Skepticism

[Ryan Timothy B]

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

(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.

[InCreator]

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)

[BOYD1981]

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

[LGM]

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.

[Nacho]

"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.

[InCreator]

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.

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.

:'( :'( :'(

[Ghost]

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?

[Nacho]

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...

[Ghost]

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.

[Nacho]

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.

[InCreator]

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?

[Mantra of Doom]

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.

[Matti]

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.

[Ozzie]

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.

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.

Of 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?

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.

[Stupot]

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.

[Nacho]

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...

[Misj']

...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) ).

[SSH]

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.

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.

[Nacho]

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.

[Nacho]

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!

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.

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.