different teachings?

I've addressed this question, and answered that a religious person will say 'yes'. Even more so: he might even say that is there were only one explanation that it would not suffice as a moral guide. So why do you keep bringing this up? - Sure, I will continue giving the same answer (with different words maybe). And it will continue to be not the answer you are looking for, so you will continue bringing it up until I admit to you, which won't happen, since I think the answer you're looking for is irrational and illogical.

Quote-How many believers here were upbrought in a religious environment?

I've asked this before, but why do you think I'm a believer (in the non-Monkey-song way)?

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Tue 25/11/2008 14:54:01
The "ideal" atheist hands them a biology book and the Bible when they're like, 15, and lets them make up their mind themselves.

That made me laugh...although choosing the right biology book and right Bible translation might prove difficult (and 15 years is a little too old in my opinion...the kids I know aren't that dumb when they younger than that...on the other hand, maybe you should wait giving them any kind of book until they are old enough to drink alcohol. That might help them decide).

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Tue 25/11/2008 14:54:01
If atheist parents indoctrinate their kids that there is no god, they didn't really understand what atheism is (or rather: should be) about: about being a skeptic, about questioning everything. The "ideal" atheist hands them a biology book and the Bible when they're like, 15, and lets them make up their mind themselves. Not every atheist sees it that way, another reason why there shouldn't be a label like that for a person who doesn't believe in a god (people who don't e.g. bungee-jump aren't called "non-bungee-jumpers", right?).

Well, you get "strong" atheism when people believe there isn't a God and "weak" atheism where people don't believe there is a god. Most atheists are the former but argue from the point of the latter because its easier.

Most atheists fight their entire life against something so simple only to regret at the end of their lives.
Let me say that I really don't see the point in discussing if kids are influenced by their parents or not because decisions like believing in God, marriage or even homosexuality is something that people need a bit of life experience to get those answers. Life itself will lead people and build their personalities.
By the time you are 17 you want rock & roll and to party and there is nothing wrong with that. You really don't have a clear opinion on those subjects. But knowing Jesus and his life may keep young people on a special track, setting some boundaries and limits. And that can only be good.
I know atheists that are some of the best people I have encountered in my life and I am proud to be their friends, don't get me wrong, for a man to be good it doesn't mean he has to be a christian and I think we all agree with that. At least I hope so.
With my posts I try to explain and clarify why I am a believer without preaching because it could sound like I am selling something, at least I try.
 

SSH:
How am I changing my argument?
I wrote:

Quotethe obvious fact that 99% (bear with me) of believers have a particular belief because they were raised by people having the same belief

No need to mock it as stunning revelation, the above was brought in as a premise, not as an argument / mind-blowing conclusion.

Most atheists are actually weak atheists, afaik. Dawkins himself says the existence of a good is possible, just very, very improbable.

Oh, and why didn't you address my paragraph about the psycho going Christian?

Misj:
What exactly made you laugh?
And choosing the right biology book is much easier than choosing the right bible translation, just take the newest you can get.
Having said that, the point I was trying to make isn't about choosing the right book or doing it at the age of 15. The gist is that 2000 years old superstition is forced on kids who don't have the tools to make an educated decision about whether to question said superstition or not.
The fastest way towards the model describing our universe best is to question everything; and Religion is a fat road block right in the middle of the street.

Yeah, but Dawkins has an active belief that God doesn't exist, so he's a strong atheist. A weak atheist is someone who has no faith, but who has not actively concluded that God does not, or probably does not, exist. So that would include people who have never really thought about the question, as well as people who have never been exposed to the idea, and many agnostics (as that term is commonly understood).

Strong atheism is a belief, while weak atheism is a lack of belief.

I wrote a whole bunch of stuff about what I myself believe, but who the hell cares? The Great Space Chicken will come and eat you all before this thread is over anyway.

Would you say that Dawkins has an active believe that there's no easter bunny? It's just semantics anyway.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Tue 25/11/2008 21:22:27What exactly made you laugh?

I see irony :)

(still working on rest of the post, so I removed it temporarily...sorry)

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Wed 26/11/2008 08:55:44
Would you say that Dawkins has an active believe that there's no easter bunny? It's just semantics anyway.

There's no such thing as a Dawkins anyway. (http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html)

They told us at school, that pages with purple background are not to be trusted  :(

I never thought of religion and atheism as something more than believing and not believing. believing is such a vague word anyway. The way I coprehend it, it doesn't require any kind of proof and that's all fine by me. I just decided I don't believe as some do. I did spend my time on a religious camp before getting my confirmation. We all do. And I felt good, I felt united with the lot and I felt like I was part of something, and I wanted to go back. A few days I realised it was just me as a teenager on a camp alone with people like me, and that's the thing I wanted to go back to, not the church part of it. Thinking back to it, it kind of reminded me of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave . In the sense, that the collective feeling was close to the one here. But I never went back because I just couldn't force myself in believing... and at that point, it gave me this repulsive feeling. A lot of my friends did go back though.

QuoteThe fastest way towards the model describing our universe best is to question everything; and Religion is a fat road block right in the middle of the street.

I couldn't express this better.
Amen!

QuoteThe fastest way towards the model describing our universe best is to question everything; and Religion is a fat road block right in the middle of the street.

I have met very few people who question everything that are atheists...they become agnostic because: they just don't know (which is the entire basis of questioning). So if you consider yourself an atheist, and you say that religion is a fat road block, than - by logic and reason - I can only conclude the same about you and your believes (because as an atheist you think you know the answer (to the existance of a god), and therefore do not question EVERYTHING). That brings us to Socrates: "I know nothing, but I know that I know nothing, and that makes me more knowledgeable than he who thinks he knows something".

Ps. Still working on that previous post...if I can find the time :)

That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understant or differenciate... A Skeptic does question everything.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 26/11/2008 14:55:41
That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understant or differenciate... A Skeptic does question everything.

So are you saying that you do not believe that there is no god?

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 26/11/2008 14:55:41
That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understant or differenciate... A Skeptic does question everything.

Wiki:
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism.

So in short (and a little simplified): Atheists say there is no God, agnosts say they don't know.
(agnosts can also be agnotisc on subjects not related to religion though, you can be an atheist regarding the existence of God, and agnostic concerning the existence of aliens).

(Not knowing (agnostiscism) makes questioning everything easier...)

That's a pretty big simplification, Misj'. Not all atheists claim that there is no God, and many agnostics go much further than saying they are unsure about the existence of God. It is possible (indeed common) to be both atheist and agnostic at the same time.

Could we keep this on track please? It's completely useless to start discussing whether Dawkins/me/anyone else is a strong/weak atheist/agnostic/whatever. I think the positons are reasonably clear.

My position is that I assume that there's no supernatural stuff. "Then" religious people started to claim there is, and until they can prove that (which is impossible), I keep assuming that there's no supernatural stuff. Call me whatever label this position earns me, but lets not cling to words like that, please.

This discussion was ever on some kind of track and not completely useless?

It's a shame that the terminology is really muddy, as the subject matter is tricky enough as is.

Agnosticism in particular is very misunderstood, and is often thought of as a safe middleground between believers and atheists. I'm afraid Misj's explanation, well intentioned as it was, supported this misconception.

Agnosticism and atheism actually deal with seperate areas, so as Snarky pointed out, you can for instance be an agnostic who believes in god - an agnostic theist - which may sound surprising.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism deals with gnosis, knowledge, and is about whether we can have knowledge about godlike things, and not about whether god actually exists or not.

- All agnostics believe that they personally don't have any knowledge about whether god exists or not. This stance is known as 'weak agnosticism'.

- Some agnostics go one step further and claim that noone can know whether god exists. This stance is known as 'strong agnosticism'.

I would suspect most people in this thread, believers or not, would agree with the first stance, and can label themselves 'weak agnostics'.

Atheism

- All atheists agree that they don't believe there is a god. This stance is known as 'weak atheism'.

- Some go one step further and claim that there is no god. This stance is known as 'strong atheism'.

---

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 26/11/2008 06:11:13
Yeah, but Dawkins has an active belief that God doesn't exist, so he's a strong atheist. A weak atheist is someone who has no faith, but who has not actively concluded that God does not, or probably does not, exist. So that would include people who have never really thought about the question, as well as people who have never been exposed to the idea, and many agnostics (as that term is commonly understood).

By the above definition, which is used at least in swedish academia, and which I suspect mirrors the usage in most other countries, Dawkins, a self labeled 'weak atheist', is indeed a 'weak atheist', as he merely claims that god is very unlikely.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 26/11/2008 16:02:52
This discussion was ever on some kind of track and not completely useless?

Why participate in a completely useless discussion then?

Loominous, I think you make the important distinction here: agnosticism is a philosophical theory of knowledge, while atheism is a description of a person's beliefs or lack of beliefs. People do use the words differently, however, probably partly because they have different assumptions about what belief is, what knowledge is, and what people's "default position" (as if there was such a thing) is.

Unless they assert that the concept of God is inherently inconsistent (a contradiction in terms) or incoherent (meaningless), and therefore as a certainty impossible, almost all atheists are going to admit that there is some chance that they are wrong and that God exists. So by Dawkin's terminology (which seems subtly different from your definition of strong atheism), they would not be "strong atheists".

There's a Wikipedia article on Weak and Strong Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism) that explains the more general usage of the two terms, and cites Dawkins as an exception.

SSH: I think there is no God. To be precise: "None of the evidences I received so far tell me that God exists". So I don't  believe in it.

If you feel tempted to say something like "But you have never seen a whale and you believe they exist!" control your desire... I said "NO EVIDENCES SO FAR", I said nothing of "Seeing". I had enough evidences to think that whales exist (I'v e seen videos, I' ve seen bones...) or that there was a revolution in France in 1789.

And as I knew that the definition of Gnostic and "Atheist" can enter into a muddy terrain, I define myself as a skeptic, which is, and in danger to make a mistake (I am not going to wiki) a person who asks evidences to believe in something, and believes on them at the point where those evidences are enough for him.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 26/11/2008 16:49:59
SSH: I think there is no God.
...
I define myself as a skeptic, which is, and in danger to make a mistake (I am not going to wiki) a person who asks evidences to believe in something, and believes on them at the point where those evidences are enough for him.

