I was listening to the radio the other day. While flipping through stations, I came across a radio station called "The Jesus Christ Show." It featured a pastor talking with someone who called in. The person who was calling in was talking about why he didn't believe in God. He said that he believed in God his entire life but stopped believing in 2004, when Bush was reelected into office. He said that his supporters were mostly fundamental Christians and that if they could be dumb enough to vote for Bush, who he obviously felt was unqualified, then there must not be a god. He said that after the election, he prayed for a long time and felt no response. I thought that was an interesting reason to not believe in God. I don't think that he really knows what he even believes in... Even coming from someone who doesn't believe in God, I think that basing your beliefs on the outcome of a democratic election is kind of weird...
weird reason to not believe in God
Kennedy gets a bullet.
Reagan gets bullet.
Bush gets a shoe.
Oh well at least God, if hes up there has a sense of humour.
Reagan gets bullet.
Bush gets a shoe.
Oh well at least God, if hes up there has a sense of humour.
LOL....it's not really that strange. God represents the ultimate dictatorship. Some like to portray it as a benign dictatorship but, at the end of the day, there is no 'democracy' involved. It is not surprising, therefore, that people with a belief in God might be sympathetic to non-democratic forms of government here on earth.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| LOL....it's not really that strange. God represents the ultimate dictatorship. Some like to portray it as a benign dictatorship but, at the end of the day, there is no 'democracy' involved. It is not surprising, therefore, that people with a belief in God might be sympathetic to non-democratic forms of government here on earth. |
I don't get what you're saying... well I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how it applies to the original topic. Are you saying that Bush isn't running a democracy? Because the entire point was that he gave up all his faith, just because Bush was reelected into office. And my entire point was that his faith could never have been strong to begin with if he was able to relinquish all of his faith because of an election. I've heard of people losing faith before (like me). But I didn't lose my faith because of an election; I lost my faith because I realized that it was contradicted by all evidence. Therefore, I simply found it awkward that someone gave up their faith, not because of any evidence or science, but because some of his fellow believers voted for a government official that he felt was unqualified.
Well, we could debate long and hard about whether the US is a true democracy or not. I'd tend to take the position that it isn't and is more correctly categorised as a polyarchy.
My point was, however, that those of a religious faith are predisposed to accept a dictatorship (the ultimate dictatorship). It was a semi-flippant point, rather than a serious reflection on the guy's motivation, so I apologise for my flippancy...
My point was, however, that those of a religious faith are predisposed to accept a dictatorship (the ultimate dictatorship). It was a semi-flippant point, rather than a serious reflection on the guy's motivation, so I apologise for my flippancy...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well, we could debate long and hard about whether the US is a true democracy or not. I'd tend to take the position that it isn't and is more correctly categorised as a polyarchy.
My point was, however, that those of a religious faith are predisposed to accept a dictatorship (the ultimate dictatorship). It was a semi-flippant point, rather than a serious reflection on the guy's motivation, so I apologise for my flippancy... :-) |
Okay... I see. And I have debated that debate before. I do not think that the U.S. has a full democracy. I think it's a partial democracy. First off, the U.S. has had slavery and after that ended legal segregation for another 100 years. In my mind, that pretty much destroys a lot of credibility of being a democracy. Based on how policies are passed, we (u.s. voters) basically vote in dictators... well it's not as bad as it sounds....
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ||
Okay... I see. And I have debated that debate before. I do not think that the U.S. has a full democracy. I think it's a partial democracy. First off, the U.S. has had slavery and after that ended legal segregation for another 100 years. In my mind, that pretty much destroys a lot of credibility of being a democracy. Based on how policies are passed, we (u.s. voters) basically vote in dictators... well it's not as bad as it sounds.... |
Technically, the US is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic. The UK has more of a democracy than the US, by virtue of its parliamentary system (provided you ignore the powers the monarchy theoretically has but will have a hell of a time actually using in practise)... but the UK is not a true democracy either.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I was listening to the radio the other day. While flipping through stations, I came across a radio station called "The Jesus Christ Show." It featured a pastor talking with someone who called in. The person who was calling in was talking about why he didn't believe in God. He said that he believed in God his entire life but stopped believing in 2004, when Bush was reelected into office. He said that his supporters were mostly fundamental Christians and that if they could be dumb enough to vote for Bush, who he obviously felt was unqualified, then there must not be a god. He said that after the election, he prayed for a long time and felt no response. I thought that was an interesting reason to not believe in God. I don't think that he really knows what he even believes in... Even coming from someone who doesn't believe in God, I think that basing your beliefs on the outcome of a democratic election is kind of weird... |
Amusing. ^_^; And extremely peculiar. If he really stopped believing, then why was he calling into "The Jesus Christ Show"?
| Indi wrote: |
| Amusing. ^_^; And extremely peculiar. If he really stopped believing, then why was he calling into "The Jesus Christ Show"? |
Probably for the same reason that Richard Dawkins is concerned about the delusion of people who believe in God to the point of writing a book about it, when he is not similarly deluded?
