|
|
I bet many of you were angered by just reading the subject of this post. That is not my intent. My intent is to enlighten you as to what I believe God is. I am Christian in my basic views yet I also incorporate other religions into my beliefs based on the thought that no religion could be right over another. After all, the reason for religion is to help you lead a better life, in tune with your spiritual side as well as physical. God may not be what you all expect. Believers sometimes make the misconception that he only bids for their religion and against all others. Non-believers have a hard time realizing that one entity controls everything. Basically, If you can prove to me God does not exist I would stand corrected. Otherwise, God is life force. He knows the order of events to happen and gives you the choice to change them. Even Atheists know that there are things that you can not explain with science and Im not giving examples. If you have never had something happen in your life or seen it happen somewhere else that you could not explain, then you are against the thought of God therefore you wont be able to accept when he tries to reach out to you. The Bible simply gives stories to help you deal with life's hardships as they are so you can not use the excuse "well then why did my family member die" or "then why is there so much hate in the world". I believe you are not supposed to take The Bible literally and I also know that my religion preaches otherwise. But some of it is truth. You may not be able to accept it because you don't have proof. That is what faith is for. Faith is that no matter what happens, I was put on this world for a reason and God is seeing it through. I realize that with words I wont be able to persuade many because it has to happen to some. Some cannot take what has happened to others and learn from it they must go through it themselves. Which is why I ask everyone, whether you believe in him or not, to look for God. It may be so simple and it may be complicated, but God is there. Because we are here. God gives way for science to explain. God exists. He just may exist differently for you.
OK...here's the counter thesis - Why you should not believe in God.
Firstly, belief in God encourages a lazy mental attitude.
Q. Why did such and such happen?
A. God made it happen.
Secondly, there is no good evidence for the existence of God. Irrational belief systems should not be encouraged. We do not encourage our children to believe in faries and goblins once they have passed through infancy.
Thirdly, belief in God acts as a convenient label for wars. The numerous wars throughout history that have been fought for on behalf of religion are well documented. That is not to say that religion is the cause of all wars, but it is a useful 'label' with which to identify the participants in such wars. Without the sectarian education system in Northern Ireland, for example, I firmly believe that the conflict would have ended a generation ago. Are there any examples of atheist suicide bombers?
Fourthly, belief in God absolves any sense of personal responsibility. If one's actions are dictated by an external creed/dogma then there is no incentive to develop a personal ethics/morality.
Fifthly, belief in a God opens one to manipulation by the representitives or 'clerics' of the faith system involved. There are numerous examples throughout history of attrocities committed with the support and encouragement of religious leaders. Consider the crusades, witch burning, anti-semitism, suicide bombings.
| Bikerman wrote: | OK...here's the counter thesis - Why you should not believe in God.
Firstly, belief in God encourages a lazy mental attitude.
Q. Why did such and such happen?
A. God made it happen.
Secondly, there is no good evidence for the existence of God. Irrational belief systems should not be encouraged. We do not encourage our children to believe in faries and goblins once they have passed through infancy.
Thirdly, belief in God acts as a convenient label for wars. The numerous wars throughout history that have been fought for on behalf of religion are well documented. That is not to say that religion is the cause of all wars, but it is a useful 'label' with which to identify the participants in such wars. Without the sectarian education system in Northern Ireland, for example, I firmly believe that the conflict would have ended a generation ago. Are there any examples of atheist suicide bombers?
Fourthly, belief in God absolves any sense of personal responsibility. If one's actions are dictated by an external creed/dogma then there is no incentive to develop a personal ethics/morality.
Fifthly, belief in a God opens one to manipulation by the representitives or 'clerics' of the faith system involved. There are numerous examples throughout history of attrocities committed with the support and encouragement of religious leaders. Consider the crusades, witch burning, anti-semitism, suicide bombings. |
Ok here are some objections to your counters.
First: Belief in God encourages spiritualness and togetherness as well as gives sense of security to those who need it.
Q. Why is everything going so horribly wrong?
A. It may seem that way but in God's plan as long as you live well intended you will reach prosperity.
Second: There is no (though I dont see how there could be) evidence to prove he does not exist. Evidence he does exist is personal (i.e. I survived my car crash when I really shouldn't have and had an out of body experience. [true personal story])
Third: See the fifth. and no I cannot cite an atheist suicide bomber but can you cite an atheist man who spreads the word and power of good instead of an atheist who argues against religion?
Fourth: Belief in God creates a great sense of personal responsibility. My belief in God urges me to live my life by a strong moral code. Everything can boil down to one decision at a time, right and wrong, good or bad.
Fifth: I agree that religion was used as an excuse for the crusades and witch hunts and suicide bombers, but that is not what religion teaches. Each of these events stem from men using religion as a means of furthering their own agendas.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
Ok here are some objections to your counters.
First: Belief in God encourages spiritualness and togetherness as well as gives sense of security to those who need it.