So you believe there is no God. Which must mean you have enough evidence that there is no God. This is different from not seeing enough evidence that there is a God.

For example, take a cat  in a box with a poison released on a random event. I might say that I believe the cat is still alive (analogous to "There is a God"). You might say you believe the cat is dead (analgous to "There is no God"). The "I don't believe in God" (which is NOT what you said) would be saying that you don't know if the cat is dead or alive. Do you see the difference? You maybe said that you take both stances in your last post, and I want to be clear where you're coming from. KhrisMUC: I don't care what your stance is but Nacho's is relevant to my part in this discussion so please don't ask me not to discuss this! I'm not trying to label but to understand.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 26/11/2008 16:43:51
People do use the words differently, however, probably partly because they have different assumptions about what belief is, what knowledge is, and what people's "default position" (as if there was such a thing) is.

Yea, I'm not happy about the way I presented the definitions, as my intention was to present them as "simplified, generally accepted definitions used at least in swedish academia" and not as universally accepted definitions set in stone.

My intention with the definitions above was to let people distinguish themselves, as, at least to me, it's a huge difference between being a "fundamentalist" type who claims: "There is no god. This I know", to someone just saying: "I don't believe there is a god. But I don't know".

Being lumped together with more extreme views due to lack of nuance in the terminology is just needlessly frustrating and confusing.

From my limited insight into his mind, Nacho would be a weak atheist - as he doesn't believe in god, but doesn't claim there is no god (which would make him a strong atheist), and rejects 'strong agnosticism', since he believes there can be evidence for god's existence (which would make knowledge about god's existence possible).

Edit: Fixed a corrupt sentence

SSH, you're assuming that the two positions are symmetrical, that believing there is not a God should require the same amount of evidence as believing there is a God.

But usually, people do not assume the existence of things there is no evidence for, even if there is no evidence against either. If we had to come up with reasons to dismiss any unproven claim that people could think of, our worldview would become pretty crowded. (This is essentially the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument: unless there's some reason to think it exists, we assume it doesn't.)

Loominous, I'm not sure I see a very clear distinction between believing there is no god and claiming there is no god. I see a distinction between believing/claiming there is no god, but admitting lack of certainty, and claiming that there definitely is no god. (I think we agree on the point, we just articulate it a bit differently.) I'm OK with calling the former "weak atheism" and the latter "strong atheism". We should keep in mind, however, that the terms are also used in a different sense, as synonymous with "negative atheism" and "positive atheism", respectively; where negative atheism means not having beliefs in god(s), and positive atheism means actively believing that there is no god.

Quote from: SSH on Wed 26/11/2008 16:59:27So you believe there is no God. Which must mean you have enough evidence that there is no God. This is different from not seeing enough evidence that there is a God.

It's not 50:50.
Snarky put it well; as long as there's no evidence for something, the skeptic sort of "doesn't care about it". So there's absolutely no need to have enough evidence that there's no god; it's perfectly fine for a skeptic to dismiss god's existence based on the fact there's no evidence for his existence.

Proving god's existence is something believers'd have to do, in no way is a non-believer obliged to prove his non-existence.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 26/11/2008 17:19:25
SSH, you're assuming that the two positions are symmetrical, that believing there is not a God should require the same amount of evidence as believing there is a God.

But usually, people do not assume the existence of things there is no evidence for, even if there is no evidence against either.

I've always thought the flying spaghetti analogy was rather unfair. God, as it's generally understood, is after all intended to answer legit questions, such as, how did the world begin.

Granted, you quickly get into the whole who created god regression, but you can argue along the lines of d'Souza that god operates outside our universe, in a place without causality, so while everything needs a cause in our world, god might not need one. Or something.

My point is just that god is actually presented as an answer to a real question, while the flying spaghetti monster, as far as I know, isn't. So while I don't claim there's symmetry, it's at least not completely assymetrical.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 26/11/2008 17:19:25
We should keep in mind, however, that the terms are also used in a different sense, as synonymous with "negative atheism" and "positive atheism", respectively; where negative atheism means not having beliefs in god(s), and positive atheism means actively believing that there is no god.

Oh, and then there's 'explicit' and 'implicit' atheism. It's just a swamp.

Quote from: loominous on Wed 26/11/2008 16:24:41
It's a shame that the terminology is really muddy, as the subject matter is tricky enough as is.

Agnosticism in particular is very misunderstood, and is often thought of as a safe middleground between believers and atheists. I'm afraid Misj's explanation, well intentioned as it was, supported this misconception.

A-theist: form the Greek No - Deity
A-gnost: from the Greek Not - Knowing.

While there is discussion whether the term refers to not-knowing (what Loominous referred to as soft agnosticism) or not-knowable (what Loominous refers to as hard agnosticism), an agnost does not make any claims about the existence of the subject he or she is agnostic towards. As an example: an agnost can say 'I don't know whether aliens exist, but I don't believe in them', but they can't say: 'since I have no evidence that aliens exist, I'm convinced they don't exist'. So to look at agnosticism concerning a deity (which - as I pointed out - is not the only thing you can be agnostic about), you can say: I see no evidence about the existence of god, but I don't believe in such a supernatural being', but you can't say: 'there is no god'. So while you can be an atheist and an agnost (and I never claimed otherwise), or theist and agnost, several of the atheists here are not agnostic, because they claim that 'there is no god' rather than 'I don't believe there is a god'.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Wed 26/11/2008 17:28:31...in no way is a non-believer obliged to prove his non-existence.

However...as soon as one claims that his pre-assumption is more valid than another pre-assumption, then this person as to provide evidence for that claim. In your example: while a non-believer does not have to proof god's non-existence, he does have to proof that the pre-assumption that there is no god is more valid that the pre-assumption that there is a god. Otherwise, both pre-assumptions are equally valid, and neither pre-assumptions may be dismissed (as irrational, illogical, idiotic, or whatever).

Ps. Loominous, while I hinted at the fact that agnosticism does not (only) apply to the existence of a deity, I did not go into that, since this is a discussion concerning a religious question, and I did not see any reason to give the broader (more correct) definition of agnosticism. This might have been a mistake on my part, but I guessed people would understand. The definitions that I copy/pasted came directly from wiki and were not my definitions.

Pps. Hay Loominous...

Misj', the term "agnostic" (BTW, there's no such word as "agnost") is originally about God and associated theories. It was coined by Thomas Huxley to discuss his beliefs about God. All other uses come from taking this meaning and applying it to other topics.

Loominous, I think the point about how the world began is a good one, but I would reorder the argument a little bit, saying that:

1. Absent any evidence, we should assume the non-existence of God.
2. Thomas Aquinas presents the existence of the world as evidence for God.
3. Debate about whether this is valid evidence that overrules the initial skeptical stance.

Misj', I think the existence of aliens is a good case study. If we start out saying there is no evidence, we should probably ignore the possibility and assume they don't exist. But actually there is evidence: we have evidence that indicates that life on earth emerged by natural processes under certain conditions, and we have evidence that those processes and conditions are likely to exist on other planets in the universe. Therefore, we can believe very confidently that the potential for life's emergence exists out there.

We can't really say how probable it is (the Drake Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) is pretty much just ? * ? = ??), because we don't know how much of a longshot it was for life to appear here. However, more empirical evidence (like visiting other planets with potential to check, or greater understanding of the processes that led to life) can shed light on the question.

So once we've reached that point (and I think we should be able to do so by widespread consensus), the two hypotheses are fairly symmetrical: we know it can happen, and we know that it's not guaranteed to have happened, so it's really just heads or tails. It's up to anyone who doesn't just go "I don't know", anyone who asserts a belief in one direction or the other, to present reasons for that belief.

Thomas Aquinus, ahh, there's a name I haven't heard since A Level religious education. I remember seeing End of Days in the cinema and they used Thomas Aquinas as a character, oh, that made me laugh. Mainly because he dies :P

Sorry, very off-topic. I've been dipping in and out, reading this, but I seriously can't be arsed to debate religion & God, again!!  :=

QuoteI had enough evidences to think that whales exist (I'v e seen videos, I' ve seen bones...)

And I've shown you plenty of alien space-craft but you still don't believe their existence :P

Quote from: Nacho
That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understand or differentiate...

As an agnostic, I can tell you that I consider the stance of both theists and atheists to be flawed.

To be more specific, I consider myself to be a  Strong Agnostic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism) Though I was raised in a Catholic environment, where the ultimate question of God was secondary to the authority of the Church, religion never played a big part in family life; being more of a duty than a spiritual experience, it became less and less prominent as time went on.

Regardless, I think both extremes regularly make fairly dubious claims, regarding the proof of God's existence, as both sides inherently lack the necessary information to draw a final conclusion. At it's core, it's Faith vs Skepticism. Neither points of view seem to need any sort educated or factual basis to argue.

Which is why this thread will ultimately go nowhere.

Quote from: Misj' on Wed 26/11/2008 17:44:34

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Wed 26/11/2008 17:28:31...in no way is a non-believer obliged to prove his non-existence.

However...as soon as one claims that his pre-assumption is more valid than another pre-assumption, then this person as to provide evidence for that claim. In your example: while a non-believer does not have to proof god's non-existence, he does have to proof that the pre-assumption that there is no god is more valid that the pre-assumption that there is a god. Otherwise, both pre-assumptions are equally valid, and neither pre-assumptions may be dismissed (as irrational, illogical, idiotic, or whatever).

That's exactly NOT THE CASE here.

I don't have to prove that my "pre-assumption" that there is no god is more valid because I had never assumed that in the first place until after I've learned that there's people who assume there is a god. Believers are making an extraordinary claim, they erect a hypothesis, and thus it's them who have the burden of evidence.

(And from not being able to prove that one's own pre-assumption is more valid than the contradicting one does NOT necessarily follow that both are equally valid. Would you say assuming Santa Claus is real is equally valid as assuming he isn't?)