We seem to be naturally attracted to opposites in our thinking, and learn more from the opposite arguments to our thinking than our own arguments around our own beliefs? Almost an instinctive kind of reaching out to solidify that which we believe in by working through the opposite position to it. And so you are right of course. The guy who called in is not completely there yet. But perhaps Richard Dawkins is.I don't think, that not believing in god(s) should require any reason at all. IF human beings are still entitled to a free will 
it is all about Yin and Yang!!
without the possibility to cheat there is not going to be any fairplayers either!
without the possibility to cheat there is not going to be any fairplayers either!
| deanhills wrote: | ||
Probably for the same reason that Richard Dawkins is concerned about the delusion of people who believe in God to the point of writing a book about it, when he is not similarly deluded? We seem to be naturally attracted to opposites in our thinking, and learn more from the opposite arguments to our thinking than our own arguments around our own beliefs? Almost an instinctive kind of reaching out to solidify that which we believe in by working through the opposite position to it. And so you are right of course. The guy who called in is not completely there yet. But perhaps Richard Dawkins is. |
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Dawkins wrote The God Delusion to allow people to make the final move to atheism if they're on the fence or don't know much about it. He wrote it to give people the "courage" to make "the move" they were likely questioning because of the environmental pressures around them (among other reasons). He wrote it to let others know that being an atheist is not some inherently evil thing and is actually a courageous, intellectual decision.
I don't think he writes on the subject because it is an opposite "force" that attracts him. He likely writes on it because he sees such great injustices around the world that originate with religion (and from his experiences, the reason he focuses on Christianity). He likely writes on it because he sees lying to yourself on a daily basis is a poor mental state.
Of course, I could be completely wrong lol
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Dawkins wrote The God Delusion to allow people to make the final move to atheism if they're on the fence or don't know much about it. He wrote it to give people the "courage" to make "the move" they were likely questioning because of the environmental pressures around them (among other reasons). He wrote it to let others know that being an atheist is not some inherently evil thing and is actually a courageous, intellectual decision.
I don't think he writes on the subject because it is an opposite "force" that attracts him. He likely writes on it because he sees such great injustices around the world that originate with religion (and from his experiences, the reason he focuses on Christianity). He likely writes on it because he sees lying to yourself on a daily basis is a poor mental state. Of course, I could be completely wrong lol |
Thanks liljp617. You are entirely correct about Dawikins and his book and I did not express myself too well. Think what I meant is that for him to have arrived at relatively firm ground as to his own convictions, he had to have explored opposite theories to his own. The same as for someone who believes in God, has doubts about it, then does research about atheism, deism, etc. etc. Think in most cases for example atheists may be more knowledgeable about christian religion, than some very devout christians about their religion as they had to arrive where they are through deep research of their own. I've noticed it at Frihost as well. Some of the self-proclaimed atheists have shown much greater knowledge and insights about the Bible than the Christians who tried to take them on.
I think it is a strange reason for someone to lose their faith over. There are much better reasons not to believe in god then who won the presidency: just take a minute to look at all the strife and horrible things that happen on a daily basis to people regardless of their religious affiliation. Just the simple fact that life is unfair, your worth or value to society has nothing to do with how good a person you are, or how much you give of yourself to others. I don't know, I really don't want to go off on some rant about religion, I just would think that if you have enough faith to believe and worship something you can't see, feel, touch, or taste, for most of your life you would not just give it up because the majority of the country voted poorly. Besides it is kind of unchristian for god to cheat and stuff the ballot boxes in someones favor. 
i dunno, man. people have really silly reasons for believing in god, so i don't think it's surprising to see people lose their faith over equally silly reasons.
Well i still believe in God because i have a long standing theory that George. W. Bush is the son of teh devil not Lucifer but Lucifer's retard twin brother, i have a rather large theory on it but i cbf typing it up so lets just stick with i hate GWB
^^That's a bit harsh. Sure G.W.B is an idiot, but that doesn't make him related to the devil. Sure, he's done immoral things (start an unjust war, DUIs, etc.), but there are still much worse people running around. I do not think that he's related to Satan; he's just a moron. And unfortunately, there are a bunch of those running around (but fortunately, not all of them are in power).
I guess what can be extracted from this radio-callers ideas, is a general tendency. Religion, and the actual personal foundation for believing, is not necessarily the function of any deep-felt passion for some random metaphysical anthropomorphic being. What you have to remember is that it's all about context; religion on whatever level - from the personal belief to the macro-socio level - is used in a broad range of connections.
So what is weird about this, I frankly don't see. The conncetions we make from one domain of life to another, can often be kinda blurry to others, as they are products of idiosyncratic ideas and emotions, which at the given time and place seem beneficial or somewhat rational to the individual or whatever other acting entity in question.
So what is weird about this, I frankly don't see. The conncetions we make from one domain of life to another, can often be kinda blurry to others, as they are products of idiosyncratic ideas and emotions, which at the given time and place seem beneficial or somewhat rational to the individual or whatever other acting entity in question.
I can understand that. Mankind's intelligence is certainly more indicative of a species that crawled out of a swamp than it is of a species hand crafted by a supreme being.
Related topics
 |