Q. Why is everything going so horribly wrong?
A. It may seem that way but in God's plan as long as you live well intended you will reach prosperity. |
It only encourages togetherness within the 'creed'. You are surely not contending that Christianity encourages togetherness with Islam and vica-versa?
| Quote: | | Second: There is no (though I dont see how there could be) evidence to prove he does not exist. Evidence he does exist is personal (i.e. I survived my car crash when I really shouldn't have and had an out of body experience. [true personal story]) |
You have turned what I said around - I said that there was no evidence for the existence of God. | Quote: | | Third: See the fifth. and no I cannot cite an atheist suicide bomber but can you cite an atheist man who spreads the word and power of good instead of an atheist who argues against religion? |
Yes I can quote many. Dawkins, Russell, Huxley, Darwin, Shaw - the list is very long.... | Quote: | | Fourth: Belief in God creates a great sense of personal responsibility. My belief in God urges me to live my life by a strong moral code. Everything can boil down to one decision at a time, right and wrong, good or bad. |
That is no different from my humanist ethics which owes nothing to God... | Quote: | | Fifth: I agree that religion was used as an excuse for the crusades and witch hunts and suicide bombers, but that is not what religion teaches. Each of these events stem from men using religion as a means of furthering their own agendas. |
Which is what I said...
| Bikerman wrote: | | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
Ok here are some objections to your counters.
First: Belief in God encourages spiritualness and togetherness as well as gives sense of security to those who need it.
Q. Why is everything going so horribly wrong?
A. It may seem that way but in God's plan as long as you live well intended you will reach prosperity. |
It only encourages togetherness within the 'creed'. You are surely not contending that Christianity encourages togetherness with Islam and vica-versa?
| Quote: | | Second: There is no (though I dont see how there could be) evidence to prove he does not exist. Evidence he does exist is personal (i.e. I survived my car crash when I really shouldn't have and had an out of body experience. [true personal story]) |
You have turned what I said around - I said that there was no evidence for the existence of God. | Quote: | | Third: See the fifth. and no I cannot cite an atheist suicide bomber but can you cite an atheist man who spreads the word and power of good instead of an atheist who argues against religion? |
Yes I can quote many. Dawkins, Russell, Huxley, Darwin, Shaw - the list is very long.... | Quote: | | Fourth: Belief in God creates a great sense of personal responsibility. My belief in God urges me to live my life by a strong moral code. Everything can boil down to one decision at a time, right and wrong, good or bad. |
That is no different from my humanist ethics which owes nothing to God... | Quote: | | Fifth: I agree that religion was used as an excuse for the crusades and witch hunts and suicide bombers, but that is not what religion teaches. Each of these events stem from men using religion as a means of furthering their own agendas. |
Which is what I said... |
Well like I've stated, that is a wrong belief to hold anything against a man because of his religion and many religions state theirs is right over anothers' but I believe differently, that all religions stem from the same root and I am no different than them. As far as the "creed" I'm not sure what you mean but yes The Bible does teach togetherness and love for your fellow man and I believe this is not just for your own sake of getting into heaven but for the sake of your soul....Yes I turned what you said around because there is no evidence he does not exist but evidence he does exist lies with the person who believes or does not.....OK there are a few good atheists you named but I also view atheists as an entirety which means they all are against religion, whilst religion is for something which is togetherness and love......You owe your humanistic ethics to yourself and your personal experiences and through my own personal experiences I have come closer to God which in turn gives me my morals and ethics which are very humanistic....Lastly we agreed that men used religion's name for their own power gain but you cannot say that is religion's fault..That is like me saying because I am an atheist and I do not believe in God I am going to kill all believers so that my followers will reign supreme. It would not be atheism's fault yet you say it would be religion's fault?
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Well like I've stated, that is a wrong belief to hold anything against a man because of his religion and many religions state theirs is right over anothers' but I believe differently, that all religions stem from the same root and I am no different than them. As far as the "creed" I'm not sure what you mean but yes The Bible does teach togetherness and love for your fellow man and I believe this is not just for your own sake of getting into heaven but for the sake of your soul....Yes I turned what you said around because there is no evidence he does not exist but evidence he does exist lies with the person who believes or does not.....OK there are a few good atheists you named but I also view atheists as an entirety which means they all are against religion, whilst religion is for something which is togetherness and love......You owe your humanistic ethics to yourself and your personal experiences and through my own personal experiences I have come closer to God which in turn gives me my morals and ethics which are very humanistic....Lastly we agreed that men used religion's name for their own power gain but you cannot say that is religion's fault..That is like me saying because I am an atheist and I do not believe in God I am going to kill all believers so that my followers will reign supreme. It would not be atheism's fault yet you say it would be religion's fault? |
OK, in order;
1) If you read the OT you will find the concept of 'togetherness' is not really that obvious....'Kill the unbeliever' is much more prevelant..
2) Personal evidence of God is all well and good but nothing we can discuss since it is entirely subjective (by definition).
3) There are many good atheists, just as there are many good religious people. The point is that atheism is not 'against' anything, it's just not 'for' God.