Since you've mentioned the word irrational, hows that for irrationality:
In every other field, ordinary religious people want to see hard evidence before they believe something (think of flying people, talking animals, mind-reading, etc.) yet when it comes to religion, they completely rely on hearsay and an obsolete book. That's irrationality at its finest, isn't it?

And now that I've (again) mentioned Santa Claus:
Think of humanity as little kids who try to explain how the presents got in front of the chimney. One kid suddenly has a revelation: "I know, I know, somebody came down the chimney and left them there for us!" Another kid: "Yeah, I can see it now: he's probably wearing a coat and a hat, because it really cold outside!"
"But how come the presents are completely clean?" "Well, he has some magic of way of cleaning them after he went down through the grimy chimney, no, wait, he's carrying them in a big magic sack which can hold all the presents although they don't really fit in there."
"Hmm, nah, I don't think so, there's probably a completely natural explanation."
The last kid doesn't know yet that it's the parents who put them there. But he's on the right track. And he obviously doesn't have to prove that there's no Santa Claus.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 26/11/2008 18:27:27Misj', the term "agnostic" (BTW, there's no such word as "agnost") is originally about God and associated theories. It was coined by Thomas Huxley to discuss his beliefs about God. All other uses come from taking this meaning and applying it to other topics.

I know (with the exception of 'agnost', since I reasoned that someone who accepts the agnostic philosophy is an agnost (and since wiki redirected me from agnost, I assumed it existed)...plus, in Dutch the term agnost exists and is used in such a way)

QuoteMisj', I think the existence of aliens is a good case study. If we start out saying there is no evidence, we should probably ignore the possibility and assume they don't exist. But actually there is evidence: we have evidence that indicates that life on earth emerged by natural processes under certain conditions, and we have evidence that those processes and conditions are likely to exist on other planets in the universe. Therefore, we can believe very confidently that the potential for life's emergence exists out there

The problem is of course, that there is no scientific evidence (that is by means of objective observation and controlled experiments) that have - until now - shown that life can emerge by means of natural processes. It is shown that certain steps in a possible cascade that might lead to life can occur by natural means, however, this possible cascade is still rather philosophical, and by no means complete. There is no observation of cells emerging from anything other than another cell (any other means is actually impossible according to the 1st law/theory of biology), and there is no life outside of the cell, since the cell is the fundamental building block of life (according to the same law/theory of biology). So that means that there is no evidence to show that life emerged on earth in such a way, and such a claim is even in direct disagreement with the most fundamental law of biology. So that means that there is no scientific reason to assume that aliens might exist...however...

Since life does exists it must originate from somewhere...and that brings us to the 2nd question you raised (the one citing Thomas Aquinas). Is life itself evidence of the existence of God, or is it evidence of a natural process.

---

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Wed 26/11/2008 19:35:44That's exactly NOT THE CASE here.

yes it is...

QuoteI don't have to prove that my "pre-assumption" that there is no god is more valid because I had never assumed that in the first place until after I've learned that there's people who assume there is a god. Believers are making an extraordinary claim, they erect a hypothesis, and thus it's them who have the burden of evidence.

Wrong. You are mixing up the concept of pre-assumptions and the research-hypothesis. For a pre-assumption it must must be shown that it is more valid/likely than an opposing pre-assumption. The research-hypothesis is then investigated (based on these pre-assumptions), and validated by evidence. If both pre-assumptions are valid (since for neither it can be shown than it is more likely than the other), any 'evidence' obtained for the research-hypothesis becomes unreliable.

QuoteWould you say assuming Santa Claus is real is equally valid as assuming he isn't?

Santa Claus is the English derivation of the Dutch word Sinterklaas, which itself is a simplification of Sint Nicolaas (or Saint Nicholas). Sinterklaas is a Dutch festivity (on the 5th of December, the Belgians celebrate it on the 6th), that calibrates this patron saint of children, unmarried women, merchants, and seamen. His is known in history as Nicholas of Myra (where he was a bishop), who lived from around 280 to 352. To help poor people, Nicholas gave them anonymous gifts (there are some legends attached to this, that actually include chimnies), and after he dies, people continuted giving the poor anonymous gifts, which they kept attributing to (or doing in honour of) St. Nicholas. This means that indeed Santa Claus is a real person, namely: Saint Nicholas of Myra...it also means that you should all celebrate Sinterklaas on the 5th of December rather than this stupid corrupted story...but that's not the point here. So based on the evidence I would have to say that one is more valid than the other: Nicholas of Myra was real, so Saint Nicholas is real (although not alive any more), so Santa Claus is real (though not alive any more). ;)

QuoteAnd from not being able to prove that one's own pre-assumption is more valid than the contradicting one does NOT necessarily follow that both are equally valid.

Yes it does...for otherwise you would have been able to prove that one pre-assumption is more valid than the contradicting one. (Also, it indicates that you are not questioning your own pre-assumptions, which then implies that you are not an 'ideal' atheist (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=36135.msg474629#msg474629) by your own definition, and are at the same time a fat road block on the road towards towards the model describing our universe best (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=36135.msg474676#msg474676)...;) )

Quote from: LimpingFish on Wed 26/11/2008 19:15:58

Quote from: Nacho
That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understand or differentiate...

As an agnostic, I can tell you that I consider the stance of both theists and atheists to be flawed.

To be more specific, I consider myself to be a  Strong Agnostic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism) Though I was raised in a Catholic environment, where the ultimate question of God was secondary to the authority of the Church, religion never played a big part in family life; being more of a duty than a spiritual experience, it became less and less prominent as time went on.

Regardless, I think both extremes regularly make fairly dubious claims, regarding the proof of God's existence, as both sides inherently lack the necessary information to draw a final conclusion. At it's core, it's Faith vs Skepticism. Neither points of view seem to need any sort educated or factual basis to argue.

Which is why this thread will ultimately go nowhere.

Neither all atheists nor all believers make claims about having proof of God's (non)existence, or draw any "final conclusion" on the matter.

SSH, I don' t understand you example of the cat in a box. Why I don'  believe in God is simple: I will try explain.

I can' t see the whole world. I couldn' t be sure if whales exist, or the North Pole, or China if I heavilly trust in the old skeptic tactic of "doubting of anything". So, I must trust in my perceptions and assume that the things that I received evidences enough of its existance, must finally exist. That' s why I am sure (99.999999999999999% sure) that if I fly to the East, I will finally find China, or that if I go north I will finally find the North Pole, with Whales in it... I put evidences in a balance, that' s why, for example, I am not skeptic about what happened in 9/11 2001. I believe 4 planes were hijacked by yihaddists, I don't believe the "Missile hit the Pentagon theory". I don't doubt of anything... I have a "bag" where I store evidences supporting the existance of something. If the "bag" does not reach the minimum weight, I don't believe it.

Nessie' s bag never reached the minimum weight, nor the "ghosts" bad, nor the "UFOs are Aliens!" bag...

"God" bag doesn' t reach the minimum weight, either. The bag called "Did humans create God" is full (for me).

I was looking the reason why (for you) the bag "God exists?" is full... I found it, that's why I left the discussion, but if you want to ask me anything else, I will be here for you for trying to reply as best as I can.

And I don' t declare myself "Agnostic" of "Atheist" because I know that the definitions are difficult, and I am too lazy to go to Wiki and see the differences to see which matches more to me... So, I am skeptic. I want evidences to believe, and I will believe when the amount of evidences reaches the "realistic" point.

This thread turned into a very interesting filosofy lesson, although I must say that some of the participants can't look beyond their own belly.
The Australian philosopher J. J. C. Smart once remarked that an argument useful (from his naturalistic point of view) for convincing believers in human freedom of the error of their ways is to point out that contemporary mechanistic biology seems to leave no room for human free will.
When transforming everything into pure knowledge people lose what makes them unique, the ability to believe in good.
Logic is only logic if you believe in it because in no way you can prove anything at the eyes of a philosopher that doesn't want you to. Reason has no value and truth can easily be achieved by simply having two people agreeing in something.
But even if Christianity is on the move, it has taken only a few steps and it is marching through largely alien territory.

For the intellectual culture of our day is for the most part profoundly non-theistic and hence non-Christian- more than that, it is anti-theistic.
Most of the so-called human sciences, much of the non-human sciences, most of non-scientific intellectual endeavor and even a good bit of allegedly Christian theology is powered by something  foreign to that of Christian theism.

To end, I would like to read some more believers into this debate. I feel it is not even.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 26/11/2008 20:54:23
Neither all atheists nor all believers make claims about having proof of God's (non)existence, or draw any "final conclusion" on the matter.

Which is not what I said.

I said both extremes, as in Strong Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism) or Classical Theists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism); who each, by definition, consider their views on the matter to be fairly ultimate. I could have mentioned Agnostic Theists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist) or Practical Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism), etc, but this thread is already confusing.

Misj':
Which assumptions/premises are you talking about? I don't have any. If you're talking about "there is no god", that's not an assumption I had from the start and I'm thus obliged to prove, it rather went like this:
Me: ...
Believers: There's a god.
Me: Really? Prove it. Until then, what's for dinner?

And about your weird history lesson: since I don't think you didn't get what I was aiming at, I'll have to interpret it as a failed attempt at being funny.
But to humor you, replace Santa Claus with the invisible pink unicorn in my garage. (::))

So after reading 7 pages(wooh), I think we lost the topic here, or at least I got lost.
Anyway, just to say my opinion on the matter. First, I do consider being forced(not in a bad way) to be Christian without you choosing it feels wrong to me.  Secondly, yes, I do believe in God. Thirdly, I hate priests and their likes. Fourthly, even if a child is baptised(hope I spelled that wrong), can still decide to change his faith. I ,for a brief period of time, was an atheist, and all that stuff. I'm a believer, but well, I do understand what people think about religions. Considering all faiths and mostly people's determination and belief that something must be proven  so that it can be real, I'm asking this..

Can see an atom?
No, but it's there.
Can you see the wind?
No, but it's there.

It doesn't mean because you can't see something that it doesn't exist and because you see something it does.

Quote from: Dualnames on Thu 27/11/2008 09:24:16
Can see an atom?
No, but it's there.
Can you see the wind?
No, but it's there.

It doesn't mean because you can't see something that it doesn't exist and because you see something it does.

This is a bit of a strawman argument(and a quite common one). Most reasonable people who dont believe in something dont say that just because they cant see it. It's because they cant see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it(including the use of measuring instruments). An atom can be seen with a microscope. The wind can be felt on the skin. Thats how we know they exist. If god were real and I could  sense him with all senses except with my eyes, it would be really dumb to not believe in him.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 27/11/2008 00:43:58Which assumptions/premises are you talking about? I don't have any. If you're talking about "there is no god", that's not an assumption I had from the start and I'm thus obliged to prove

You seem to misunderstand the difference between a research question/hypothesis and a pre-assumption. Also, you seem to think that a pre-assumption is something you have from birth which it is not. It is something you have now.

QuoteAnd about your weird history lesson: since I don't think you didn't get what I was aiming at, I'll have to interpret it as a failed attempt at being funny.

Orrrrr...it could have proven the point that your pre-assumption of Santa Claus being a product of one's imagination was less valid than the one that he was an historical figure (although the current view of him shares little similarity). It therefore proved my point that as long as you cannot proof that one pre-assumption is more valid than another, they are both equally valid. (I was trying to proof a point, which you apparently didn't get...if I wanted to be funny I would have started with: an Atheist, a Muslim and a Jew step into a bar...)

QuoteBut to humor you, replace Santa Claus with the invisible pink unicorn in my garage. (::))

So if someone shows your example doesn't work, you make up a now one...I'm pretty sure we can continue this until the end of time. But to humour you. I have never been into your garage. I've never seen your garage. I don't know anything about your garage (I don't even know whether you have a garage). However...since colour is caused by the reflection of light, and invisibility could only exist if light is not reflected, I find it highly unlikely that the unicorn is pink. Furthermore, you're still missing the difference between a pre-assumption and a research question.

The idea that not all pre-assumptions are equally valid isn't a new one. However, if there is no evidence what so ever to show that they are not, than the only reason to state that one is more valid than another, is because one does not want to question one's own ideas/believes.

Ps. EVERYONE has pre-assumptions...
Pps. Assuming that two pre-assumptions are equally valid does not mean that you have to accept them both, nor that you have to consider them both to be true.
Ppps. Proving that one pre-assumption is more valid than another is not the same as proving the pre-assumption itself

Misj':
Say I approached you today and told you there was an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.
Did you have the pre-assumption that there's no invisible pink unicorn in my garage yesterday? No, you didn't. Because the idea that there are people who have unicorns in their garages is something you've never heard, or thought about before. Until today, you didn't really care what animals other people keep in their garages, correct?
So what I did was erect the hypothesis that there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, and now I'm going to have to prove it.
With the existence of a god it's exactly the same; it's a hypothesis.
You brought the whole pre-assumption talk into this discussion, but how does it even relate to the "there's a god" hypothesis?

When I mentioned Santa Claus, I was talking about the concept of a Coca Cola commercial Santa Claus flying around in a sled, bringing presents to children, not some long dead guy he's based on. You knew that perfectly well and still had to play the "Santa Claus does exist" card. That's just weak.

QuotePs. EVERYONE has pre-assumptions...

O RLY?

Dual, you can do it in the opposite direction:

You' ve never seen an unicorn. Do you believe they exist?
You' ve never seen a Smurf. Do you really think they exist?
You' ve never seen a Gnome. I guess you assume they exist, no?
You' ve never seen a Dragon... Do we go on?

Conclussion. Not everything that exists can be seen. Not everything we can' t see exists. I use my common sense to know if something I don't  see exists or not.

And we have seen atoms (Atomic microscope).
And the wind (Moving clowds).

Yes, and wind is just a name for moving air. You don't doubt air exists just because you can't see it, right?

Nacho, Khris, do you think "1" exists?  Not the symbol "1" in whatever alphabet or notation, but the concept of 1? You cannot sense it in any way. You can sense the notation of it and you can sense 1 of something but the actual number itself is entirely abstract.

Also, do you guys believe in free will or are the decisions we make a consequence of chemicals and electrical impulses in our brains? Is there such a thing as the mind (your identity) as distinct from the brain (a physical thing)?

The system brain uses for taking decissions is still very unknown and I can't really give an appropiate answer... I basically think that we have free will just in a degree... For example, if we get into troubles a person with certain chemistry in his brain will have high probabilities to get out without fighting, and one with another chemistry will have more possibilities to end in a fight... But I can' t be sure, since I am not an expert in neurology, or brain chemistry.

So, to summarize... I don' t know how people thinks.

What I am not going to do is to take the first pilgrim answerI can figure, and, without any evidence, believe on it for all my life.

So, going on with the example: I don' t know how people thinks. I don' t think that my thoughts are:
-Created by an alien.
-Inspired by a psychic Yeti.
-Transmitted by a telequinetic smurf.

In an analogue way, I don' t have answers to EVERYTHING. What I am not going to do is say: "Ok... it' s probably God".

Mankind did that for centuries. A thunder? That' s God, farting. It rains? Angels are crying. Bad harvests? God is annoyed with us...

At the moment all those replies using "God", have been proved to be false. Why there should be a future answer needing the concept "God", if no one did in the past? Dunno...

Free will is like a trained dog. It's a manner were accustomed to, and thus we act by it. It's the result of too many people thinking together, which is a wonderful thing. The problem with animals and free will is that they can't communicate the way we do. See this thread for example.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 27/11/2008 12:25:20You brought the whole pre-assumption talk into this discussion, but how does it even relate to the "there's a god" hypothesis?

I still don't see you showing any understanding of what pre-assumptions are, I could try to explain how this relates to the discussion (which is by the way not the 'there is a god' hypothesis, since it's untestable, en therefore cannot be an hypothesis (let alone, the fact, that I mentions many posts back, that I don't care about the 'is there or is there not a god' discussion))...

QuoteWhen I mentioned Santa Claus, I was talking about the concept of a Coca Cola commercial Santa Claus flying around in a sled, bringing presents to children, not some long dead guy he's based on. You knew that perfectly well and still had to play the "Santa Claus does exist" card. That's just weak.

Oh...wait...this is about whether a certain concept of a certain something is true, and not about whether the something itself was ture. So to extrapolate this onto the God-question you mentioned above: this is not about whether God exists (or is a product of the human mind), but about whether a certain view/concept of God is true. I didn't realize: so you're not saying that God is a product of man's imagination, you have no doubt that God is historically correct, you're just saying that a certain concept of God is wrong. (we both know you're not saying that, so that means that you're argumentation towards the 'Santa Claus does exist' card is in itself weak.)

Quote

QuotePs. EVERYONE has pre-assumptions...

O RLY?

Yes. (oh...great how you are setting me up to say 'yes', and then you say: I say no, and that is equally valid as your opinion...I love it...so...) But you may disagree with that, and I respect that. Because everybody is entitled to his or her own wrong opinion.

Ps. I'm still not discussing whether or not God exists. Whatever whoever believes is up to that person. I'm merely here to discuss whether religion and logic/reason are mutually exclusive, and I still see no reason why. Not even concerning religious questions. I do believe that know-it-all behaviour and logic/reason are mutually exclusive...but that is something I observe for both religious and non-religious people. Those people lack imagination.

I know perfectly well what a pre-assumption is. It's something you take as granted although it isn't in order to build your argumentation on it.
I absolutely don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not god exists either; I, too, mentioned already (iirc, twice) that that's pointless.

What I am trying to get across is that the believers started the whole thing by their claim/suggestion/idea (not hypothesis, okay) that there's a supernatural being.
Since it's not testable and thus no hypothesis as required by the scientific method, that's all the more reason for me to simply dismiss it and ask what's for dinner, since there's absolutely zero evidence.

I'm not trying to discuss whether god exists, I'm saying that non-believers can lean back and mind their own business while believers - the ones who suggested the existence of a god - try to find evidence and fail at it. So, definitely not 50:50, no pre-assumptions, no question what's more valid.

If you didn't get it now, I'll give up. Probably.

About the existence of a Christian god as mentioned in the bible: that's a very different matter. There's tons of evidence pointing towards NO. And zero pointing towards YES. So under the pre-assumption that there's a god, (which of course is equally as valid as the opposite one,) I can safely say the god isn't YHWH of the bible, just as safely as I can say that a dropped object will fall down, not up.
That doesn't explain why I'm a skeptic, but it surely does explain why I'm no Christian, and this is what this thread turned out to be about.
So hurray for going btt.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 27/11/2008 15:09:59I know perfectly well what a pre-assumption is. It's something you take as granted although it isn't in order to build your argumentation on it. ... Since it's not testable and thus no hypothesis as required by the scientific method, that's all the more reason for me to simply dismiss it and ask what's for dinner, since there's absolutely zero evidence.

But the scientific method is not against pre-assumptions (as long as they are defined of course (and preferably if you can make a reasonable claim that the pre-assumption is valid)...on the other hand having pre-assumptions without mentioning them renders the scientific method useless, since any conclusion (and sometimes the results themselves) is rendered invalid).

QuoteI'm not trying to discuss whether god exists, I'm saying that non-believers can lean back and mind their own business while believers - the ones who suggested the existence of a god - try to find evidence and fail at it.

But there are also many non-believers who try to find evidence (and fail). I'm opposed to both (although I also think that both may look for mechanisms to see whether their idea is possible or not...but even if it's (theoretically) possible, they should claim to have any hard evidence). I don't hate non-believers more than believers...I just hate people in general ;)

QuoteIf you didn't get it now, I'll give up. Probably.

I don't have much time in the coming days anyhow, so we'll probably have to discuss everything another time (I'm pretty sure poor soul will start another thread some day that we can completely hijack and make our own :) ).

Ps.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 27/11/2008 15:09:59I...all the more reason for me to ... ask what's for dinner.

Home-made pizza...what are you going to have?

Hey, damn, I'm glad we sorted this out. :D

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 27/11/2008 15:35:19But there are also many non-believers who try to find evidence (and fail). I'm opposed to both.