4) I never claimed that wars were the fault of religion - I merely claimed that religion was a convenient 'label' to differentiate the sides in a war. This is indisputable - there are numerous examples in history. The question is, therefore, without religion would these wars have occurred? The answer is obviously unknowable but my own suspicion is that some, at least, may not have happened. People do not go to war because of a disbelief in God....
| Bikerman wrote: | OK, in order;
1) If you read the OT you will find the concept of 'togetherness' is not really that obvious....'Kill the unbeliever' is much more prevelant..
2) Personal evidence of God is all well and good but nothing we can discuss since it is entirely subjective (by definition).
3) There are many good atheists, just as there are many good religious people. The point is that atheism is not 'against' anything, it's just not 'for' God.
4) I never claimed that wars were the fault of religion - I merely claimed that religion was a convenient 'label' to differentiate the sides in a war. This is indisputable - there are numerous examples in history. The question is, therefore, without religion would these wars have occurred? The answer is obviously unknowable but my own suspicion is that some, at least, may not have happened. People do not go to war because of a disbelief in God.... |
In order..
1) If you read the Bible than togetherness is much more inferred rather than kill the unbelievers.
2) Agreed.
3) The definition of atheism is-- 2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity-- so they are very against faith and religion
4) People go to war because of disbelief in the enemy's God.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | In order..
1) If you read the Bible than togetherness is much more inferred rather than kill the unbelievers. |
We must be reading different books. Are you sure you have a copy of the OT? | Quote: |
3) The definition of atheism is-- 2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity-- so they are very against faith and religion |
Not so. I don't believe in God. I don't state that there is no God. I do not seek to persecute those who do believe in God. There are many like me.... | Quote: | | 4) People go to war because of disbelief in the enemy's God. |
Hmm...can you give examples of atheists going to war in such a manner? Or is it always those of another faith?
| Bikerman wrote: | | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | In order..
1) If you read the Bible than togetherness is much more inferred rather than kill the unbelievers. |
We must be reading different books. Are you sure you have a copy of the OT? | Quote: |
3) The definition of atheism is-- 2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity-- so they are very against faith and religion |
Not so. I don't believe in God. I don't state that there is no God. I do not seek to persecute those who do believe in God. There are many like me.... | Quote: | | 4) People go to war because of disbelief in the enemy's God. |
Hmm...can you give examples of atheists going to war in such a manner? Or is it always those of another faith? |
I actually do not know what you mean by the OT. As for #2 I just got the definition of atheism from merriam-webster and if that is different then what you as an atheist believes than you gotten a taste of your own medicine  As for the quote on #4 I was relating to those of another faith yes but can you disagree that atheists wage a belief war against those of religion? I mean honestly, if you look through this forum you will find countless arguments of atheists trying to explain to believers that their faith is not credible. yes vice versa as well. I as a believer am trying to make you see the benefits of religion but this is not one-sided and eventually, though I'm not saying it will happen, atheists could go to war on the same grounds the crusaders did. Just flipped.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | I actually do not know what you mean by the OT. As for #2 I just got the definition of atheism from merriam-webster and if that is different then what you as an atheist believes than you gotten a taste of your own medicine As for the quote on #4 I was relating to those of another faith yes but can you disagree that atheists wage a belief war against those of religion? I mean honestly, if you look through this forum you will find countless arguments of atheists trying to explain to believers that their faith is not credible. yes vice versa as well. I as a believer am trying to make you see the benefits of religion but this is not one-sided and eventually, though I'm not saying it will happen, atheists could go to war on the same grounds the crusaders did. Just flipped. |
OT = Old Testament.
The definition of atheist is fine - one who does not believe in God. Nowhere does it say atheist = one who is against faith and religion.
The postings from atheists on this forum are normally specific to a particular point. If you check through you will find that my postings and those of other notable atheists (Indi, for example) specifically state that we do NOT believe that the existence of God can be disproved...
I don't think that atheists would go to war over a lack of belief and I know of no examples of this happening in history..
OT = Old Testament.
The definition of atheist is fine - one who does not believe in God. Nowhere does it say atheist = one who is against faith and religion.
The postings from atheists on this forum are normally specific to a particular point. If you check through you will find that my postings and those of other notable atheists (Indi, for example) specifically state that we do NOT believe that the existence of God can be disproved...
I don't think that atheists would go to war over a lack of belief and I know of no examples of this happening in history..[/quote]
But it wouldn't have to be a traditional atheist that wages war. Like the religious wars, they would be headed by some radical man or woman who is taking their belief way out of context. I wouldn't think a true Christian would wage war and kill countless people. Depending on the truth, I'm going out on a limb and saying atheism is not too old of a belief. Give it time and it will produce radicals the same way all religions have.
Well we have already agreed that atheism is not a religion. I don't necessarily share any beliefs with other atheists - the only thing we have in common is that we don't believe in God. There are 'radical' atheists for sure, but again they are unlikely to go to war for a disbelief. Atheists don't believe in life after death so it is very difficult (not impossible) to motivate us to give up our lives for a cause....
Do you believe in anything you cannot explain?