Exactly.
There are also non-believers (and believers) who look for natural explanations for the phenomena others explain with a god. That's the way to go I think.

Also, home-made pasta :)

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 27/11/2008 15:09:59
There's tons of evidence pointing towards NO. And zero pointing towards YES.

Once again you prove that you simply do not understand what the word evidence means. A mafia boss giving his testimony in a court is still evidence EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Richard Dawkins giving his in a court is still evidence EVEN IF I DO NOT BELIEVE HIM. etc. There is not zero evidence, just evidence YOU don't find convincing BUT OTHERS DO.

Again, you discuss how I say what I say, not what I say... :)

Anyway, I mentioned it before (The "evidences I put in a bag" metaphor), but I will say it again. It is ME who doesn't find them convincing.

And I am sure that some other people find them convicing. I am also convinced that many people who believes to have been abducted believes it, and I am sure that some people telling they have psychic powers are convinced that they do have these powers.

Still, I don' t believe in abductions or psychic powers.

SSH, these guys will believe what any scientist will tell them to,
and  just because they have risen Science into something very close to Divinity.
They blindily accept that a certain medicine (they never get the chance to test or understant how it was made) will cure a desease because it is writen on the back of a package. Some years later that same medicine will harm people more than it cured.
Why was the movie "I am Legend" so popular? Have you thought about what science CAN DO to humanity?
I am not against science, I am against this so called globalization! We are being swallowed by it.

I guess you have to ask yourselves if the world would actually be better without your local church, and the families that go there on Sundays? The peace that shows on the faces of the people coming out of there and then go home and have lunch, all together. Is it that bad? Or, was it that bad for you?

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 27/11/2008 16:09:15
Again, you discuss how I say what I say, not what I say... :)

Actually, I discuss what Khris said..

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 27/11/2008 13:55:56
The system brain uses for taking decissions is still very unknown and I can't really give an appropiate answer... I basically think that we have free will just in a degree...

So, to summarize... I don' t know how people thinks.

But the thing is, if you believe that people have some kind of soul/spirit/personality/free will other than what genetics or chemistry or circumstances dictate then you admit that there is more than just physical reality. There seems to be a stark choice between being a fatalist material philosophy (i.e. only the physical is real and we have no free will: our whole lives are inevitable) and believing that there is the possibility of something metaphysical that can influence what goes on in our brain. And if there's a possibility that something outside of physics happens inside our heads, it suddenly makes the whole possibility of something metaphysical outside of our heads possible, be it Jesus, Allah, Buddha or something else.

Quote from: miguel on Thu 27/11/2008 16:22:47
I guess you have to ask yourselves if the world would actually be better without your local church, and the families that go there on Sundays? The peace that shows on the faces of the people coming out of there and then go home and have lunch, all together. Is it that bad? Or, was it that bad for you?

While I freely admit that there are some churches out there that have services that make the prospect of an eternity in hell seem like a holiday, there are others that are not like that (like mine). 99% ( ;) ) of the atheists here were forced to sit through such services in their youth and that has left them with a deep-seated fear and loathing of church and a desire to rescue people from such a thing. Fine. But they've extrapolated from their limited experience to the whole world and such generalisations are always foolish.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 27/11/2008 13:55:56
The system brain uses for taking decissions is still very unknown and I can't really give an appropiate answer... I basically think that we have free will just in a degree...
So, to summarize... I don' t know how people thinks.

What I am not going to do is to take the first pilgrim answerI can figure, and, without any evidence, believe on it for all my life.

To contribute with an attack of my own on poor ol Nacho: Shouldn't a skeptic dismiss the concept of free will until it's been proven?
As far as I know, there's no scientific basis for it, even "just in a degree".

Someone may want to invoke quantum mechanics into it, saying that this can break up the causal chain, that would otherwise lead to determinism, but if our free will then consists of random activities in the brain that we're not in control over, the label 'free will' would be pretty strange.

You can of course just say that while determinism may be true, as long as we're the cause for our actions - even though they're predetermined - this is enough to labeled acts of free will ('soft determinism' (can't have too many terms introduced in this thread)).

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 26/11/2008 18:27:27
Loominous, I think the point about how the world began is a good one, but I would reorder the argument a little bit, saying that:

1. Absent any evidence, we should assume the non-existence of God.
2. Thomas Aquinas presents the existence of the world as evidence for God.
3. Debate about whether this is valid evidence that overrules the initial skeptical stance.

Oh, I'm not saying that the fact that it attempt to answer a question makes it a legit answer, it's just that I don't like lumping poor answers together with awful ones.

Which brings up another complicating factor:

You can be both a weak and strong atheist at the same time, but in regards to seperate gods, as they're not all the same.

So you can be a weak atheist in regards to for instance the christian god, as it's hard/impossible to disprove, but a strong atheist in regards to for instance Thor, or some god that you can actually disprove.

Again, just want to bring in some nuance. God can be scientifically disproven, if his attributes are of the right kind.

Edit: Bummer, SSH introduced the same argument (though more extensive) a few seconds earlier.

Quote from: loominous on Thu 27/11/2008 16:34:34
To contribute with an attack of my own on poor ol Nacho: Shouldn't a skeptic dismiss the concept of free will until it's been proven?

Indeed, and the arguments that Nacho (and moreso Khris) has put forth would indicate that while he may want to be a Sceptic, he is actually a Strong Atheist. As I said before, the sceptic and weak atheist arguments are easier to defend and so many Strong Atheists lie (or are in self-denial) about their true beliefs because they can't actually justify them. At least I acknowledge that I can't PROVE there's a God, so my intellectual honesty is greater than theirs.

Quote from: SSH on Thu 27/11/2008 15:52:16

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 27/11/2008 15:09:59
There's tons of evidence pointing towards NO. And zero pointing towards YES.

Once again you prove that you simply do not understand what the word evidence means. A mafia boss giving his testimony in a court is still evidence EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Richard Dawkins giving his in a court is still evidence EVEN IF I DO NOT BELIEVE HIM. etc. There is not zero evidence, just evidence YOU don't find convincing BUT OTHERS DO.

I'm aware of all that. Let me give you an example: Say you have two groups of people, one of them is praying to god (asking him to grant wishes), the other is doing the same, but it's praying to a glass of milk or a rock.
The outcome of this test, which has actually been conducted in a similar form, was that the likeliness of the wishes getting fulfilled was the same, whether the people prayed to god or to the rock. To me, that's evidence that god doesn't give a shit about prayers. It might be evidence to other people that god works in mysterious ways, but well, what can I say.
If I saw one conclusive piece of evidence pointing towards "there's a god", I'd become a believer on the spot. I very probably never will.

About being a skeptic or strong atheist or whatever: I lead my daily live without even slightly pondering the question of gods existence. When asked if I believe there's a god, my honest answer would be: "I don't think so, but I can't be sure."

spelling edit

Ohhhhh! Now I see the reason of this "Do you believe in free will" movement that started some pages ago! :D

True. I am not one of those skeptics that are thaaaat skeptic that enter into the cynism (Not insulting, it was a filosophical trend, as well...) So, I launch hypotesis and I dare myself to "think" that what I can preview is going to be true at the end. If my hypotesis are false, I don't hesitate to say "Hey! I was wrong".

I am quite aware that there are lots of possibilities that in the near future my guessings about how mind works can be rebated with scientific studies. I don' t think that my guessings about Religion will.

Happy? :)

Quotemy honest answer would be: "I don't think so, but I can't be sure."

I respect this sort of reply, Khrismuc, because it's not a condemnation of the belief and it's expressed in a mutually respectful way (ie, you don't believe but you're not attacking someone else for that choice).

I honestly believe that if more people approached 'tense' topics with that sort of attitude the world would be a much better place; not because you're not stating your case (obviously you are if you say you don't/do believe) but because you're doing so in a way that either ends the discussion on a positive note or encourages further, respectful conversation on the topic from both sides.

Also, it's THANKSGIVING IN AMERICA!  I am shooting cooked turkeys at everyone right now!

(http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr218/ProgZmax/turkeyshot.gif)

I concur, Prog... From now, every approach I do to this topic will be which much more care. In my deffense, I must say that I just used "stupid" for some stories in the Bible, if taken literal, and that I haven' t used them from lots of pages before.  :) Thanks everybody for helping me improving my skeptic tactics for the next time I need them.

Happy Thanksgiving Day to everybody!  :)

Quote from: loominous on Thu 27/11/2008 16:34:34
Again, just want to bring in some nuance. God can be scientifically disproven, if his attributes are of the right kind.

... which is exactly where the trouble lies. Since you can give him/her/it/them any attribute whatsoever - including unmeasurable ones - how could you determine whether or not it exists?

Oh, and yes, happy festivities.

Well... According to all we know about Big Bang, if a creator existed, he dissapeared when the time was created.

Of course, what we know about Big Bang could be false... We will have to wait, but, atm, science says "No!".

I shall answer that with a clear, dedicated "maybe". ;)

Okay... an extremelly quoted "maybe" is ok?  ;)

But, but... I want to keep arguing.  :=

Okay! I have a question... Imagine that you go to a priest, that is supposed to be the sheppart, with a doubt. Let' s imagine that this doubt is about homosexuals... You have a fiend who is homosexual and you think that your priest can give some good ideas about his situation: How to accept his new condition, how to match that with his religious life, etc...

And the priest starts to be completelly arrogant about the topic and tells you something you consider totally stupid. (For example, and using this case: "Your friend is a pervert! You can' t be his friend anymore! Tell me who he is and I will take him out of this church forever!!!")

What to you do?

Now, imagine the same case, but now the "IYHO" stupidity comes from "Rome". What do you do?

Not asking pretending to argue, and being an ass... I am just curious.

I've never met a priest who was anywhere near the bible-banging 'old timey religion' stereotype, though I do know of some Christian fundamentalist religions who take a very dim view of homosexuality because it's considered a sin.  Something important to note, though, is that most of the religions who are really tough on other people are equally (if not more so) tough on themselves.  Fundamentalist Pentecostals, for instance, shun many of the 'conveniences' of life because they consider them as pathways toward sin (television, computers with internet, all sorts of fun things).  I mainly know this because my older brother got involved with an old Pentecostal church in Houston when he lived there, and the women dress very plainly, wear no makeup, and the men wear dress shirts and such.

It's all very Leave it to Beaver, which is a bit strange to me, but who am I to judge?

Nacho, if any minister of a church I went to was such an idiot, I'd move church (and point out to him the problem and bring it up with his superiors if possible (many churches I know are independent)). As for Rome, I'm not likely to be in a situation where what Rome thinks is relevant.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks its a sin or not, Christianity is supposed to be about forgiveness. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (and so why pick on a gay person, specifically?) and "whosoever believes in me shall not die but have eternal life".

Okay, so, basically, trust in your morale rather that what the "authority" (note the quotes marks) says.

I agree... But brings some interesting points to the discussion. I am not going to mention them, I am tired.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 27/11/2008 20:22:34
Okay! I have a question... Imagine that you go to a priest, that is supposed to be the sheppart, with a doubt. Let' s imagine that this doubt is about homosexuals... You have a fiend who is homosexual and you think that your priest can give some good ideas about his situation: How to accept his new condition, how to match that with his religious life, etc...

And the priest starts to be completelly arrogant about the topic and tells you something you consider totally stupid. (For example, and using this case: "Your friend is a pervert! You can' t be his friend anymore! Tell me who he is and I will take him out of this church forever!!!")

What to you do?

Now, imagine the same case, but now the "IYHO" stupidity comes from "Rome". What do you do?

Not asking pretending to argue, and being an ass... I am just curious.

I really didn't want to write in this thread anymore but...

This is really (almost) happening to a friend of mine. But she simply never came out, and she managed to find a more accepting, open-minded church that she is more comfortable with.

Surprisingly though, there are also non-religious people who are against homosexuality, at least in my experience. They say it's "unnatural" and some propose that it's a psychological illness (mental problem). Society in general can really be asses about homosexuality, regardless of religion. :(

True. There are assholes in every segment of the society.

But Religious claim their morale is divine inspired, so, it should be flawless. Finding a religious flawed morale could indicate that it' s not actually divine inspired... At least as I see it. And we do not find one... but lots.

Wow, I like the recent change in tone, but *this* really made my day- I am going to collect it, I am that shallow:

QuoteYou have a fiend who is homosexual

I know it is a typo, and one that easily happens, but it's top notch.
-> ;)

"fiend"?

Anyway:

http://www.gaychristian.net/ (http://www.gaychristian.net/)
I guess here are the answers..

(http://www.questionablecontent.net/comics/1288.png)

Hi again, I thought this was over by now, but it appears that the issue is important to most of us.
I see, with joy, that the tone of the debate has leveled up in dignity.
Even Natcho came to the conclusion that christian religion is open-minded and its best points in behalf are the solid morality and respect for others.
SSH has never seen such a fundamentalist priest that most of you atack, neither have I and a priest like that would not pass any idea when I was 8 years-old (1984) and specialy not now to any modern kid.
You, see, some friends of mine went on to be priests (actually only one good friend) and I still see the same person, dedicated to something he believes. And, guess what? He loves music, cinema, and every other aspects in life just like me. It's not that he's like the monk in Two Kingdoms!
SSH's BD will tell you what bad christian upbringing is and I've allready wrote the same notion some pages ago and I believe it is something clear to all of you.
It's just that to criticise religion is way easier thant to deffend its qualities.

Quote from: miguel on Thu 04/12/2008 15:45:43It's just that to criticise religion is way easier thant to deffend its qualities.

Now THAT's definitely something we can agree upon ;)

Hehehe...you got me there!
If God was like Marlon Brando and Jesus like James Dean, you would not be laughing now!

Quote from: miguel on Thu 04/12/2008 15:54:07
Hehehe...you got me there!
If God was like Marlon Brando and Jesus like James Dean, you would not be laughing now!

But they are both dead...

OH MY! What a development! God is dead!

Quote from: miguel on Thu 04/12/2008 15:45:43
It's just that to criticise religion is way easier thant to deffend its qualities.

Mayhaps, but for most people walking to the shop is easier than hopping... doesn't mean we try to hop anyway, out of some kind of respect for those with one leg.

The plot thickens!

Quote from: miguel on Thu 04/12/2008 15:45:43
Even Natcho came to the conclusion that christian religion is open-minded and its best points in behalf are the solid morality and respect for others.

I never said that, I think, and if I did... Sorry, I don't agree! :D I said that the bible is so opened that it will basically serve as a "sounding board". SSH parents were basically good people, so, their beliefs made then good (but with a "devine support"). Their sons are good and I pressume their grand daughters will be good as well. If you are evil, Bible (which basically is a big "Roschard") won't make you better.... You will go on being evil (but again, with devine support).

So... why does it work for? If Bible was making good people allways I would never complain, even considering it's false. But it is not. I am quite sure that Religion does not affect at all.

Bible also works for putting bombs in abortist medical centers, burn people, make crusades, blast Buses in Tel-Aviv... And that people is convinced that they are acting under the commitement of God/Allah/Yahvé... I would preffer no religion at all in the world. So, good people would see it as a merit and bad people would see their acts as what they are: Coward and unjustified.

A lack of religion would not make people who do wrong suddenly admit it.  They would just come up with some other rationale for their crimes, like ghosts telling them to do it, or some secret knowledge that every fifth born child had to be killed to save the earth from a devastating asteroid, etc...

Religion, like anything else, can be twisted for evil ends.  You can kill a person with a butter knife if you want, but that's not its purpose, just as you can take harmless passages in the bible and make them into justifications for hatred.  This is a human flaw, not a bible flaw.

isn't a part of the problem is that there are passages in the bible that are not harmless?

Quote from: ProgZmax on Thu 04/12/2008 19:44:37
Religion, like anything else, can be twisted for evil ends.  You can kill a person with a butter knife if you want, but that's not its purpose, just as you can take harmless passages in the bible and make them into justifications for hatred.  This is a human flaw, not a bible flaw.

So, if it can' t solve human flaws, what does it work for? Solving that is something I would expect for something "divine inspired". Basically, what bible does, provoques, is undistinguishable from anything "non divine". I still have no clue, not only of its divinity, but also of its purpose.

Nacho, judging by your words, your biggest question is: "Why is the Bible for?".
Well, by now you should know and understand its contents, you should distinguish between what is the fable and the teachings and the myth.
Do you not believe that myths are part of the human condition? Do you think you are protected againts any form of myth just because you decided not to believe in everything you cannot see?
Well, my friend (can I call you that? Because I've been listening to you and answering you and I only do that with people I feel they have integrity), I must tell you that reading the Bible has changed people into someone better when they actually can understand it.
If you are not fully developed as an adult and someone with high charisma interprets the Bible as a way to tie some bombs on your waist and blow yourself ,then we could be talking about "mein kampf" for example. Maybe you've read it or are familiar with the subject but that did not make you a nazi.
Surely you can reach that, Nacho.

1) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
2) "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,"
3) "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;"
4) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
5) "Honor thy father and thy mother:"
6) "Thou shalt not kill."
7) "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
8  "Thou shalt not steal."
9) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
10) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbor's

Does this sound evil? Maybe you cannot agree with it according to the modern times, but please tell me why.
Remember that Christian religion and the Church had to speak to people that lived in the middle of the desert, did not know how to write or read, did not have any kind of a philosophic approach on things.

What does the bible suggest the punishment should be for breaking one of those commandments?

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 04/12/2008 16:30:55

Quote from: miguel on Thu 04/12/2008 15:54:07
Hehehe...you got me there!
If God was like Marlon Brando and Jesus like James Dean, you would not be laughing now!

But they are both dead...

OH MY! What a development! God is dead!

Yes, God is dead. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9ESphZkANc)

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 05/12/2008 00:11:10
What does the bible suggest the punishment should be for breaking one of those commandments?

Nothing imposed by humans. :P In the same passage there is a vague reference to punishment for worshipping an idol: "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 04/12/2008 19:57:57
isn't a part of the problem is that there are passages in the bible that are not harmless?

For anything to be useful, it must have impact. And if it has impact, it has the potential for harm as well as good. A pillow is soft and cuddly but it can be used to smother someone. This is a rule of our universe, whether natural or God-made. But the object remains an object, and we hold the person accountable, not the object. That the Bible may have been divinely inspired, or divinely written, or written by a bunch of delusional madmen shouldn't have any bearing on the outcome.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 04/12/2008 18:06:11
So... why does it work for? If Bible was making good people allways I would never complain, even considering it's false. But it is not. I am quite sure that Religion does not affect at all.

Although I admit that I have no statistics (made up or otherwise) to support my point, I'm actually quite sure that religion results in more good people than bad. The good ones just never make the headlines. "A killer who changed his ways and turned to God" doesn't quite sell newspapers. "God made me kill my wife" does because it's not normal. It's in fact against what the religion teaches, and THAT sells newspapers.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 05/12/2008 00:11:10
What does the bible suggest the punishment should be for breaking one of those commandments?

I was taught that the 10 Commandments shouldn't be seen as a "Do or Do Not List." You can interpret it that way, but I doubt you'll find it useful.

Instead, (someone told me to) interpret it as God showing us that we are imperfect, and hence sinful, because it's impossible to keep all the commandments. Every time you disobey a commandment, you are reminded of your sinful nature, and thus reminded that you need God.

It goes hand in hand with sinning and repentance. The idea is not to try and be a good little boy, but instead receive God.

Sorry if that sounds preachy, it wasn't meant to be.

I'm sorry, I really have can't understand what you're trying to say, Auriond. What does nothing imposed by humans mean? There are more than vague references to punishment in the bible.

And I don't understand what you mean in your second point. If a book supposedly without flaw and written by the christian god explains the ins and outs of properly purchasing a slave and selling your own daughter into slavery [I don't see how one can take this any other way BUT literally]... That's a little different than a pillow being used to smother someone. I could beat someone to death with the bible because it's fairly dense and a fair bludgeoning tool but that doesn't make it dangerous, what's written inside it makes it dangerous.