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Do you believe in anything you cannot explain? |
Well, yes to some extent - I can't personally explain quantum field theory but I accept it (rather than 'believe' it). Belief implies a lack of evidence so I don't believe things in general. I do accept that there may be things which science cannot currently explain but that is not the same as believing in specific phenomena....
| Bikerman wrote: | | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Do you believe in anything you cannot explain? |
Well, yes to some extent - I can't personally explain quantum field theory but I accept it (rather than 'believe' it). Belief implies a lack of evidence so I don't believe things in general. I do accept that there may be things which science cannot currently explain but that is not the same as believing in specific phenomena.... |
Touche' again, Biker-Man. I've enjoyed this but I am about to retire to my bed.
Hmm...many people say that the world would be a much better place without religion, but there are many (perhaps hundreds and hundreds of millions) of people who are kept in line due to the belief that they will be held accountable for their actions after death.
Many people, if told that "do whatever you want, there aren't any consequences", well, I think the world would be in total havoc. Obviously there's the law, but if the masses are doing terrible things, thinking that when they die nothing will happen, well, there's not much the law would be able to do.
That's my belief.
So are you saying that without God you would be a murderer/rapist/thief?
If so then I don't think you are a very moral person.
If not then why do you think others would be?
Well it is truth that millions of people correct their way of life by turning to religion, whether or not you say it could be done other ways..it took religion for those individuals.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Well it is truth that millions of people correct their way of life by turning to religion, whether or not you say it could be done other ways..it took religion for those individuals. |
Millions? What is your evidence for this claim? I know a few who have done so, but certainly not millions. I also know a few who have ruined their lives by turning to religion.
Fortunately we can test this hypothesis (ie the hypothesis that Religiousity is correlated to Law&Order).
1. Would you agree that Republican States in the US are more likely to contain a higher proportion of Christian-Right voters? If so then one might expect to see a correlation between Republican States and crime rates. Does such a correlation exist? Actually yes it does, but in the other direction. Of the 25 cities with the lowest crime rates, 62% are in Democrat states. I could go on to cite burglary, theft and murder figures by state but the picture remains the same.
2. A study by G.S. Paul in the Journal of Religion and Society (a source friendly to religion) compared seventeen economically advanced nations and reached the suprising conclusions that higher rates of belief correlate with higher rates of homicide, STD, teen pregnancy and abortion.
3. Another idea. If there is a correlation then one would expect to see a higher than normal number of atheists in prison. In fact it is the other way around.
Atheists* represent 8-15% of US citizens and 0.2% of the prison population.
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
*I should clarify this - only a small number of US citizens are willing to classify themselves as atheists (obviously because they fear some consequence) so about 12% classify themselves as 'non-religious/secular'.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Well it is truth that millions of people correct their way of life by turning to religion, whether or not you say it could be done other ways..it took religion for those individuals. |
Millions? What is your evidence for this claim? I know a few who have done so, but certainly not millions. I also know a few who have ruined their lives by turning to religion.
Fortunately we can test this hypothesis (ie the hypothesis that Religiousity is correlated to Law&Order).
1. Would you agree that Republican States in the US are more likely to contain a higher proportion of Christian-Right voters? If so then one might expect to see a correlation between Republican States and crime rates. Does such a correlation exist? Actually yes it does, but in the other direction. Of the 25 cities with the lowest crime rates, 62% are in Democrat states. I could go on to cite burglary, theft and murder figures by state but the picture remains the same.
2. A study by G.S. Paul in the Journal of Religion and Society (a source friendly to religion) compared seventeen economically advanced nations and reached the suprising conclusions that higher rates of belief correlate with higher rates of homicide, STD, teen pregnancy and abortion.
3. Another idea. If there is a correlation then one would expect to see a higher than normal number of atheists in prison. In fact it is the other way around.
Atheists represent 8-15% of US citizens and 0.2% of the prison population.
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm |
Truth.
And I think we can pretty much say there is no correlation between the two.
I would want to go further than that.
I would want to assert that any morality that relies on threats or rewards is a poor sort of morality, and blatantly inferior to a personal morality arrived at through thought, in the absence of compulsion.
I would also want to assert that it is quite possible, if not likely, that there IS a positive correlation between morality and atheism, and, by implication, a negative correlation between morality and religious belief.
| Bikerman wrote: | I would want to go further than that.
I would want to assert that any morality that relies on threats or rewards is a poor sort of morality, and blatantly inferior to a personal morality arrived at through thought, in the absence of compulsion.
I would also want to assert that it is quite possible, if not likely, that there IS a positive correlation between morality and atheism, and, by implication, a negative correlation between morality and religious belief. |
Well your assertion in this case would be an opinion. I might have been off by saying millions. I was referring to the amount of people who do go to church and if you are an atheist i wouldn't expect you to see the masses of people who go to church especially the big churches. How could a correlation between morality and religious belief be negative? That is the exact opposite of what religion offers and teaches. It is also unfounded that there is a positive correlation between morality and atheism. It lies with the individual and as you have said before you haven't the right to speak on all atheists. I can say something on behalf of religion because religion teaches positive morals. Atheism does not teach anything. If anything atheism if a state of mind and not a belief. Religion's morality also does not rely on threats or rewards. Maybe you have taken examples The Bible has provided and used them literally such as the story of Jobe. When in fact the story is used to relay the message that faith can be stronger than men think.