TheJBurger, in Exodus god says to honor the sabbath he then says, in Exodus whoever does work on the sabbath to kill them. That sounds very "Do" to me. In Numbers some dudes find a guy picking up sticks in the sabbath and the whole town kills him. Imagine if he was also not honoring his mother then! I understand that that is what you were taught, so how do you reconcile what your were taught and what the bible says to do to someone who gathers sticks on sunday? No disrespect, I just never get to ask people these questions and these are the big hurdles I have to over come to understand faith.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 05/12/2008 02:02:57
TheJBurger, in Exodus god says to honor the sabbath he then says, in Exodus whoever does work on the sabbath to kill them. That sounds very "Do" to me. In Numbers some dudes find a guy picking up sticks in the sabbath and the whole town kills him. Imagine if he was also not honoring his mother then! I understand that that is what you were taught, so how do you reconcile what your were taught and what the bible says to do to someone who gathers sticks on sunday? No disrespect, I just never get to ask people these questions and these are the big hurdles I have to over come to understand faith.

Sorry, I don't know if I can give a full answer, because I myself am not that constituted with this kind of knowledge anyway.
From what I remember it has to do with Jesus terminating the old creation (1 Cor. 15:45, Jesus being the last Adam). I think--don't take my word for it--this means that the believers do away with the old practices because they have God's life within them.

Quote
2 Corinthians  5 : 17
17 So then if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away; behold, they have become new.

Verses that I think are related (stolen from a website!):
Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9; 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 8:13; Matt. 9:16-17; 1 Cor. 5:7-8; 2 Pet. 1:9; Heb. 1:11;

That's ok, I don't expect you to be a scholar and have written books on the subject, just having a [hopefully] friendly conversation.

What do you think of God even initially allowing that? Sure some people believe that he did away with the "old stuff" with Jesus but it was in there..... for how many years?

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 05/12/2008 02:02:57What does nothing imposed by humans mean? There are more than vague references to punishment in the bible.

Perhaps for other things, but for those particular commandments I couldn't find anything specific. By "nothing imposed by humans" I meant that the passage seems to say God will punish you and your descendants to the third or fourth generation, but it doesn't say how. Neither does it say that humans will punish other humans for breaking the commandments. Of course, I haven't exactly finished the Bible myself, so if anyone else has more in-depth knowledge I would be glad if they can step in and fill in the gaps. I'm using the NIV Bible.

QuoteAnd I don't understand what you mean in your second point. If a book supposedly without flaw and written by the christian god explains the ins and outs of properly purchasing a slave and selling your own daughter into slavery [I don't see how one can take this any other way BUT literally]... That's a little different than a pillow being used to smother someone. I could beat someone to death with the bible because it's fairly dense and a fair bludgeoning tool but that doesn't make it dangerous, what's written inside it makes it dangerous.

Perhaps so. But I was using the pillow analogy as a general comparison for how something that could be harmless can be twisted to evil ends, so I just meant to say something doesn't have to contain immediately dangerous content to be dangerous.

Now regarding your particular example... I do realise the Bible is full of such rules, rituals, and so on. As I understand it, the Bible was not just a holy book in the time that it was written; it served as a record and a reference for everyday life. For that particular example you quoted about selling daughters into slavery, the context that has been left out is that a man would usually sell his daughter as a maidservant if he was very poor, or if there was the intention of the master marrying her, as the passage goes on to note. Not quite slavery as I understand it. The Bible doesn't include this context because it was understood by those this passage was directed at. Such rules, in fact, try to prevent the abuse of women (the master cannot sell the maidservant to foreigners if her family can't redeem her).

I don't think picking such rules that are so time- and space-specific would serve to further our understanding of the Bible's message. We would be committing the same mistakes that religious extremists do. Even if one agrees that the Bible is written by God, it is undeniably temporally and spatially specific, and it's unreasonable to assume that everything applies to us now, who aren't Jews in 300BC or whenever that passage was written. I've said before, but nobody picked up, that even Jesus himself didn't follow the Bible to the letter. He refused to stone an adulterer. I think that's a pretty clear message that one should follow the fundamental teachings of the Bible, and not every single letter.

Speaking of following the Bible to the letter, I recommend the book "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs. It's a really good insight into the Bible and what it was really trying to do. It's also a pretty funny book, even for those who don't believe in the Bible or Christianity. Jacobs claims that he's not a religious person, by the way, but I thought he's gotten to the core of the Bible pretty well (at least the Old Testament, which is the thorniest bit of the Bible anyway).

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 05/12/2008 02:02:57
I understand that that is what you were taught, so how do you reconcile what your were taught and what the bible says to do to someone who gathers sticks on sunday? No disrespect, I just never get to ask people these questions and these are the big hurdles I have to over come to understand faith.

I'm very happy that you're asking these questions :) Personally, I think the God in the Old Testament allowed a lot of stuff, and even encouraged and commanded a lot of stuff that seems alien to us today. But then, He was dealing with a people with different mindsets, different ways of life, and no knowledge of Jesus or salvation. And then too, God was different then. But this is just how I reconcile it.

In return, I have a few questions for atheists as well. I'm curious to know why is it that atheists seem to have such a big problem with the Old Testament? No atheists I've ever met have asked the questions that I find the most troubling, and those are in the New Testament. How about what Jesus says about not bringing peace, but a sword? What about what Jesus says about not being a real Christian if you choose your father and mother over him? After all, the Old Testament (in some kinds of Christianity) is seen as being cancelled out by the happenings of the New Testament. And these rather unforgiving words came from the guy who's supposed to have cancelled out the bad stuff!

Of course, again, those with a better understanding of the Bible are welcome to explain things to me :)

QuotePerhaps for other things, but for those particular commandments I couldn't find anything specific.

What I mentioned to JBurger, God makes a commandment to honor the sabbath, a man is found gathering sticks on the sabbath and he is killed because god says that to work on the sabbath is to be punished by death. That's a specific punishment by god to humans for breaking a law he supposedly wrote in stone.

Did Jesus say that the sabbath is totally cool to work on? It seems jesus did some healing on the sabbath and then said it's cool to do "good" on the sabbath. So does that mean that you can heal people but not turn on a light switch to read a book? This is some confusing stuff. It seems like people think that Jesus abolished the sabbath [because really, that is a million times more convenient than if believed he didn't...] so all the old testament stuff is in the past. But if it really happened than THE PAST HAPPENED. How many people were killed before Jesus came along and said "Wait a sec there fellas!" Are those deaths acceptable losses to eventually getting Jesus?

Quotethe Bible's message

So then what is the bible's message? What does it say it is? Originally what did it say it is and what do people say it is now? When people were being stoned to death for picking up sticks did anyone say "Well, it's actually a collection of parables and suggestions on how to live your life!" or is that a recent thing?

So if not everything applies to us now, why hasn't the bible been amended by god? [If one says "Jesus amended the bible!" then he has a lot more editing to do!] If god doesn't change his rule book how can you possibly assume that the rules have changed? Is it not possible that you say it's unreasonable to assume all rules apply to us because you just don't like those rules the bible sets? Does the bible advise for or against not following all the laws?

QuoteBut then, He was dealing with a people with different mindsets, different ways of life, and no knowledge of Jesus or salvation. And then too, God was different then. But this is just how I reconcile it.

Brrr I find it scary to think that because it was a different time people deserved to be treated so barbarically.

To not answer your question because I shan't speak for all athiests. All I'm trying to do is understand how people reconcile these things that I see as problems with living as a human and living by the bible. Like I said I haven't read, the bible I'm probably hitting the tallest nails which all seem to stick up out of the old testament. Jesus said and did some messed up stuff sure but those nails are a little smaller and lesser known to a non-religious person like myself. If I had the desire to read the bible and find out more stuff to hang on Jesus maybe I would but really, it would depress me too much I think.

It is interesting that you bring those examples up, having read them on the internet now I am curious what you think of them. Though I've used a lot of question marks already and these posts might just get more and more disjointed as small questions are answered here and there.

Forgive me if this post is hard to read, it is late and I must sleeesespsszzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As I understand it the old testament is a history of the Jewish people and their relationship with God, which evolved over a period of time.   

It is also my understanding that the writings in the Bible are written by man and inspired by God rather than written by the hand of God himself.   Presuming this is the case, the human writers would have explained whatever divine messages or inspiration they may have received in familiar terms.   I don't know that it's  possible to write about something about which the writer has no understanding or knowledge of?  And if it were possible what relevance would it have to the writer's contemporaries who would also have no basis for understanding such a work?

So in a time when there were kingdoms, kings, and slaves is it really surprising that people understood God to be something like a king and thought of themselves as God's servants.  Would they not expect God to behave the way kings behave, i.e. give out punishments to the disobedient, take slaves, give orders, reward loyalty, etc, etc.   What would they write?

In the new testament Jesus says that the people are God's children and that he is like a loving father not a vindictive king.   

You ask how to resolve the inconsistency?  How can God change?    God did not change; The people's understanding of and/or relationship to God has changed/evolved over time.   

Not referring to last posts, but after twenty pages, I get the feeling, are we losing the point here?

I know a man who is GUARANTEED to work on the Sabbath day, every week without fail.
And he's a PRIEST!!!

Hypocrites!

THIS is why I consider myself to be more intelligent than religious people.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081223/tuk-gay-christians-slam-pope-s-comments-6323e80.html

This is one of the thickest idiots on the planet and he has been given the highest position of power in the western religious world... A LOT of people do what this man says, because he is supposedly chosen by God...  So he is passing his ignorance and stupidity onto the millions of catholics in this world who are afraid to oppose what he says because they think they will go to hell.

I mean come on people...  How can anyone still believe this SHIT???  THIS IS THE 21st FUCKING CENTURY!!!!

I am so angry right now!

Well... Finding a Christian with weird beliefs wouldn' t necesarilly mean that their idiology is definitelly fucked up... To be honest, I guess that all ideologies, even the good ones, have at least one person who twistes the meaning of the message to say weird things... If not more ^_^.