It was you who asserted that | Quote: | | Well it is truth that millions of people correct their way of life by turning to religion, whether or not you say it could be done other ways..it took religion for those individuals. |
This implies that without religion there is a lack of morality. I have provided evidence to the contrary - that in fact atheists tend to be at least as moral and arguably more moral than those who profess a religious faith. It is not an unfounded assertion - I gave you three supporting arguments. It is a simple fact that the non-religious are under-represented in the US Prison system - that is not an opinion. It is also a fact that those who profess a religious faith are over-represented in the same prison population - again that is not an opinion.
Religious advocates try to deny this by saying - well they can't really be religious if they do bad things. That is a rather ridiculous argument since Christianity is based on the forgiveness of sins and the assumption that we are all sinners.
What the bible says or does not say is not at issue here. The plain fact is that there is no observable positive correlation between religion and moral/legal behaviour that I can point to. There is observable data which indicates a negative correlation.
Deal with it.
| Bikerman wrote: | It was you who asserted that | Quote: | | Well it is truth that millions of people correct their way of life by turning to religion, whether or not you say it could be done other ways..it took religion for those individuals. |
This implies that without religion there is a lack of morality. I have provided evidence to the contrary - that in fact atheists tend to be at least as moral and arguably more moral than those who profess a religious faith. It is not an unfounded assertion - I gave you three supporting arguments. It is a simple fact that the non-religious are under-represented in the US Prison system - that is not an opinion. It is also a fact that those who profess a religious faith are over-represented in the same prison population - again that is not an opinion.
Religious advocates try to deny this by saying - well they can't really be religious if they do bad things. That is a rather ridiculous argument since Christianity is based on the forgiveness of sins and the assumption that we are all sinners.
What the bible says or does not say is not at issue here. The plain fact is that there is no observable positive correlation between religion and moral/legal behaviour that I can point to. There is observable data which indicates a negative correlation.
Deal with it. |
That does not imply that without religion there is a lack of morality. It implies that many people who have made wrong decisions in their life turn to religion and it is a way out of it. It is a form of rebirth, to wash away your sins and begin a life using the teachings of religions such as Christianity. It does not impress me when you talk about the small numbers of atheists in prison because there are small numbers of atheists period. The judicial system just correlates the numbers. I would however be impressed if there were no atheists in jail. So you cannot use that argument with me. I advocate for religion and a person can be bad good great or sorry but that does not speak for the religion, it speaks for the person. Much the same way you would argue that if any atheist did something terrible, you would not blame it on atheism but blame it on the individual. And no observable positive correlation between religion and morals? Thats absurd. Simply absurd.
The prison population contains 0.2% atheists. That compares with over 10% of the population who are atheists. If you cannot see that this is statistically significant then you don't understand statistics.
Calling something absurd is not an argument. Show me some evidence for a positive correlation. Simply saying something is so does not make it so.
| Bikerman wrote: | The prison population contains 0.2% atheists. That compares with over 10% of the population who are atheists. If you cannot see that this is statistically significant then you don't understand statistics.
Calling something absurd is not an argument. Show me some evidence for a positive correlation. Simply saying something is so does not make it so. |
My friend read the Bible. That is my evidence. If you choose not to then you cannot say the Bible has a negative effect.
Talk about an absurd argument..LOL
You make an assertion that religion correlates to morality. You provide no evidence for this and I provide evidence to show that assertion is wrong. Your response? Read the bible.
Is that what passes for logical debate with you?
| Bikerman wrote: | Talk about an absurd argument..LOL
You make an assertion that religion correlates to morality. You provide no evidence for this and I provide evidence to show that assertion is wrong. Your response? Read the bible.
Is that what passes for logical debate with you? |
That would be my evidence as to where you would put a link to some website on the internet I am telling you to read a book so how is that not evidence?
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | Talk about an absurd argument..LOL
You make an assertion that religion correlates to morality. You provide no evidence for this and I provide evidence to show that assertion is wrong. Your response? Read the bible.
Is that what passes for logical debate with you? |
That would be my evidence as to where you would put a link to some website on the internet I am telling you to read a book so how is that not evidence? |
If you can't see why that is not evidence then there is really no point continuing.
FYI I have read the bible many times.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | Talk about an absurd argument..LOL
You make an assertion that religion correlates to morality. You provide no evidence for this and I provide evidence to show that assertion is wrong. Your response? Read the bible.
Is that what passes for logical debate with you? |
That would be my evidence as to where you would put a link to some website on the internet I am telling you to read a book so how is that not evidence? |
If you can't see why that is not evidence then there is really no point continuing.
FYI I have read the bible many times. |
Well I will make it simple for you.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19.18 )
Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. (Matthew 7.12)
Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself. (Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13)
Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence. (Confucianism. Mencius VII.A.4)
sorry I didn't do that for the sake of the debate before.
Well I could give you a load of quotes in return which would show the other side of the bible:
'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death."
"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; "
and so on, but there is really no point. What the bible does or does not say is not the issue. The issue is that people who call themselves religious are not more moral or ethical than people who don't. In fact they are less moral/ethical if we are to take the evidence of the prison population data.
| Bikerman wrote: | Well I could give you a load of quotes in return which would show the other side of the bible:
'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death."