Even if that person is the leader that ideaology shouldn' t necesarilly be fucked up, IMHO...

But it opens the door for an avalange of "cons" about the divine source of Religion, methinks: Shouldn' t be a divine inspired ideology be perfect? Shouldn't be the message perfectly clear, so no anyone can missunderstand it? Shouldn' t it have some tools to choose its leader on Earth in the way he can understand and spread the word propperly? etc, etc...

Which brings an automatic reply by "believers": "God is perfect! It is us who do not understand the message propperly" or "In the same way that cold is absence of heat, evil is absence of God. If the Pope has ideas that are not close to God, it' s not God' s fault" (The famous "Einstein" theory)

And I use quotes ("") because Einstein never said that.

Two "automatic replies" I do not, to reply in short, agree with.

EDIT: On the other hand, the arguments the Pope keeps about this matter are, "biologically talking", flawless. The other thing is that, as Stupot said, we are in the XXIth century and "that"(*) is simply not going to happen. Ideologically, I find it disgusting.

(*) End of the human race because of hordes of homosexuals! :P

Merry Madeuppersonmas to all you skeptics out there ;) If you get any presents I hope you refuse them on principle  ;D

Why? I celebrate the winter solstice (as YOU do, let' s remember... Apparenly every evidence we have in the bible about Christmas set it in Summer)  ;)

There is no religious reference in my home. Receiving presents once or two per year doesn't  necesarilly have to be refused by "principles", IMO.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 24/12/2008 13:13:17
Why? I celebrate the winter solstice

So, did you have a happy winter solstice celebration on Sunday 21st, Nacho? :P

Personally I and my family celebrate the pagan light fests and call it Christmas out of tradition. We have a tree, presents and a Christmas house, but there is nothing christian about any of it except the name :)

Quote from: SSH on Wed 24/12/2008 11:16:34
Merry Madeuppersonmas to all you skeptics out there ;) If you get any presents I hope you refuse them on principle  ;D

To be fair, I wouldn't bother with Christmas if I could avoid it, but how bad would that make me look, everyone else exchanging gifts and pulling crackers and eating turkey, and watching crap on telly and playing Monopoly and.... hang on a minute?... what does any of this stuff have to do with Christ?.... absolutely nothing, apart from the name...

Infact, I Won't feel like too much of a hypocrite eating turkey on the 25th this year, because it's just what people do... Christ can suck my sprouts for all I care.

I had to move my solstice day to 25th due "enviromental" reasons, but yes, Petter... I mentioned to Lorena and Jeremy (The only "known" people I saw that day) that the 21st was actually the solstice day and I "celebrated" it in my way.

Merry Christmas everybody!
I just want to apologize to all atheists, because I understand that it must be horroble for you, I mean:
apart from the gifts, the cozy sofa movies with people you love, good food and plenty of drink and a tree sitting on your living room, I agree that tonight is just one of those nights one should spend alone and not celebrating his existance in any way.
I clearly advise and remember every non-believers that this day is a pagan celebration and has nothing to do with modern civilization celebrating the birth of this guy called Jesus (maybe it is that guy from 'The Big Lebowsky', maybe not).
Do not celebrate.
Do not feel the warm look on other people faces and their joy.
Please avoid Christmas!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take care guys,
even you Nacho, ;)

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 24/12/2008 14:00:43
I had to move my solstice day to 25th

This just proves that Nacho thinks the universe revolves around him ;)

I thought the "Skepticism" thread was "closed" with agreement and good words for all... But it's clear (again) that there is a "side" who still wants to impose its doctrine over the other.  :)

It doesn't matter that one of the sides didn't wanted to carry on the discussion when the leader of the other side proves to be an old fashioned homophobe... When "we" found an argument to discuss, we (or at least I) avoided it for for the sake of peaceful coexistence. When "you" find an "argument" to go on ("Christmas brings joy!") one of you accuses the skeptics of hypocrites if they accept gifts and the other makes a completelly ironic post about us...

Well... fortunatelly I am not a Christian and I don't need to offer the other cheek! Let' s go back to the trenches!  ;D

Christmas means nothing. The nativity myth is a mix of different pagan myths and re-fried versions of a histories written hearsay, incosnistent with each others and with the historical facts of the period. Jesus, if existed (we do not have any archaelogycal evidence of its existance, which doesn't necessarily mean he didn't exist, as the son of a carpenter was not supposed to leave archaelogycal record of its existence) was not born in December (apparently it was summer, or early Fall). The borning of Jesus has suspicios similarities with the myths of Mytra and the election of the data is to make it match with the roman festivity of Saturnus. The Xmas tree is Skandinavian. Meeting all the family is a remind of the Jewish party of the Pésaj.

Does it bring joy? Is that your point, dear believers? Well... The premiere of any new Star Wars film does it as well, and it' s not divine inspired. So, yes... I agree with you. Completelly.

Religion is something non divine inspired which inspires people as any other non-divine inspired thing does.

And we go on still having no evidence, or even a rational supossition, that anything of the supernatural stuff in the bible is real.

So, Merry Lie to you as well... I mean... Christmas.  ;)

That explanation clearly says that "something" really important happened not so long ago. I mean, so many cultures, geographicaly distant and of different ages reporting the same events indicates that something Did happen.
Because you cannot explain it scientifically does not mean it does not exist.
And you must agree that there is a conjugation of free will love around the globe around this time of the year, wich is not imposed by any clever advert or fashionable propaganda, actually it's quite old and still, people get together.
Nacho, you don't study or have to be special about Jesus, you just have to feel it dude. With no attachments included.
If you were my neighbour I would invite you for tonights party, with no preatching!
See ya :)

Ok.

If "Jesus" is "in different cultures, so geographically distant" is because something horrible, oppresive and fascist called "evangelization" happened. Your country and mine, biggest guilties.

Something non exaplained by science can happen. A supernatural claim is different. I do not have to prove you that the donkey flies. you must prove to me it does. you didn' t.

People got together before Christ. Was that "feeling" worse? Was it "false"?

And yeah... this are periods were you can feel the peace and joy everywhere... In Nigeria, Darfur, Iraq, Congo, Indonesia, Liberia...

If "God" came to touch earth with the magic stick of peace during Xmas... he is failing miserabilly.

EDIT: Just checked data of casualties in the road on this Xmas eve... 4 so far in Spain. Sad. I guess "there is a conjugation of free will love around the globe around this time of the year" is something that those 4 families won' t agree with...

I have no reason to doubt that Jesus existed... but there is only one person in this world who every existed who could tell us whether or not he really was the son of God... and that's Mary.

If we are to believe the nativity story then the basis of his being named 'son of God' all boiled down to the fact that Mary claimed to be a virgin.  That's all we have.  One woman's word.

I'm more likely to believe any of the alternative, and far more plausible explanations (she had an affair, she was raped, she was too drunk to remember) but due to lack of science, all she had to do was claim she knew not why she had a baby inside her.  And what was everyone else to do but believe her.

Now, the baby is born... and everyone truly thinks he is the son of God... the bring him up telling him how special he is.  Maybe he truly believes he is, but realises at a young age that he can't do anything special despite the pressure to perform.

So he spends his younger years keeping a low profile, practising some great illusions, perhaps with the help of his mother, who is the only person who knows the truth. And one day he comes out and does all these wonderful things... things which have since been dramatized and exaggerated in the form of the Bible...  People in those days, with their lack ofscience, would have fallen for his tricks readily.

Which takes me back to the original case in this thread about 'stupidity'... the people of 2000 years ago believed what they were seeing was the son of God, because they were ignorant of the things we know today... they took his magic tricks at face value and legend turned into myth and most of the 'miracles' told of in the bible were probably just made up or based on smaller scale tricks.

Even the many so-called miracle that happen today show how 'stupid' people can be when they take things at face value.  And how they can give God credit for something they can't explain... The various statues which supposedly weep blood... religious people are extremely quick to believe what they are seeing as the work of God, but the majority of such events turn out to be hoaxes and those which aren't invariably have some other explanation.

So Christ MAY have existed.  And he certainly turned a few heads and caused a bit of a stir.  Got himself celebrity status and had various stories told about him that have been passed down through the years by those lovely people at Gideon.

But as any of today's celebrities would tell you, you can't always believe every word you read about them.

This post is prior to Stupots one:

You make me coming back for more, Nacho!
If people don't drink and drive or drive carelessly accidents would not happen so much, it has nothing to do with God or Jesus.
Don't expect God to fix things like road accidents. The notion that God is an entity that comes to earth and fixes things like a brocken bridge is wrong. God tells you of a path, a way to be.
Evangelization is a recent fact, Nacho. The "happenings" we are talking about are far older than that, in fact, some say they are as old as man with a brain.
People did that to Nigeria, Darfur, etc... Not God. God is not Super-Man, he is fictional.
And, please check your sources and you will find thousands of christians helping out on those regions of the world.
And if you really care, join the Red Cross.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S: I am trying to drink a lot man, don't make me come back!!! :)

Stupot: What is for sure is that Mary was not virgin AFTER Christmas... Unless you believe that the baby magically materialised out of the utero... Wait! Believers believe that sort of things...  :-X

And Miguel... Oh yeah! The old "Good is God... Evil is because we pissed it off".

Man, I don't know if "God" is devine or not... What I know for sure is that he has a supperb publicist.

Stupot, people 2000 years ago were not that stupid. In fact, around that time, the place was packed with people saying they were the new messiah.
Check your history books, Plato was way older than Jesus, dude!
All the best to you guys!
Now I am off!

Quote from: miguel on Wed 24/12/2008 20:40:37
Stupot, people 2000 years ago were not that stupid. In fact, around that time, the place was packed with people saying they were the new messiah.
Check your history books, Plato was way older than Jesus, dude!
All the best to you guys!
Now I am off!

Which is why i used the word ignorant and placed the word 'stupidity' in quotaton marks.

There were an awful lot of clever people thousands of years ago, for their time.  But they didn't have the means of explaining things that we have today and I bet nearly every 'miracle' that happened in Jesus' day, and indeed in Plato's day, could have been EASILY explained had they the science we have today.