"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; "
and so on, but there is really no point. What the bible does or does not say is not the issue. The issue is that people who call themselves religious are not more moral or ethical than people who don't. In fact they are less moral/ethical if we are to take the evidence of the prison population data. |
If you reread your own quote you will notice that indeed you are the one saying religions are not moral while saying that atheism is. I have never attacked atheists as not being moral yet only defended religion. Prison population data has nothing to do with this is the Bible does not. You cannot 100% truthfully say that any one organization is represented by one or more individuals actions whether religion or just a club for friends.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | If you reread your own quote you will notice that indeed you are the one saying religions are not moral while saying that atheism is. I have never attacked atheists as not being moral yet only defended religion. Prison population data has nothing to do with this is the Bible does not. You cannot 100% truthfully say that any one organization is represented by one or more individuals actions whether religion or just a club for friends. |
I said that there is a possibility that religious people (note - people, not books) are actually less ethical/moral than atheists. I supported this with the prison population data.
I am NOT saying that the institution of religion is immoral - that is another debate for another time. I AM saying the people who declare themselves members of religious faith groups are no more moral/ethical than atheists and arguably less so.
I can't put the argument more simply.
If you remember the context of this, the argument was made that | halfbloodprince wrote: | | there are many (perhaps hundreds and hundreds of millions) of people who are kept in line due to the belief that they will be held accountable for their actions after death. |
My point was in response to this assertion and that remains the point being discussed. As far as I am concerned the point is refuted unless someone can come up with some evidence to support it.
PS you CAN say that an organisation is represented by people or a person. The Catholic church (being the example I am most familiar with) is led by the Pope who is God's Bishop (representative) on Earth. In matters of Catholic doctrine the Pope is said to be infallible. The Pope represents the Catholic religion.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | If you reread your own quote you will notice that indeed you are the one saying religions are not moral while saying that atheism is. I have never attacked atheists as not being moral yet only defended religion. Prison population data has nothing to do with this is the Bible does not. You cannot 100% truthfully say that any one organization is represented by one or more individuals actions whether religion or just a club for friends. |
I said that there is a possibility that religious people (note - people, not books) are actually less ethical/moral than atheists. I supported this with the prison population data.
I am NOT saying that the institution of religion is immoral - that is another debate for another time. I AM saying the people who declare themselves members of religious faith groups are no more moral/ethical than atheists and arguably less so.
I can't put the argument more simply.
If you remember the context of this, the argument was made that | halfbloodprince wrote: | | there are many (perhaps hundreds and hundreds of millions) of people who are kept in line due to the belief that they will be held accountable for their actions after death. |
My point was in response to this assertion and that remains the point being discussed. As far as I am concerned the point is refuted unless someone can come up with some evidence to support it.
PS you CAN say that an organisation is represented by people or a person. The Catholic church (being the example I am most familiar with) is led by the Pope who is God's Bishop (representative) on Earth. In matters of Catholic doctrine the Pope is said to be infallible. The Pope represents the Catholic religion. |
Oh..well I didn't realize I was arguing HBP's point. But if you think about it...how could the Pope be God's go to guy (lamens terms) if he is elected into that position. I would feel much more comfortable saying a man represents my faith if he does since his birth..and not 60 some-odd years into his life. You feel me?
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Oh..well I didn't realize I was arguing HBP's point. But if you think about it...how could the Pope be God's go to guy (lamens terms) if he is elected into that position. I would feel much more comfortable saying a man represents my faith if he does since his birth..and not 60 some-odd years into his life. You feel me? |
Well that's not my decision, it's the Church's decision. The fact is that the Pope DOES represent Catholicism and actions like witch-burning, the crusades etc were directly ordered by the Pope. As far as I am concerned that means the Catholic Church was directly responsible for those attrocities.
We have a crime here (and I'm guessing the same goes in the US) called Corporate Manslaughter. This is where the negligent or criminal actions of representatives of a company lead to the death of a citizen(s). The Catholic church was certainly guilty of this multiple thousands of times.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Oh..well I didn't realize I was arguing HBP's point. But if you think about it...how could the Pope be God's go to guy (lamens terms) if he is elected into that position. I would feel much more comfortable saying a man represents my faith if he does since his birth..and not 60 some-odd years into his life. You feel me? |
Well that's not my decision, it's the Church's decision. The fact is that the Pope DOES represent Catholicism and actions like witch-burning, the crusades etc were directly ordered by the Pope. As far as I am concerned that means the Catholic Church was directly responsible for those attrocities.
We have a crime here (and I'm guessing the same goes in the US) called Corporate Manslaughter. This is where the negligent or criminal actions of representatives of a company lead to the death of a citizen(s). The Catholic church was certainly guilty of this multiple thousands of times. |
Agreed. But the church is ran by men which gives way for its corrupt doings. God on the other hand, knows that each one of these individual men, who do so wrongly in his name, will receive their karma.
But those men who run the Churches effectively run the religion. Who is to say what God wants or does not want? Simply reading the bible will not give you that unless you cherry-pick the bits you want. I can give you many many quotes from the bible which would, if you followed them literally, put you behind bars for a long time.
People, it is said, rely on the interpretations of their particular faith grouping to tell them what is wrong and right. For example, if you are a Catholic, and you use a condom during intercourse, you are comitting a sin. No argument, no opinion - plain fact.
My argument is that people who profess a religion do NOT rely on their faith grouping for their basic morality and, therefore, the notion that religion is responsible for the moral actions of those who profess to be religious is fallacious.
Supporters of religion(s) try to make this argument frequently - without religion people would do bad things and society would collapse. It's not true. It is also deeply insulting to atheists who do the right thing because it IS the right thing and don't rely on any threat or reward.
| Quote: | God: The Ultimate Cause of the Universe
The overwhelming view of modern science is that the universe began to exist (most scientists estimating that origin to be roughly 14-15 billion years ago). Given the fact that the universe began to exist, it must have had a “cause” that originated it.
Skeptics and atheists counter that the universe may, in fact, be a multiverse and/or that the universe may be on some space-time circular pattern. You can dress these explanations up with all the fancy scientific and philosophical language that you wish, but the bottom line is that these arguments all claim an eternal universe.
Picture a freight train. If you come to a railroad crossing and you see a long train passing in front of you - but didn't see the locomotive pulling the train, you nevertheless can know with certainty that there is a locomotive pulling the train - or at least something tangible pulling the train. Saying that there is no locomotive, but rather there are a billion train cars doesn't solve your dilemma. Something still has to be pulling the train, no matter how big you speculate the train to be!
What's more, you can theorize all you want about multiverses and other dimensions, saying something to the effect of "Maybe there's a parallel universe that started this train in motion." But....it's FAR MORE LOGICAL to simply accept that there is a locomotive pulling the train you're watching.
The cause of the universe would be its ultimate cause. Only an independent, infinite, uncaused, eternal, and omnipresent cause is sufficient to account for the universe. Therefore, such a being must exist. If it does not, then the universe doesn't exist. Since the universe does exist, it can therefore be safely concluded that an independent, infinite, uncaused, eternal, and omnipresent cause also exists.
Bottom Line: Belief in God Makes the Most Sense
There are other reason to believe in God, but the First Cause argument is the best. It simply makes more sense to believe in God than to reject God. Your faith need not be blind. Believing that God is (as the Bible says) the "Alpha and the Omega" is not a leap in the dark, but a logical conclusion based on the evidence we have.
**** |
this the reason why i belive in god
| Quote: | | edit by mOrpheuS - Please use quote tags when posting text copied off elsewhere |
Watching all 10 episodes of Season 1 of Mr. Deity almost made a non-believer out of me!! What if that's what is really going on there!!? What if we're just toys that these Deity, Larry, Jesus and Lucy are playing with??!!
Watch it: Mr. Deity ( www.mrdeity.com )
| shakib wrote: | God: The Ultimate Cause of the Universe
The overwhelming view of modern science is that the universe began to exist (most scientists estimating that origin to be roughly 14-15 billion years ago). Given the fact that the universe began to exist, it must have had a “cause” that originated it. |
Most scientists estimate around 13.7 billion years ago. Your assumption of a cause is flawed, as has been pointed out many times. No cause is possible without time, since causality does not exist before time.
| Quote: | | Skeptics and atheists counter that the universe may, in fact, be a multiverse and/or that the universe may be on some space-time circular pattern. You can dress these explanations up with all the fancy scientific and philosophical language that you wish, but the bottom line is that these arguments all claim an eternal universe. |
No they don't. You just said it was 14-15 billion years old, now you are saying it is eternal. The standard scientific orthodoxy is that there was nothing before the universe - no space and no time. There are some hypothesese which go 'beyond' the BB - the only one of note here would be m-theory - but this is far from being accepted theory. | Quote: | | Picture a freight train. If you come to a railroad crossing and you see a long train passing in front of you - but didn't see the locomotive pulling the train, you nevertheless can know with certainty that there is a locomotive pulling the train - or at least something tangible pulling the train. Saying that there is no locomotive, but rather there are a billion train cars doesn't solve your dilemma. Something still has to be pulling the train, no matter how big you speculate the train to be! |
That's a rather poor analogy. Try the real thing. Picture our Galaxy in space. All other galaxies (apart from a few local ones) are flying apart from us very fast. It's rather like the aftermath of an explosion with everything flying apart (it's not exactly like an explosion because there is no 'space' to explode into, but the image will do for the moment). Now wind the film backwards (ie look back in time). Everything appears to fly towards a single point where the 'explosion' was. If you go back 13.7 billion years then the whole universe shrinks down to a point.
There is no need for a train.
You find it impossible to accept that the BB itself did not have a 'cause'. I can understand that - it seems counter-intuitive. The fact is, though, that the universe doesn't much care about common sense. Nature is pretty weird - we only think we understand it because we only see a tiny bit of it. When you get down to quantum events (as the BB would have been) then things don't behave like you think they should. Something CAN appear from nothing - it's called vacuum energy. Mass can appear from 'empty' space - virtual particles. Trying to imagine the BB in terms of trains and locomotives is futile - the concepts are completely unrelated and there exists no common frame of reference.
| Quote: | | What's more, you can theorize all you want about multiverses and other dimensions, saying something to the effect of "Maybe there's a parallel universe that started this train in motion." But....it's FAR MORE LOGICAL to simply accept that there is a locomotive pulling the train you're watching. |
Only if you don't understand logic. The comparison with a train is very unhelpful - that might be why your logic is skewed. It doesn't really work, does it? For example, did the locomotive create the train? How? Who created the locomotive?
The problem is that you seek to dismiss physics as 'illogical' without really understanding what you are talking about. | Quote: | The cause of the universe would be its ultimate cause. Only an independent, infinite, uncaused, eternal, and omnipresent cause is sufficient to account for the universe. Therefore, such a being must exist. If it does not, then the universe doesn't exist. Since the universe does exist, it can therefore be safely concluded that an independent, infinite, uncaused, eternal, and omnipresent cause also exists.
Bottom Line: Belief in God Makes the Most Sense |
If you can accept an infinity (God) then why is it impossible to accept another infinity (timelessness)? | Quote: | | There are other reason to believe in God, but the First Cause argument is the best. It simply makes more sense to believe in God than to reject God. Your faith need not be blind. Believing that God is (as the Bible says) the "Alpha and the Omega" is not a leap in the dark, but a logical conclusion based on the evidence we have. |
No, the first cause argument is, I think, the weakest argument. It simply substitutes an unknown (God) for a known (no spacetime) and still asks you to accept that something can exist for ever without cause (God). This is not logical, doesn't really explain anything, and it is certainly not based on any evidence.
I strongly believe that there are two parts of any thing that happens in your life. Logical / Illogical.
Let me give you an example.
We study hard for the exam and we pass. :-> Logical
We study hard for exam and we Fail. :-> Illogical
We do not study for the exam and we fail. :-> Logical
We do not study for the exam still we pass. :-> Illogical
So, where this Illogical part comes from GOD.
He is the one who controls such things.
So, Believe HIM or not, GOD is playing major role in your life.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | Hmm...many people say that the world would be a much better place without religion, but there are many (perhaps hundreds and hundreds of millions) of people who are kept in line due to the belief that they will be held accountable for their actions after death.
Many people, if told that "do whatever you want, there aren't any consequences", well, I think the world would be in total havoc. Obviously there's the law, but if the masses are doing terrible things, thinking that when they die nothing will happen, well, there's not much the law would be able to do.
That's my belief. |
How is a gun any different? Many people would be much more willing to cooperate at gunpoint than to a threat of going to Hell.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | Hmm...many people say that the world would be a much better place without religion, but there are many (perhaps hundreds and hundreds of millions) of people who are kept in line due to the belief that they will be held accountable for their actions after death.
Many people, if told that "do whatever you want, there aren't any consequences", well, I think the world would be in total havoc. Obviously there's the law, but if the masses are doing terrible things, thinking that when they die nothing will happen, well, there's not much the law would be able to do.
That's my belief. |
How is a gun any different? Many people would be much more willing to cooperate at gunpoint than to a threat of going to Hell. |
With religion they are doing it willingly (or at least the religious heads make us believe so), and with gun-point, there's definitely going to be a revolt. See... no bloodshed and yet people rule other people.. 
| sushpop wrote: | I strongly believe that there are two parts of any thing that happens in your life. Logical / Illogical.
Let me give you an example. |
Here are the logical answers to your examples:
We study hard for the exam and we pass. :-> Good study plan/well chosen exam
We study hard for exam and we Fail. :-> Bad study plan/badly chosen exam
We do not study for the exam and we fail. :-> Serves you right
We do not study for the exam still we pass. :-> Already know enough to pass/easy exam
[quote="shakib"] | Quote: | God: The Ultimate Cause of the Universe
...
The cause of the universe would be its ultimate cause. Only an independent, infinite, uncaused, eternal, and omnipresent cause is sufficient to account for the universe.
|
So the universe must have a cause, which you call God. Then by exactly the same logic why shouldn't God have a cause too - in other words what created God?
The first thing we must ask is God by what defination? Who or what is God? If God to you is some benevolent force then it is unlikely that that force exists. Nothing or no one is totally "good," not even God. The god of the bible is vengful and jelous, not a being of pure love that he is made out to be by mainstreem Cristianity. If God to you is someone or something that is of superior intelligence or power then there is a really good chance that God exists. By this definition there are many people who I could consider God-like. I am sure that somewhere out there in the universe there are beings that could blow us away with there intelligence and god-like technology, but as far as I know those beings are not in control of our world and therefore are of no consiquence. I have discovered that what we believe shapes our reality, but not because it neccessarly exists. Our beliefs shape our reality because we allow them to dictate our actions based on what we think is real. What makes a particuler church or religion seem powerful in God is not the presence of God but the number of people who are part of that religion and their willingness to help those around them. They create the miricals and change lives, not God.
|
